"Functionalizing" WCK

[KPM]

But Keith,

Terence will never put up...

and never shut up.

So maybe it's time to move on?

---Maybe you are right. Terence has some good ideas and makes some good points. But he consistently fails to provide any "hard" info to back up his theories. I started this thread in order to give him and Dale an opportunity to make their case in a more non-antagonistic format. I was willing to listen and consider what they had to say, and hoped others would too. I was hoping they would elaborate on their ideas and turn it into a productive discussion. Dale never bothered to post. Terence ended up repeating himself over and over and ignoring direct questions asking him to provide more practical info about how to accomplish his theory. So bottom line....it certainly appears to me that they are here in this forum only to criticize and not to actually share useful information.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ah, the different trains of thought in regards to functionality...

"works for me, that's good enough for me"
"works for others, that's good enough for me"
"worlkd for trained fighters, that;'s good enough for me"

Wouldn't hurt to follow "all of the above"...

[YungChun]

---Maybe you are right. Terence has some good ideas and makes some good points. But he consistently fails to provide any "hard" info to back up his theories. I started this thread in order to give him and Dale an opportunity to make their case in a more non-antagonistic format. I was willing to listen and consider what they had to say, and hoped others would too. I was hoping they would elaborate on their ideas and turn it into a productive discussion. Dale never bothered to post. Terence ended up repeating himself over and over and ignoring direct questions asking him to provide more practical info about how to accomplish his theory. So bottom line....it certainly appears to me that they are here in this forum only to criticize and not to actually share useful information.

It's really simple..

Dale thinks WCK sucks. No matter what you show him... Doesn't know too much about the system and is generally peed off that he spent 1-5 years in a funny stance.

Terence is the local SBG rep here--he's about 'aliveness' and verifying.. Doesn't know too much about the system but more than Dale and is also peeved he spent 20 years in a funny stance.

That's the beginning and the ending of it which is why it all gets repeated over and over--very simply there is nothing more to add or subtract.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's really simple..

Dale thinks WCK sucks. No matter what you show him... Doesn't know too much about the system and is generally peed off that he spent 1-5 years in a funny stance.

Terence is the local SBG rep here--he's about 'aliveness' and verifying.. Doesn't know too much about the system but more than Dale and is also peeved he spent 20 years in a funny stance.

That's the beginning and the ending of it which is why it all gets repeated over and over--very simply there is nothing more to add or subtract.

Nice summation !

[Ultimatewingchun]

So then clearly it is time to move on, don't ya' think?

And leave these two guys alone to meditate on their issues.




................While the rest of us get back to discussing, uh, what is it now? Oh yeah, I almost forgot: WING CHUN KUNG FU.

[Knifefighter]

---Maybe you are right. Terence has some good ideas and makes some good points. But he consistently fails to provide any "hard" info to back up his theories. I started this thread in order to give him and Dale an opportunity to make their case in a more non-antagonistic format. I was willing to listen and consider what they had to say, and hoped others would too. I was hoping they would elaborate on their ideas and turn it into a productive discussion. Dale never bothered to post. Terence ended up repeating himself over and over and ignoring direct questions asking him to provide more practical info about how to accomplish his theory. So bottom line....it certainly appears to me that they are here in this forum only to criticize and not to actually share useful information.

LOL... I didn't post because I've been busy. Plus the fact that I've already given all my opinions over and over again about what I think makes for functionality or lack thereof and don't really feel like going into it once again. I doubt we'll ever agree, so it is pretty much a waste of typing.

[t_niehoff]

---Maybe you are right. Terence has some good ideas and makes some good points. But he consistently fails to provide any "hard" info to back up his theories.

I don't know what "hard" info you want. If you want me to tell you how to "do" WCK, I can't because no one can tell another person how to do it. Just like no one can tell you how you should box. It's an individual thing. You have to learn to box by boxing, and learn WCK by (contact) fighting -- there is no "other" way. That process is the only "hard" info you need. Then all it takes is the work of going through the process. You seem to want to "intellectualize" that process, but that can't be done as it is physical, individual, and dynamic. You can't intellectualize how to surf; you learn the basics and then get out on the ocean with your board. Your skill comes from how much quality work (going through that process) you do. And as I keep pointing out, that process is the same for all open skill athletic activities. Moreover, until you've done some significant work, you won't even be asking the "right" questions.

