Page 16 of 29 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 425

Thread: Wing chun long, medium, or short range sparring?

  1. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by kung fu fighter View Post
    The importance of hidden concepts within wing chun symbols such as the Plum blossom and bagua in relation to long medium and close range sparring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN5jtY_BcXU
    Isn't that called projection when you project your ideas onto something?

  2. #227
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by kung fu fighter View Post
    Here is footage of Eddie Chong Performing the pole form from Leung sheung linage, they also use a higher stance as in PSWC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaSqWhYjVMk
    I don't think we should allow our open hand training to put any restriction on our weapon training. If a WC guy has to use a long sword or Guan Dao in battle field, his main goal is to cut his opponent's head off. If low stance can help him to achieve that goal, he should use it.

    I believe a WC guy will swing his sword the same way as a long fist guy does. After you have cut your opponent's head off, you can stand on his dead body with you

    - WC YJKYM to prove that you are a WC guy, or
    - long fist low horse stance to prove that you are a long fist guy,

    if that will make you to feel more loyalty to your art.
    Last edited by YouKnowWho; 06-14-2014 at 01:17 PM.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  3. #228
    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    Isn't that called projection when you project your ideas onto something?
    A lot of that is more mnemonics than projection. Like some "animal" sets (xingyi comes to mind) are not mimicking animal movement, but using the concept of how that animal is viewed to give an idea of the goals of the movements.

  4. #229
    Let's made life simple


    In ancient china martial art terms:


    Yin yang means changes state

    Bagua means direction or angling

  5. #230
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    Can we just be honest?
    You're asking me about honesty?? when you can 'be honest' about who you are, then we can talk. I noticed, just like 'the old T', in your reply you purposely avoided all the comments I made about 'who you are' and only repeated the same exact rhetoric almost word-for-word that 'he' did. No one is fooled. Until you can be 'honest', maybe you should pick a different word, eh 'T'?
    What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

  6. #231
    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    A lot of that is more mnemonics than projection. Like some "animal" sets (xingyi comes to mind) are not mimicking animal movement, but using the concept of how that animal is viewed to give an idea of the goals of the movements.
    I agree with you that many ideas are expressed in TMAs through forms terminology and so forth. What I mean is I think often people are not sharing those things they were taught but their interpretations of those things. So then what you get is them projecting their ideas on to the form or terminology or whatever. Using your example an animal might be used to represent some concept but if you did not learn what that is and you come up with your own ideas you may be very very wrong. Then you teach others your interpretation and things get messier.

  7. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by JPinAZ View Post
    You're asking me about honesty?? when you can 'be honest' about who you are, then we can talk. I noticed, just like 'the old T', in your reply you purposely avoided all the comments I made about 'who you are' and only repeated the same exact rhetoric almost word-for-word that 'he' did. No one is fooled. Until you can be 'honest', maybe you should pick a different word, eh 'T'?
    I took all that stuff out since it wasn't related to the topic just your paranoia lol. I do not think I share the views of anyone here although the closest I think would be Sanjuro's. I have a certain perspective which comes from my background.

    For what it's worth I agree with many many many of your views there are only a few things I don't. One is your idea that wing chun is principle based which I do not see how that is even possible. I think principles and concepts are very important and are useful and necessary but without techniques and tactics and strategies and so forth you would be unable to do anything. Same if you had techniques without concepts.

    So our systems give us all these necessary things the principles the concepts the techniques the tactics the strategies and so forth but the system cannot teach you as an individual how to put the art together for yourself. No fighting art can be reduced to a fixed formula because people are individuals with very very very individual strengths weaknesses preferences abilities attributes and so forth. You see this plain as day in boxing. I think it is true for all fighting arts. I think when people spar they very quickly see this. You also see from sparring that nothing is chiseled in stone and that it is up to you to use not use or modify what you have been taught. I was taught the base wing chun strategy of dominating the centerline but depending on the situation my experience may lead me to do something else. That is not abandoning wing chun that is not being a slave to the system.

    I am interested very very interested to hear how different people put things together for themselves in sparring. I am interested in seeing it also. This is not what people are sharing almost all of the time when they talk about application they are talking about how they think things will work. I think that is worse than useless. So I agree with you that simultaneous blocking and striking is a tactic in wing chun. It's one that we can only use in certain situations. I am interested to hear when you can really use it in sparring.

