What makes a good Kung fu teacher / Sifu

[pateticorecords]

one that doesn't shun you when you surpass his skills

[David Jamieson]

one that doesn't shun you when you surpass his skills

EXACTLY!

That is what ownership is about.

@Humble WC guy - he's (Angelo Dundee) not the exception and is in fact closer to the rule when it comes to good trainers.

A great deal of pro athletes in all disciplines are coached and trained by people who do not compete in those disciplines. It doesn't mean they are incapable of understanding or helping an athlete to progress.

To think that direct experience is the best teacher is true, but that applies to YOU only.

Your teacher could be an ace fighter but a crappy teacher, a crappy communicator and have no idea of how to be a good pedagogue.

But, maybe that's a mistake you need to make? I dunno, it's your life.

[Iron_Eagle_76]

Boxing is pretty simple compared to Kung fu or other martial arts as well.

I find this statement humoring. Boxing is simple in it's approach, this much I agree with. You have four main strikes, jab, cross, hook, uppercut and some variations of these techniques. However, to gain the necessary skill to fight at a high level takes years of hard training, conditioning, and experience.

Don't try and disparage boxing because you think it is simple, it is far from it.

[David Jamieson]

I find this statement humoring. Boxing is simple in it's approach, this much I agree with. You have four main strikes, jab, cross, hook, uppercut and some variations of these techniques. However, to gain the necessary skill to fight at a high level takes years of hard training, conditioning, and experience.

Don't try and disparage boxing because you think it is simple, it is far from it.

I love boxing at least as much as Kung Fu.

It truly has "the hands" and any Kung Fu person can benefit tremendously from boxing and vice versa.

[Iron_Eagle_76]

I love boxing at least as much as Kung Fu.

It truly has "the hands" and any Kung Fu person can benefit tremendously from boxing and vice versa.

Agreed. My Kung Fu improved leaps and bounds after my stint in boxing, and of all arts I have trained in other than Kung Fu, boxing was my favorite and improved my overall game the most.

[pateticorecords]

Agreed. My Kung Fu improved leaps and bounds after my stint in boxing, and of all arts I have trained in other than Kung Fu, boxing was my favorite and improved my overall game the most.

totally in agreement here...

[HumbleWCGuy]

I find this statement humoring. Boxing is simple in it's approach, this much I agree with. You have four main strikes, jab, cross, hook, uppercut and some variations of these techniques. However, to gain the necessary skill to fight at a high level takes years of hard training, conditioning, and experience.

Don't try and disparage boxing because you think it is simple, it is far from it.

How is the statement of such a brut fact a disparagement? The simple point being if a non-practitioner where to teach an art. Boxing would probably have to be it.

[David Jamieson]

How is the statement of such a brut fact a disparagement? The simple point being if a non-practitioner where to teach an art. Boxing would probably have to be it.

I don't agree with this.
Mainly because of some historical perspective.
Our natural way of interacting with each other in a physical conflict is to wrestle.
It's how we are built.
Striking is almost completely nurtured, especially technical striking.
Not saying there isn't technical wrestling, because there is, but it's more natural to wrestle than to box.

Power, speed, conditioning, will to fight, everything required to fight with just your hands is offered and gotten through the art of boxing. You just have to want to do it. Same with Kung Fu, or even mma or fencing or creative anachronism classical weapons fight clubs with armor and all. All physical disciplines are not readily acquired by anyone.

Everything takes time and effort. Even naturals will benefit from structured training within a given discipline. There are many disciplines. With Kung Fu, there are so many that it is said it would take 3 lifetimes to learn all that was available there (Shaolin).

[Iron_Eagle_76]

How is the statement of such a brut fact a disparagement? The simple point being if a non-practitioner where to teach an art. Boxing would probably have to be it.

The problem is you see this all the time. I see idiots all the time who think they can box and play around with their friends and think they are good, that is, until they spar against someone who has actually boxed and trained in a good boxing gym.

There are tons of douchenozzles out there who think they know how to fight, think they know how to box, and think they know a martial art. But without real hands on training from a good coach or teacher, they never learn correct methods, drills, and conditioning to be good at the art.

[HumbleWCGuy]

The problem is you see this all the time. I see idiots all the time who think they can box and play around with their friends and think they are good, that is, until they spar against someone who has actually boxed and trained in a good boxing gym.

There are tons of douchenozzles out there who think they know how to fight, think they know how to box, and think they know a martial art. But without real hands on training from a good coach or teacher, they never learn correct methods, drills, and conditioning to be good at the art.

I see. I have trained with some decent amateur boxers. I have to say that I was a little bit embarrassed early on. I stuck with it and trained it on their terms. It improved my game tremendously.

Edit: there is something to be said for mastery that a boxer has with his hands and the accompanying body motions.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I don't agree with this.
Mainly because of some historical perspective.
Our natural way of interacting with each other in a physical conflict is to wrestle.
It's how we are built.
Striking is almost completely nurtured, especially technical striking.
Not saying there isn't technical wrestling, because there is, but it's more natural to wrestle than to box.

Power, speed, conditioning, will to fight, everything required to fight with just your hands is offered and gotten through the art of boxing. You just have to want to do it. Same with Kung Fu, or even mma or fencing or creative anachronism classical weapons fight clubs with armor and all. All physical disciplines are not readily acquired by anyone.

Everything takes time and effort. Even naturals will benefit from structured training within a given discipline. There are many disciplines. With Kung Fu, there are so many that it is said it would take 3 lifetimes to learn all that was available there (Shaolin).

I don't see how this makes the point that boxing is not simplistic compared to other arts. Boxing had roughly 16 techniques and other arts have hundreds.

[David Jamieson]

I don't see how this makes the point that boxing is not simplistic compared to other arts. Boxing had roughly 16 techniques and other arts have hundreds.

Others may have hundreds it is true, but often they are mere reiterative variations.
Take the time to sit down and count the techniques in your style.

Not the training methods, the actual techniques.

You will find that you can narrow it down.
Because each form you do is progressive into the next and each
lesson is progressive to the next.

The totality of the style has nothing to do with how long it takes a person to learn it.
Any discipline requires time and effort. A good boxer and a good kung fu player should develop at the same rate at a personal interest level like most are.

So, train hard, train smart.

[md1]

I think what I have seen most times over the years whether it's in the arts or boxing or even sports in general, the guys who excel in teaching or coaching are the ones that didn't really excel in that sport but have a way of communicating and getting the most out of there people. It is rare to see someone who is a great teacher or coach that was great at chosen game.
I'm sure there might be a few but At least i can't remember any off hand.

[HumbleWCGuy]

I think what I have seen most times over the years whether it's in the arts or boxing or even sports in general, the guys who excel in teaching or coaching are the ones that didn't really excel in that sport but have a way of communicating and getting the most out of there people. It is rare to see someone who is a great teacher or coach that was great at chosen game.
I'm sure there might be a few but At least i can't remember any off hand.

I agree. I think a lot of times it's the people who didn't have the athleticism to be the "champ," but had the smarts to get everything out of themselves end up being good coaches. Assuming that the communication is there.

[David Jamieson]

I think what I have seen most times over the years whether it's in the arts or boxing or even sports in general, the guys who excel in teaching or coaching are the ones that didn't really excel in that sport but have a way of communicating and getting the most out of there people. It is rare to see someone who is a great teacher or coach that was great at chosen game.
I'm sure there might be a few but At least i can't remember any off hand.

As time goes forward we'll see more of it because of the expectation for it.

These days pro fighters are coaching others to become fighters.
It's becoming common place and will likely grow to be more so.