I started this thread in order to give him and Dale an opportunity to make their case in a more non-antagonistic format. I was willing to listen and consider what they had to say, and hoped others would too. I was hoping they would elaborate on their ideas and turn it into a productive discussion. Dale never bothered to post. Terence ended up repeating himself over and over and ignoring direct questions asking him to provide more practical info about how to accomplish his theory. So bottom line....it certainly appears to me that they are here in this forum only to criticize and not to actually share useful information.

You're like someone who says, "OK, you've told me that to learn to surf I need to get out in the ocean with my board and keep trying to ride some waves but that isn't specific enough." Well, until you've done a lot of that, nothing else will make much sense to you.

If you go through the process I describe with your WCK (just do contact fighitng while trying to make your WCK tools work), things will begin to fall into place for you. If you don't do the work, they never will fall into place.

[KPM]

I don't know what "hard" info you want.

---Its really very simple. I have proposed a way to learn the tools of WCK and then apply them to realistic sparring in as straight-forward a fashion as I could. You told me it was fantasy, but....despite my asking multiple times....you have not given us your proprosal for learning and applying the tools of WCK that isn't "fantasy." Now you try to say you don't know what I have been asking of you. I asked specifically for you to tell us how you take a beginning student and teach them the tools of WCK in a "functionalized" way that is based upon realistic sparring. I have asked specific quesitons of you and yet you still say you don't know what "hard" info I want. Surely you've been paying better attention than that?

If you want me to tell you how to "do" WCK, I can't because no one can tell another person how to do it. Just like no one can tell you how you should box. It's an individual thing.

---That's a load of BS. What are WCK sifu for? What are boxing coaches for? What are BJJ teachers for? What are wrestling coaches for? They all have a curriculum that they use to teach the foundational structure and basic tools of their art. That's what this thread has been about....how do we format the WCK curriculum to optimize the transition from foundation to effective fighting. You seem to have missed that point from the beginning. Your ENTIRE and ONLY message seems to be.....do realistic sparring to learn real application. OK, point taken. And its a good point. But you don't need to write such long and wordy posts to imply that you have more than that to say. Because it seems from this thread that you don't!

---Victor is right. Its time to move on, because you obviously don't have any more to contribute but than your basic message.....do realistic sparring. Thanks. I think we've got that!

[Edmund]

Keith,

Since Terence can't do WC in the style that you want to make functional, he can't offer any productive info on how to do it. He thinks it's a fantasy to be able to do it that way: Pak sao a punch or tan sao.

He can't even offer any info on how to do it his dirty clinching way which makes me think he's got more than a couple of fantasies of his own.

The issue with stuff like your pak sao drill and other san sik is that they are done in such a comfortable way that it's removing the fighting context. A lot of the demo style apps where someone does A and you do B are so tight a scenario that it's not challenging and hence not encouraging any real progression towards realism.

As soon as you have any sort of A->B "I am a robot" move, you lose the purpose of it. Moves just make up parts of the system. And by training things more conceptually and interactively, you will exercise hundreds of moves as they fit rather than looking to apply particular moves.

Also the problem of the fighting context of the san sik appplication drill is that it's not imposing your game onto your opponent. It's expecting a certain style from the opponent and responding to that. In a fight, the opponent can do whatever they like so the drills where you expect A coming and do B may be rendered completely useless if he goes for C.

These issues are far more fundamental than any other basic techniques or moves. Dealing with them is what makes WC functional and truly realistic.

[KPM]

Hey Edmund!

The issue with stuff like your pak sao drill and other san sik is that they are done in such a comfortable way that it's removing the fighting context. A lot of the demo style apps where someone does A and you do B are so tight a scenario that it's not challenging and hence not encouraging any real progression towards realism.
As soon as you have any sort of A->B "I am a robot" move, you lose the purpose of it. Moves just make up parts of the system. And by training things more conceptually and interactively, you will exercise hundreds of moves as they fit rather than looking to apply particular moves.

---That's exactly why the san sik are kept short, and IMHO have more benefit than the long linked sets. Each san sik is around 3 moves long...just like a typical combination in boxing. They are drilled with a partner in a "comfortable way" in order to "motor set" the application, just as a boxer works various combo's on a heavy bag or against focus mitts in a "comfortable way" outside of a "fighting context." But a necessary step is to also include them in a sparring situation in a unscripted and "uncomfortable" way to make sure they actually work. They are also as much about learning how to apply them conceptually as they are about specific technique. That way you are not limited to strictly one application. Many of the san sik that I practice have more than one two-man drill associated with them to drive home exactly that point.