    I'll tell you when I find that I can use it most successfully in sparring. In the upper/mid gate I like to use it when I have already established contact with one of his arms so I can anticipate him throwing the other hand. I find for me that trying to use it when both his arms are free is very difficult in sparring. I think you do not see this tactic used much in the wing chun fights because that sort of situation does not happen very often usually both arms are free. Now this is not what I was taught or told or is some concept it is what I have observed for myself in sparring about how things work for me.
    Last edited by tc101; 06-15-2014 at 10:57 AM.

  8. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by JPinAZ View Post
    Are you assuming WC only has a few techniques at any given range?
    No, only at long range. In fairness, even systems associated with long range have less long range techniques than medium range, just the nature of the beast.

    Or that Wc fighters try to match technique vs technique? Either way, I have never agreed with this line of thinking, as, for me, WC isn't about how many or what techniques it has. This would be a very limiting view of WCK IMO.
    I tend to view it this way: without understanding technique, principles cannot come into play. Technique enables them, but one cannot be too reliant on technique, just as one cannot be too reliant on principles. This is in reference to fighting. We train the techniques and the principles, and by training them well, are not reliant on either. This is just my view, of course. All styles have techniques, more developed styles have principles.

    As for matching technique against technique, this is obviously an ideal that one might train for, but cannot count on. However, I think, in fighting, no matter the style, the superior fighter is acting in a way that takes advantage of what their opponent is doing.

    To give an example of what I mean, last night I taught a san sau class (san sau meaning more geared toward sparring applications vs. straight system training/drilling) that had a range of skill levels between the students. There were several guys that have been training for 2-4 years, some 1-2 year students, 2 beginners of only a few weeks, and 1 first-timer doing a trial class that came in with a decent amount of MMA training. I chose this exact topic of feints and long range attackes to train the more seasoned guys, as well as introduce WC's principle-based fighting concepts to the newer people.

    Besides showing and labeling the attacks we would be defending against (single straight lead/jab, jab/cross and Jab/hook), I didn't mention one WC technique they would use to defend against them. I had them first get comfortable with the long range attacks so they had some familiarity with them by hitting pads. Most have already done this type of training, but it was a good warm up and essential for the 2 newbies due to their low coordination and having never really thrown a punch in their lives.
    Sounds like a good approach.

    Then, I started them into defending against just the single lead/jab. The motion they were using was a biu-type shape engaging the jab from the outside-to-in while maintaining good fwd structure & pressure on center. I didn't label the shape as it wasn't necessary. Instead I focused on the concepts of centerline and space occupation, how do dominate that center space which drives the initial attack offline, and the body mechanics necessary to make it work - moving out to in with the arm, proper 6-gate footwork with the arm extended but elbow still sunken slightly so it can connect with the same side hip & knee, proper arm contact & fwd energy to connect with opponent's COG, etc. At no time did I give the 'technique' a name, even when asked. I also had the punchers vary the attack from feints, touch-and-go probing, as well as more committed punches.
    This is exactly the sort of thing I was assuming would be an important way to train this range for wing chun. By having ample opportunity to work against feints, etc, the ability to read the opponent is worked. Also, by having ample time to act as the person doing a feint, they become accustomed and better at doing it, so that their partners will hopefully not be training against only poor feints.

    Each time I had them do the same motion regardless of the commitment:
    1. If it was a feint, cover the space and then move in if proper range to do so. Or, just stand your ground if little to no contact was made or the range was too far out (I explained you don't move, I don't move - you move I get there first here)
    Here's where I think sometimes it is worth it to, after a certain stage, have the feint be followed by the actual intended attack. Cover is always a relative thing, all areas covered does not often equate to all areas covered will. By having the feint have a followup (after a certain stage in training) it becomes more important how one covers, because the feint is designed to draw a response and capitalize on it. Not a critique of your drill, it is a totally valid drill. But not all entries are always equally valid considering the circumstances, so having a followup can show that and force the person working entries against this to use more awareness of their opponent, imo.

    2. For the touch-and-go probing-type jabs, same thing - cover the space and then, if proper range is there, follow the withdraw of the punch with footwork and what some might call trapping & hitting (I explained the general idea of loi lau hoi sung here)
    Nice.

    3. For committed attacks, this gave them more test to their overall body structure, elbow/knee/hip connection and fwd intent/pressure. From there, they were more in range to sink and hit.
    Understood.

