Structure...

[Edmund]

Actually, Robert was already using the term "body structure" and Mike was more into "groundpath" and peng, but they were talking about similar things.

I agree somewhat. I think Mike was more into "groundpath" and "peng".
Don't totally recall if Robert was already using the term "body structure". It didn't seem like it to me but it was a long time ago.

To me though, the themes were interchangable. It created a similar scenario just on a different mailing list.

Regardless of who came first, everything I'm talking about applies to both buzzwords.

The tests are just teaching devices IMO, a means of giving the trainee feedback on their ability to use their body in a certain way. That's all.

I think they became more than that.
The buzzwords grew into something a little less about teaching and more about either sticking it someone or recruiting someone by setting a test and then offering to teach them how to pass it.

As I see it, WCK is a skill that is comprised of a number of basic sub-skills. Those sub-skills can be combined in different ways and to differing degrees (sometimes one skill is emphasized and another absent) to produce differing approaches. Hawkins/Robert emphaizes a certain way of using the body which is central to their approach. Others can differ. In the end, it boils down to what you can do.

Agreed.
But as I was saying, they've assigned a value to a sub-skill (as you call it). I then decide how much training effort, money, time etc. I'm going to commit to that.

You have given it a lower value by using the term "sub-skill". Others have assigned a higher value by emphasizing words like "basic" or saying it's been around for a long time hence it's important.

[Edmund]

I was also lurking at the neijia list, and the old wing chun list at the time sigman and robert chu had their ****ing contest. That was enjoyable.

they both tried so hard to reinvent basic concepts and re-explaining it using their descriptions and terms like the groundpath and the teacher tests. two big egos, now they don't post anymore. but at least they had decent stuff to offer, unlike a current ego right now who likes to repeat the same thing again and again. dump that broken record

Well what's the justification for having big egos though?
It's seldom a tolerable character trait!

And thinking about it now, no offence to either person but they weren't really that well known as big experts in WC or Taiji. I don't think Mike Sigman even taught taiji but he had "Teacher Tests", his own little magazine, students etc.

At the time I thought "great! I can figure out who's a good teacher." But seeing what range of skills a good teacher has compared to what the tests tested, makes me realize the tests didn't mean that much.

A lot of the neijia list was set on the idea that he was an authority figure. Nowdays you have some form of access to some very famous Chen's taiji teachers.

[t_niehoff]

Well what's the justification for having big egos though?
It's seldom a tolerable character trait!

I think Mike and Robert were more like oil and water, two personalities that just didn't mix well.

And thinking about it now, no offence to either person but they weren't really that well known as big experts in WC or Taiji. I don't think Mike Sigman even taught taiji but he had "Teacher Tests", his own little magazine, students etc.

I don't know what being "known" has to do with either having skill or being able to teach well.

At the time I thought "great! I can figure out who's a good teacher." But seeing what range of skills a good teacher has compared to what the tests tested, makes me realize the tests didn't mean that much.

I think that the idea behind Mike's "Teacher Tests" was a correct one -- that a martial art is a skill (comprised of sub-skills), and that only someone that knows (can actually do it) a skill can teach it. So his test focused on what he felt was a critical, all-important sub-skill of tai ji (peng/groundpath). It follows that if some teacher can't really do that skill (pass the test), he can't teach it to you. What this fails to take into account is that those sub-skills can be combined in different ways and to differing degrees (sometimes one skill is emphasized and another absent) to produce differing approaches, so someone may have a valid (functional) approach that doesn't emphasize that particular subskill.

A lot of the neijia list was set on the idea that he was an authority figure. Nowdays you have some form of access to some very famous Chen's taiji teachers.

It is we who make people into authority figures (like you in referencing "famous Chen teachers").

[Edmund]

I think that the idea behind Mike's "Teacher Tests" was a correct one -- that a martial art is a skill (comprised of sub-skills), and that only someone that knows (can actually do it) a skill can teach it. So his test focused on what he felt was a critical, all-important sub-skill of tai ji (peng/groundpath). It follows that if some teacher can't really do that skill (pass the test), he can't teach it to you. What this fails to take into account is that those sub-skills can be combined in different ways and to differing degrees (sometimes one skill is emphasized and another absent) to produce differing approaches, so someone may have a valid (functional) approach that doesn't emphasize that particular subskill.

By choosing that skill as the all important one in the teacher test you've assigned a lot of value to it.

Then hypothetically you offer to teach it.
You also put down those who don't tow your line and share your values.

e.g. Robert was a victim of this on the neijia list.

It is we who make people into authority figures (like you in referencing "famous Chen teachers").

Not in this case. People present themselves as authority figures and we have to weigh up which person's knowledge is greater.

[anerlich]

It is we who make people into authority figures (like you in referencing "famous Chen teachers").

Not the norm - usually one has to want to be an "authority figure" pretty bad, and actively promote oneself, to be seen as one.