Also the problem of the fighting context of the san sik appplication drill is that it's not imposing your game onto your opponent. It's expecting a certain style from the opponent and responding to that. In a fight, the opponent can do whatever they like so the drills where you expect A coming and do B may be rendered completely useless if he goes for C.

---That's why each san sik has to be applied in a sparring situation as part of the learning process. That's also why one practices to link the different san sik together in different ways. This puts a whole range of responses at your disposal. If something doesn't work, you should be able to transition smoothly into something else. You aren't trying to impose a given san sik on the opponent, rather you respond to an opening or opportunity with technique from one of the san sik that is appropriate at the time.

These issues are far more fundamental than any other basic techniques or moves. Dealing with them is what makes WC functional and truly realistic.

---Exactly. And what I have been proposing on this thread is a way to address these issues with WCK tools in as efficient a way as possible. I think it would be much more difficult to do it by relying only on the longer linked sets and the various chi sao drills. Realistic sparring is an essential element. But laying a firm foundation in WCK structure, technique, and tactics is also essential. How one develops this and transitions it smoothly and effectively to realistic sparring is the fundamental issue.

[t_niehoff]

I don't know what "hard" info you want.

---Its really very simple. I have proposed a way to learn the tools of WCK and then apply them to realistic sparring in as straight-forward a fashion as I could. You told me it was fantasy, but....despite my asking multiple times....you have not given us your proprosal for learning and applying the tools of WCK that isn't "fantasy." Now you try to say you don't know what I have been asking of you. I asked specifically for you to tell us how you take a beginning student and teach them the tools of WCK in a "functionalized" way that is based upon realistic sparring. I have asked specific quesitons of you and yet you still say you don't know what "hard" info I want. Surely you've been paying better attention than that?

I've told you, again and again -- the process is the answer. You don't understand that because you've not gone through the process yourself and so, lacking that experience, you don't see how it works. It seems fuzzy, vague, unclear to you. And it will because you don't understand the process and how it works. Understanding comes from experience, not from intellectualizing.

When you go through the process, you will face certain, specific combative problems, and they'll be in a sense heirarchical (where you need to solve #1 before worrying about #2). These problems are "the questions". In contact fighting, there are certain, specific problems/questions. WCK techniques, like techniques of any MA, are answers to those questions, things people from the past have figured out to deal with those problems. If you have gone through the process yourself, you'll know the "questions" and their basic order (heirarchy), and you will be able to structure a trainee's exposure to those "questions", to get them to clearly focus and see them. If you don't have someone to guide you, then you'll need to figure it out for yourself.

What is the first "question" of contact fighting? What is the first problem you will encounter? The problem that if you can't answer, nothing else will really matter? If you don't *know* the question -- and that knowledge only comes from experience -- how can you answer it? And until you (physcially) answer that question, you can't progress in terms of skill in contact fighting.

Now I can tell you what the first problem is, but then it will just be another theoretical, intellectual point for you. The only way to really know is to experience it. And you don't even need to intellectualize it or consciously recognize (verbalize) it. You need to experience it.

Until then, it is like talking with people who have never grappled on the ground about how to learn to grapple on the ground -- you need to hit the mats with some good people and begin the process.

If you want me to tell you how to "do" WCK, I can't because no one can tell another person how to do it. Just like no one can tell you how you should box. It's an individual thing.

---That's a load of BS. What are WCK sifu for? What are boxing coaches for? What are BJJ teachers for? What are wrestling coaches for? They all have a curriculum that they use to teach the foundational structure and basic tools of their art. That's what this thread has been about....how do we format the WCK curriculum to optimize the transition from foundation to effective fighting.

It doesn't matter how you structure the curriculum (Bjj has no structure at all, you just join the class, learn whatever is being taught at the time, which tends to be really haphazard, and roll). That's not the essential point of the learning. The process is the essential point. Going through the process. Someone that has gone through the process themselves can help another person by guiding them through that process; someone who hasn't gone through it can't help another person. The process isn't fixed but is like our art itself, dynamic, adaptive, and individual.

You seem to have missed that point from the beginning. Your ENTIRE and ONLY message seems to be.....do realistic sparring to learn real application. OK, point taken. And its a good point. But you don't need to write such long and wordy posts to imply that you have more than that to say. Because it seems from this thread that you don't!