    At the end, everyone seemed to understand what I meant form a principle-based WC POV and weren't focused on what tools they used or how amny/few I had given them. The seniors had a better appreciation for the ideas they already knew, and the new people were left with a good appreciationg with how simple it worked once you learned the mechanics and were successful at applying the idea. And the new MMA guy was a bit surprised how well it worked for being something so foreign to him and was excited to try it out against his training partners at the MMA gym. Very cool
    It's always fun when a lesson works out well.

    I would say that, when I say technique, I am not always meaning heavily involved or complex moves. Most won't be this way. So I view the biu type guard as a fundamental technique in many styles. In my experience, it's mostly throws and chin nas that are more complex than that, but they also fall into rather simple categories when looked at in light of footwork, where the footwork only moves so many ways, and tends to create pressure (positive or negative, for lack of a better term) in those ways. I think we all work technique, AND principle. Without both, in my view, there are a lot of traps one can fall into.

    Sole reliance on technique tends to make a fighter who can only prosper when they can force their technique on the opponent. Principles alone tend to make people who interpret form into any technique they can see, but not look at each technique in terms of consistency of application. I tend to view interpretations of form as just fine, but those interpretations still need to be judged, an interpretation that is useful only when fighting someone who is not as good is less useful than one that applies well in a narrow circumstance. When looked at in terms of what is consistently useful, I have rarely seen more than two valid applications of something from form, and often just one.

  9. #234
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    No, only at long range. In fairness, even systems associated with long range have less long range techniques than medium range, just the nature of the beast.

    I tend to view it this way: without understanding technique, principles cannot come into play. Technique enables them, but one cannot be too reliant on technique, just as one cannot be too reliant on principles. This is in reference to fighting. We train the techniques and the principles, and by training them well, are not reliant on either. This is just my view, of course. All styles have techniques, more developed styles have principles.
    Sure. Many ways to look at it. I've heard it said "It's all technique, then it's no technique, and then it's all technique again" What this means is, in the beginning, shape is all you have. Then, as you internalize the principle-based concepts of the system, the idea of technique doesn't matter so much as you are really just 'occupying space with strong structure on the centerline (for one example), regardless the technique. Then, once that is fully internalized, then you go back to the idea of using technique as the concepts are ingrained in your body so-to-speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    Sounds like a good approach.
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    This is exactly the sort of thing I was assuming would be an important way to train this range for wing chun. By having ample opportunity to work against feints, etc, the ability to read the opponent is worked. Also, by having ample time to act as the person doing a feint, they become accustomed and better at doing it, so that their partners will hopefully not be training against only poor feints.
    Yeah, that's the point - you're only really able to be as good as your training partners!

    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    Here's where I think sometimes it is worth it to, after a certain stage, have the feint be followed by the actual intended attack. Cover is always a relative thing, all areas covered does not often equate to all areas covered will. By having the feint have a followup (after a certain stage in training) it becomes more important how one covers, because the feint is designed to draw a response and capitalize on it. Not a critique of your drill, it is a totally valid drill. But not all entries are always equally valid considering the circumstances, so having a followup can show that and force the person working entries against this to use more awareness of their opponent, imo.
    No worries, and I fully agree! Actually, this is also what I had the senior guys doing as well, feint and then throw the punch a slight second afterwards to see they can catch each other 'sleeping'. It's a true test of whether or not they are buying into the feint or not and teaches them the hard way the consequences of being duped by people that feint. IMO these is where the fun begins and the fight skill actually starts being developed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    I would say that, when I say technique, I am not always meaning heavily involved or complex moves. Most won't be this way. So I view the biu type guard as a fundamental technique in many styles. In my experience, it's mostly throws and chin nas that are more complex than that, but they also fall into rather simple categories when looked at in light of footwork, where the footwork only moves so many ways, and tends to create pressure (positive or negative, for lack of a better term) in those ways. I think we all work technique, AND principle. Without both, in my view, there are a lot of traps one can fall into.

