"Functionalizing" WCK

[sanjuro_ronin]

Guys, it snot the difficult or complex, the issue I see WC having ( and its not just WC) is that they don't spar other systems enough to make the needed modifications to be effective VS them.

All WC needs to be more functional as a fighting system is to spar/fight other systems and modify the needs accordingly.

[KPM]

---OK. Going against my better judgement and Victor's advice, I'm going to respond to this, since I have some free time to use. It likely will go nowhere, but we can always hope!

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.

---I am assuming that you are someone who has gone through the process you speak of. I have simply asked (several times now) that you give us an example of how you "structure a trainee's exposure to those questions." How do you structure the WCK curriculum? That doesn't seem like a difficult question to me.


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.

---Then, since you don't seem to be able to provide us with concrete examples....I guess its all just theory? Really, you don't sound any different than those guys that like to talk about "chi" and the more mystical explanations. How does it feel to be "bedfellows" with Hendrik??!!!

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.

---That's funny. Seems that the BJJ guys can provide lots of practical advice...and examples...about how their "process" works.

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).

---Really? That's not how my brief training in BJJ went. That's certainly not what is shown in the multitude of BJJ books and videos on the market now. They all have a structured curriculum. They teach technique, and counters to those techniques in a step-wise structured format.


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.

---Once again, you are repeating the same thing over and over to make it seem like you have more to say.

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.

---Refer back to my request for examples of how you do this with your students.

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).

---It almost sounds like you are advocating what I have described as "San Sik Wing Chun", but in reverse order. Do the sparring....show the student WCK's "answer" to a specific sparring situation they encounter...put that in a drill to be able to practice it...then take it back to sparring.

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.

---BJJ has fixed curriculum, boxing has a fixed curriculum, wrestling has a fixed curriculum. Being "live and organic" is a good thing. But you also have to have a good foundation in the basics. You keep arguing around that point, and avoiding talking about how those basics are learned and developed.

[YungChun]

He dodges that point because secretly, Terence has his new students do three hour SLTs and 30 minutes of ne gung cultivation breathing/mediation... (on sundays) Then he passes around the lucky money basket in the dressing room..

It's tough being a TMA...

[couch]

It's tough being a TMA...

Apparently not if you have good music in the kwoon!

(They think it's TMA...but their dancing their way to spiritual freedom...)

Kenton

[Edmund]

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

You could call it that.
I see it as a form of drill.

---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?

I think it still works as a progression. Simple drills move on to more complicated ones. The simple ones are still important to learn and revise. I have some very mundane simple ones that I always teach the complete beginner to teach basic concepts.

e.g. Gate theory: Even if you stand quite staggered, generally you want the left arm to protect the left side of your body and the right arm to defend the right side. To get each side more coordinated, do one side at a time. One partner can attack and defend using only their left while the other partner uses only their right arm. They learn to use their basic defences and attacks and learn about hands being on the inside or outside etc. Then they swap over. Then allow both hands.

Another simple one from MT is the clinch and knee. Partners clinch and try knee and throw each other. They learn to use different tie ups to get control. A similar one that's a bit more WC like comes from the Pan Nam style. You can only grab the arms and you try to throw each other. No leg sweeps. No waist or neck locks or armlocks really, usually just underhooks or overhooks, maybe wrist grab. Use speed, footwork and body movement to unbalance them rather than trying to powerlift them up.

There's stacks of them really. The main thing is to keep it challenging some aspect of fighting rather than have a "special" list of drills. Hard to say what is "most functional". Sparring is pretty functional but you may get by with only a limited subset of moves and then you never challenge yourself to improve.

(Maybe I'll add some more later)

I actually found some of the stuff said earlier in the thread pretty good. You mentioned something about using focus mitts. They can be used to make challenging drills provided the padholder knows what they're doing. You also mentioned clinch and groundfighting. These things are outside of WC's comfort zone hence challenging.

[KPM]

Hey Edmund!


e.g. Gate theory: Even if you stand quite staggered, generally you want the left arm to protect the left side of your body and the right arm to defend the right side. To get each side more coordinated, do one side at a time. One partner can attack and defend using only their left while the other partner uses only their right arm. They learn to use their basic defences and attacks and learn about hands being on the inside or outside etc. Then they swap over. Then allow both hands.

---One of the San Sik that I use it called "3 Gates." You do a Biu Da to the left, Biu Da to the right, Gan Da to the left, Gan Da to the right, right Gum Sao and punch, left Gum Sao and punch. The two man drill is basically what you have described above. The San Sik is practiced stationary in YGKYM, with a simple pivot, with forward stepping, with side angling stepping, etc. It is performed on the dummy as well. It is utilized in sparring. It is also applied with the knives, replacing the punches with forward snap cuts. This really drives home the structure, concept, and application behind the San Sik.

Sparring is pretty functional but you may get by with only a limited subset of moves and then you never challenge yourself to improve.

---This is an excellent point. I think this would be a problem in "reverse engineering" WCK as Terence seems to have suggested. If what you were doing and learning was based ONLY on sparring, you might find yourself doing a somewhat limited set of techniques. Everyone has a favorite set of techniques that they find works well for them and that are "high percentage" moves. But that does not mean that other things might not show up on occasion. If you don't have a comprehensive set of movements to use, you may come up short.