Of course to develop realistic skills one need to train realistically; you can't learn/develop fighting skills by not fighting. But -- you can't learn BJJ by doing stand-up sparring. To use the tools of BJJ requires that you be on the ground. And, you can't learn to box rolling on the ground. To use the tools of boxing requires you spar in free-movement/stand-up.

From my perspective, to develop skill in WCK you need to begin with the method of WCK (the faat), which is WCK's approach to fighting. In a nutshell, it is controlling the opponent while striking. That is what we should be trying to do. The tools/skills of WCK aid in that approach. When you see WCK people "spar" and not use most of the WCK tools it is because those tools won't really work in their approach (caveman, kickboxing, etc.). That's why I keep saying start in contact and fight.

From my perspective, the very first thing a person needs to appreciate is the demands of that sort of fighting. By seeing firsthand those demands, a trainee can begin to see what they will need to do to deal with those demands. This is the beginning of the process. As the trainee faces those demands/problems/questions, the instructor can help the trainee deal with them by "teaching" the various techniques/skills of WCK in response to those demands/problems/questions. How that progresses will be individual, dynamic. So I'm saying, just use a sparring platform to teach. Is there an order to what skills the trainee will need? Yes. Refer back to my discussion on the heirarchy of problems.

Let the trainee encounter the problem, teach the trainee how to answer a question, then train it as you taught it, and use it as you learned and trained it (1-to-1-to-1).

---Victor is right. Its time to move on, because you obviously don't have any more to contribute but than your basic message.....do realistic sparring. Thanks. I think we've got that!

You want it all laid out for you, but it doesn't work like that -- it is organic, dynamic, individual. That's the difference between a(n organic) process and a fixed curriculum.

[Edmund]

---That's exactly why the san sik are kept short, and IMHO have more benefit than the long linked sets. Each san sik is around 3 moves long...just like a typical combination in boxing. They are drilled with a partner in a "comfortable way" in order to "motor set" the application, just as a boxer works various combo's on a heavy bag or against focus mitts in a "comfortable way" outside of a "fighting context." But a necessary step is to also include them in a sparring situation in a unscripted and "uncomfortable" way to make sure they actually work. They are also as much about learning how to apply them conceptually as they are about specific technique. That way you are not limited to strictly one application. Many of the san sik that I practice have more than one two-man drill associated with them to drive home exactly that point.

I don't think this has the conceptual and interactive characteristics I'm talking about though. Everyone does short little techniques. And then tries to spar with them. This is not creating a system to learn and progress. There's no guidance or teaching.

Bringing up boxing actually creates a good example of what I mean. Terms thrown around like "Coming over the top", "crowding", "sticking your jab in his face", etc. are all used in relation to an opponent. The terms are describing an interaction. And they are relatively conceptual. Techniques are just putting the concepts into actions.

We always empahsize that WC is a conceptual style. Unless the drills exercise the fighting concepts in relation to an opponent, their realism is limited.

---That's why each san sik has to be applied in a sparring situation as part of the learning process. That's also why one practices to link the different san sik together in different ways. This puts a whole range of responses at your disposal. If something doesn't work, you should be able to transition smoothly into something else. You aren't trying to impose a given san sik on the opponent, rather you respond to an opening or opportunity with technique from one of the san sik that is appropriate at the time.

Well I think that's the 2nd issue/problem I'm describing.
Even if you learn to use particular techniques in a fighting context, you're not imposing any game on your opponent.

You have to expect the opponent to adapt to you. e.g. If he's getting lit up with punches he's going to try tie up to avoid more damage. You *want* to impose a given san sik or set of san sik on the opponent so that he can't. Control your opponent.

i.e. I don't let them tie me up. I don't let them take me down. I don't let them move where ever they like. This is imposing my game.

We've all seen stupid apps where the demo dummy doesn't take any action to prevent the technique being applied to them either before or during it. Once you spar, of course every technique is going to meet some resistance. And people aren't even going to let you start the technique if they can help it.

---Exactly. And what I have been proposing on this thread is a way to address these issues with WCK tools in as efficient a way as possible. I think it would be much more difficult to do it by relying only on the longer linked sets and the various chi sao drills. Realistic sparring is an essential element. But laying a firm foundation in WCK structure, technique, and tactics is also essential. How one develops this and transitions it smoothly and effectively to realistic sparring is the fundamental issue.

I think everyone already does san sik. They take techniques and drill them. That and then sparring is not an improvement or a smooth transition without steps in between.

By the way: Who the hell does only forms and chi sao? I'd be lucky to do 10 minutes doing chi sao out of an hour of training .

[KPM]

Bringing up boxing actually creates a good example of what I mean. Terms thrown around like "Coming over the top", "crowding", "sticking your jab in his face", etc. are all used in relation to an opponent. The terms are describing an interaction. And they are relatively conceptual. Techniques are just putting the concepts into actions.

---I never meant to imply that that kind of teaching wouldn't be part of the entire approach. Of course it would. Just because I am suggesting a san sik format for the curriculum doesn't mean there wouldn't be direct teaching of concepts and tactics during sparring.

You have to expect the opponent to adapt to you. e.g. If he's getting lit up with punches he's going to try tie up to avoid more damage. You *want* to impose a given san sik or set of san sik on the opponent so that he can't. Control your opponent.

---I see what you're saying, and I agree. I meant only that I don't go in with a preconceived notion of "I'm going to use the Jut Choi San Sik the next time we close." Of course you still seek to pressure and control the opponent and make him respond to you. But you still let the technique flow with the circumstances.

We've all seen stupid apps where the demo dummy doesn't take any action to prevent the technique being applied to them either before or during it. Once you spar, of course every technique is going to meet some resistance. And people aren't even going to let you start the technique if they can help it.

---I agree.

I think everyone already does san sik. They take techniques and drill them.

---Of course. What I'm proposing isn't new. But I'm suggesting that one could make it the focus of the curriculum, and not just a peripheral drill. I'm suggesting that this is a better way than spending lots of time on the longer linked sets. And I'm also giving it more structure than most people.....san sik, specific two man drill, applied on the dummy, worked in sparring,....and even....performed with the knives.

That and then sparring is not an improvement or a smooth transition without steps in between.

---Ok. What do you see as the "steps in between"?

By the way: Who the hell does only forms and chi sao? I'd be lucky to do 10 minutes doing chi sao out of an hour of training .

---Not so many years ago that was the standard. There may have been other drills used to develop individual technique, but sparring was a rare thing. But times are changing. And that's a good thing!

[Edmund]

I never meant to imply that that kind of teaching wouldn't be part of the entire approach. Of course it would. Just because I am suggesting a san sik format for the curriculum doesn't mean there wouldn't be direct teaching of concepts and tactics during sparring.

My suggestion is rather than trying to teach it just during sparring, you could enhance your drills or add better ones.

Of course. What I'm proposing isn't new. But I'm suggesting that one could make it the focus of the curriculum, and not just a peripheral drill. I'm suggesting that this is a better way than spending lots of time on the longer linked sets. And I'm also giving it more structure than most people.....san sik, specific two man drill, applied on the dummy, worked in sparring,....and even....performed with the knives.

I feel that you're describing what already is done by many people.
That's the status quo. To make things more functional and realistic, you have to go even further IMO.

Ok. What do you see as the "steps in between"?

The stuff I was saying before about making drills:
1. More conceptual
2. More interactive
3. Against realistic resistance/opponent.

Making it conceptual means, rather than drilling one or two techniques when partner does an attack, you're training a set of related techniques that apply to a particular situation. The interactive part is the choice of which particular technique fits. The realistic resistance is the opponent not just letting you do your technique on them and be your demo dummy, but forcing you to time it right or use good mechanics or whatever.

So for example, after a student has done your pak sao drill they can move to something more advanced. One student throws straight punches at range and tries to close to use hooks and uppercuts. Other student tries to use parries and punches to smother their opponent with lateral movement to keep them at range or tie up their arms and throw a knee if they get too close.

I think this has been mentioned many many times before. The "aliveness" crap that some morons go on and on about. Hate to flog the dead horse...

[KPM]

I feel that you're describing what already is done by many people.
That's the status quo. To make things more functional and realistic, you have to go even further IMO.

---Ok. Maybe you've seen more WCK lineages at work than I have.

So for example, after a student has done your pak sao drill they can move to something more advanced. One student throws straight punches at range and tries to close to use hooks and uppercuts. Other student tries to use parries and punches to smother their opponent with lateral movement to keep them at range or tie up their arms and throw a knee if they get too close.

---I see what you mean. Good suggestions. Kind of a "controlled" or "progressive" sparring.

I think this has been mentioned many many times before. The "aliveness" crap that some morons go on and on about. Hate to flog the dead horse..

---No flogging noted. Thanks for the input. Now what are some of the San Sik that you practice and have found to be the most functional?