    Sole reliance on technique tends to make a fighter who can only prosper when they can force their technique on the opponent. Principles alone tend to make people who interpret form into any technique they can see, but not look at each technique in terms of consistency of application. I tend to view interpretations of form as just fine, but those interpretations still need to be judged, an interpretation that is useful only when fighting someone who is not as good is less useful than one that applies well in a narrow circumstance. When looked at in terms of what is consistently useful, I have rarely seen more than two valid applications of something from form, and often just one.
    I can agree with what you are saying here. and yes, there is always 'techninque'. When I say 'principle-based fighting', I guess I'm trying to stress the importance of what gives way to the WC goals of efficiency, effectiveness & economy of motion in fighting (if one sees WC that way of course). If only looking at technique, then people can argue back and forth all day why one is better than the other. Or some can argue that certain moves are low percentage moves, and sometimes rightly so. But when you look at WC principle/concept, the answer should be much more simple and clear to a point where the idea of technique doesn't really matter much. Still, to do anything, you need a shape, and to teach that shape you need to label it. But if you teach fighting methods from a principle-based WC system method as in the example I gave from my class, I didn't have to mention one technique to get the point across. Sure, no harm in telling them the names. But the point was to focus on the why and how - not the what. And this method can be used in any class, even chi na, throws, etc. Because, IMO it's not the technique that makes things work, it's the position, leverage point and point of contact that makes things work (the mechanics).

    For example, if I want to show someone a simple self defense technique for a low grab to a wrist, I could say something like:
    1. "Step to the side and use a tan sau to break the grip".

    Or, if I'm not teaching someone from a WC background who doesn't understand what a tan sau is, I could say:
    2. "Step to the side away from the attackers non-grabbing hand, and raise your grabbed hand up to your nose height in front of your face with the elbow down and in while keeping your wrist straight and pressing fwd away from you. This will help break the grip, move you to a safer position, as well as put up a strong structure while connecting to your opponent's COG so you can read their next move". (and before someone argues that this won't work, there's a better way, etc - it's only an example lol)

    The first method is technique-only focus. The second is concept & mechanics focused. Both can work, but one leaves a lot open to interpretation. And maybe that's good in the beginning, let them wander a bit and try things out. But, does the first really work at a high percentage if the person doesn't have a decent idea of the second - even if they know what a taan sau looks like? They might figure it out, they might not. Doesn't meet with WC's ideas of efficiency, effectiveness or economy of motion without the second. This is why IMO, regardless if people say otherwise, wing chun is a principle-based conceptual art at it's core and not just taan/bong/fook.
    So in the beginning, it's all shape/technique. But, after one gets past that and starts learning the when/why/how - the general ideas of wing chun's main principles/concepts (no technique) - then yeah, like I said before - it's all technique again
    Last edited by JPinAZ; 06-17-2014 at 03:46 PM.
    What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

  10. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by JPinAZ View Post
    I can agree with what you are saying here. and yes, there is always 'techninque'. When I say 'principle-based fighting', I guess I'm trying to stress the importance of what gives way to the WC goals of efficiency, effectiveness & economy of motion in fighting (if one sees WC that way of course). If only looking at technique, then people can argue back and forth all day why one is better than the other. Or some can argue that certain moves are low percentage moves, and sometimes rightly so. But when you look at WC principle/concept, the answer should be much more simple and clear to a point where the idea of technique doesn't really matter much. Still, to do anything, you need a shape, and to teach that shape you need to label it. But if you teach fighting methods from a principle-based WC system method as in the example I gave from my class, I didn't have to mention one technique to get the point across. Sure, no harm in telling them the names. But the point was to focus on the why and how - not the what. And this method can be used in any class, even chi na, throws, etc. Because, IMO it's not the technique that makes things work, it's the position, leverage point and point of contact that makes things work (the mechanics).

    For example, if I want to show someone a simple self defense technique for a low grab to a wrist, I could say something like:
    1. "Step to the side and use a tan sau to break the grip".

    Or, if I'm not teaching someone from a WC background who doesn't understand what a tan sau is, I could say:
    2. "Step to the side away from the attackers non-grabbing hand, and raise your grabbed hand up to your nose height in front of your face with the elbow down and in while keeping your wrist straight and pressing fwd away from you. This will help break the grip, move you to a safer position, as well as put up a strong structure while connecting to your opponent's COG so you can read their next move". (and before someone argues that this won't work, there's a better way, etc - it's only an example lol)

    The first method is technique-only focus. The second is concept & mechanics focused. Both can work, but one leaves a lot open to interpretation. And maybe that's good in the beginning, let them wander a bit and try things out. But, does the first really work at a high percentage if the person doesn't have a decent idea of the second - even if they know what a taan sau looks like? They might figure it out, they might not. Doesn't meet with WC's ideas of efficiency, effectiveness or economy of motion without the second. This is why IMO, regardless if people say otherwise, wing chun is a principle-based conceptual art at it's core and not just taan/bong/fook.
    So in the beginning, it's all shape/technique. But, after one gets past that and starts learning the when/why/how - the general ideas of wing chun's main principles/concepts (no technique) - then yeah, like I said before - it's all technique again
    My experience is if you start by learning technique through using it you find out the how's and whys pretty quickly.

    I really do not think your two examples are different. In the first you say tan sau and in the second you simply describe the action of a tan sau so what is the difference? The first just assumes that the person already knows what the term tan sau describes. When you teach technique aren't you teaching an action not a shape?

    Technique is a learned way of doing something better so that naturally means you are doing it more effectively more economically more efficiently otherwise it would not be technique lol. Technique by it's very nature is doing that. I don't know anyone who trains to learn worse ways of doing something.

    My experience is that efficienient effective and economical is an individual thing as is technique in that what is EEE for you may not be what is EEE for me and that this is not something unique to wing chun.
    Last edited by tc101; 06-18-2014 at 05:50 AM.

  11. #236
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    We learn and retain and find out what works best for us BY DOING.
    I think that for most the "ideal" way is to learn the technique, DO IT and then learn the principles of how and why it works and then go from there.
    Kind of like that do in pretty much every physical activity.
    I've seen some pretty good boxers that really don't have a very good understanding of the principles of boxing BUT they DO IT very well.
    Of course to be a good teacher you need more than just being able to "do it".
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  12. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    We learn and retain and find out what works best for us BY DOING.
    I think that for most the "ideal" way is to learn the technique, DO IT and then learn the principles of how and why it works and then go from there.
    Kind of like that do in pretty much every physical activity.
    I've seen some pretty good boxers that really don't have a very good understanding of the principles of boxing BUT they DO IT very well.
    Of course to be a good teacher you need more than just being able to "do it".
    A good teacher can make someone a good fighter who fights and shows all the principles of their system without that student necessarily being able to explain the same things. And do so with different people who end up fighting differently.

    A good teacher has to know what works for them AND what works for others. There's one throw in my system that is commonly done here in the U.S. one way. In China, it is generally done differently. The difference is that the way it is done here works if the person you are throwing is substantially larger than you, as was the case between the teacher who brought it here and his students. The way it is done in China is also useful when there is not a size difference. The version here does not work well if you are equal height or taller than your opponent. If a teacher doesn't know this, then only their short students will appear skilled with that throw, but this is not what is happening.

  13. #238
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    We learn and retain and find out what works best for us BY DOING.
    I think that for most the "ideal" way is to learn the technique, DO IT and then learn the principles of how and why it works and then go from there.
    Kind of like that do in pretty much every physical activity.
    I've seen some pretty good boxers that really don't have a very good understanding of the principles of boxing BUT they DO IT very well.
    Of course to be a good teacher you need more than just being able to "do it".
    "The mind understands; the body knows..." Garrett Gee

    I don't do the quote thing often at all but here it fits too perfect.

  14. #239
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,781
    My example wasn't to imply it's the best or only way to teach, just to give a POV of 'principle'-based fighting from a teaching perspective where you can teach someone to use WC effectively and never once mention technique by focusing on proper mechanics, position, point of contact, leverage, centerline, etc..
    There are many other classes where the focus is simply on a technique and it's use/application, say 'pak sau'

    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    I really do not think your two examples are different. In the first you say tan sau and in the second you simply describe the action of a tan sau so what is the difference? The first just assumes that the person already knows what the term tan sau describes. When you teach technique aren't you teaching an action not a shape?
    What's the difference? I thought I was pretty clear what I thought the difference was and explained it several times. But I will reiterate again, just for you 'T'

    No, I didn't think simply described the action of tan sau in my second example. From the first example of 'just do a tan sau' you could do a tan sau as I described but step the wrong way and get hit, or not step at all and get hit by the free hand. Or try doing the shape but have the wrong facing, or the wrong energy. Tan sau is the 'what', my second example is the how, what and why. The first, you only take away an application for a technique, the second applies to other areas as well as it's concept-focused perspective - regardless the technique or application

    The difference is, there are many many ways to do a 'tan sau', and we see arguments about the right and wrong way to do a technique here all the time. By focusing only on the technique, you will find a way, but that doesn't always mean it's the way that fits in with WC's ideas/goals of economy of motion, maximum efficiency (I don't care if you don't like the term, so please ignore 'maximum' if it suites you), and effectiveness. You will not necessarily learn to do tan sau that fits these concepts just by practicing it, or if you happen to, it may take a long long time. But if I teach an application based on the concepts, the technique could be anything. For instance, in my example, there are otherways to break the grab without using tan sau. But if I just showed you to 'do tan sau' you will miss this

    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    Technique is a learned way of doing something better so that naturally means you are doing it more effectively more economically more efficiently otherwise it would not be technique lol. Technique by it's very nature is doing that. I don't know anyone who trains to learn worse ways of doing something.
    Focusing only on technique you may be right, but the time frame for the learning process could be muuucccchhh longer. Now, I'm not advocating that you can simple tell someone the principle/concept and they got it. Far from it. they still have to put in the work and make it work for themselves. If you just want to see technique only, that's fine - because physically, that's all you really can see. But there's also the flip side of when you see someone trying a tan sau and it isn't working, is it because they are using the wrong technique? Or is it because they are using the technique wrongly? The concepts/principles are the guide for answering this. And by watching someone perform a technique, it is usually pretty easy to see if they understand them or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    My experience is that efficienient effective and economical is an individual thing as is technique in that what is EEE for you may not be what is EEE for me and that this is not something unique to wing chun.
    I respect your view, but have a difficult time agreeing. One 'E' by itself, sure. 2 EE's, less-so. But IMO, when looking at EEE (all 3 together), there is a lot less room for personal interpretation - period.
    That's like saying that there are different ways to say the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. You can argue otherwise and say the shortest distance between 2 points that are and inch apart is a huge zig zag spiral circle that is a mile long, and from some extreme physics examples you might prove your case, but the general idea of straight line is excepted as a common truth. But if someone says a jumping, spinning back fist is more EEE than a straight jab for hitting a stationary target with your at arm's length that is right in front of you with your fist, I'd reply that you're probably just arguing to argue. Put all 3 EEE together, and there is little room for arguing among rational people in that example.
    Last edited by JPinAZ; 06-18-2014 at 10:27 AM.
    What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

  15. #240
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    A good teacher can make someone a good fighter who fights and shows all the principles of their system without that student necessarily being able to explain the same things. And do so with different people who end up fighting differently.
    I completely agree! And this can be the difference from teaching fighters and teaching people that will also be teachers (as well as being fighters).
    To reiterate, I think you can teach someone completely with technique and instill some of the principles of the system and make a very good fighter. But like you said, they will all probably end up doing things differently in the end or be able to explain things the same. This is what I term as 'style'. Nothing wrong with that either. But then years later, if these people then go out and start teaching, are they passing on the complete WC system, or only their own stylized version based only on what they were taught and the experience they gained? And there is a pretty big difference IMO

    I think this is the main example for why there are so many different 'versions' and takes on the WC system today, and why there is so much arguing about who's right/wrong. Just take Yip Man's students and the various sub-lineages that stemmed from them. LT does things very differently than WSL, in almost every aspect - footwork, stance weighting, angling, etc. That's just one example. Then look at the variations that stemmed from just those 2 guys and the sub-sub-lineages that sprung up underneath just LT or WSL. You can look at the top WSL lineage guys today, and see it again.
    Now, compare all the different variations from the Yip Man lineages to the non-YM lineages and we see the same thing once more. Most can agree that WC has to come from the same common source at one point (my logical guess is prior to the major split of 1850's). But IMO it's the various ways of teaching fighting apps to people based on what the teacher thought they needed to succeed in fighting and then the fighter's personal preference that causes so many different 'styles' of WC today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Faux Newbie View Post
    A good teacher has to know what works for them AND what works for others. There's one throw in my system that is commonly done here in the U.S. one way. In China, it is generally done differently. The difference is that the way it is done here works if the person you are throwing is substantially larger than you, as was the case between the teacher who brought it here and his students. The way it is done in China is also useful when there is not a size difference. The version here does not work well if you are equal height or taller than your opponent. If a teacher doesn't know this, then only their short students will appear skilled with that throw, but this is not what is happening.
    Agreed! And that is where I feel a sound understanding of the system's principle-based concepts plays a big part.
    The flip side is, the teacher may just prefer one way over the other and teach it only that way regardless of size (even if it doens't relaly 'work' as well). If his 'preference' then gets passed down when his student's start teaching, then the other way gets lost - at least for that sub lineage. I think we see this happen all the time in many arts.
    What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •