Do all HFY schools teach the same...

[bennyvt]

my assumptions, you said that the belts went on the forms ie white for slt etc. The guy said it was a two year black belt deal he this means that they would be doing the weapons after two years them it is dodgy. Teaching people other then vt when that is what they pay for is dodgy especially if they haven't learnt vt to trial this, sounds like a way to make the new guys feel bad and your seniors better as they already know what to do. I think trainin with other styles when you know what you are doing is great. Making people do it before they learn vt is stupid and doesn't help your vt. It sounds like they care more about the money. I understand you are standing up for your system but that school sound like a rip off. That school not your system.

[Chango]

It is clear that you misunderstand what was being said. To assume the worse seems to be bad business! LOL! Teaching someone basic martial arts skills does not make others feel good and others bad! you can test out of the general M.A. part! How does that make someone feel bad LOL!

The black belt being that is being discussed is not a "black belt" in HFY. It is not to teach one person the real stuff and another on other stuff. It is to give a great general martial arts education and then having them specialize. it is as simple as that.

I'm sorry that you have had negative experiences with people in the martial arts business "just for money" But your negative previous experiences and old wounds do not apply here.

Maybe just a misunderstanding on both parts! (I'll take 50% of the blame) LOL!

[duende]

Bennyvt,

a few things you might want to take into consideration...

1. Weapons were originally taught before hand forms. In this day an age, we choose not to teach weapons before hand forms because it makes more sense give the conditions of our times.

2. If/when you become a teacher.. you will understand that there will be students who come through your door who want to learn WC, but have absolutely no athletic ability whatsoever. Meaning they can't even balance on one foot, or move any of their limbs freely... some can't even hold their fingers straight. Hand-eye coordination is a fantasy for them. Really it get's that bad.

SOME, not all, of our schools have chosen to implement these introductions to MA classes with good reason. It is a way to not only broaden a students understanding of MA, but also get their blood flowing a bit quicker.

I however teach at a HFY school where we do not implement these intro courses, and let me tell you what happens...

During SLT drills, that student is often on the sidelines developing basic skills anyways.

So really it's a half dozen one way... and a half dozen the other.

In an ideal world. Of course, WC foundation should be taught first... but sometimes you don't even have any ground to lay your foundation on.

[Cimaroon]

^ LOL! I bet as an instructor you see all sorts. WOW

[bennyvt]

if i went to a running coach and wanted to learn to sprint and he said he would have to teach me to hurdle first them he would be dodgy. If some one came and wanted to learn ma then its all cool. But the guy wanted vt so teach him it. And putting someone with no experience (as if he had by your explanation he would not need to do it) against others that have, is not fair to the new people but makes your students feel good as they can play with there people. i do teach (not at moment due to work) and an also a personal trainer and strength and conditioning coach so i know how to teach. If they have no fitness or ability you take your time and they develop it. Vt teacher you all there things. And i would like to know where it says that the weapons were taught first. Must be the only system to teach the weapons first. I thought the saying goes, you cant use the weapons until you hands are good enough in case you lord your weapon.

[duende]

bennyvt,

I've tried to be helpful here, but frankly I have better things to do than help you with your reading comprehension skills or understanding of history for that matter.

Particularly because you insist on drawing wild unfounded conclusions of your own... not to mention making up things and going off on strange tangents.

Obviously these are based on your own experiences and you need to deal with them as such.

good luck with that, and best of luck with your training

[bennyvt]

You have tried to be helpful. You have tried to justify why your school does what it does. I was writing to the guy that made the thread. I think it sounded dodgy.
Using examples is not going off on wierd tangents. I have said
*You shouldnt be able to get a black belt (I find belts as a money spinner) in two years as the guy said was advertised.
*Why do you have to learn something else in order to learn VT. If your fitness or balance etc isnt good VT will fix these problems.
*Expecting someone to fork out $200 dollars up front sounds crazy. I also give a free class as an intro like one of you said. Which we both agree on.
*If the guy wants to learn about other styles why not teach him VT and he can learn the others on his own, or train with other guys (which I do and have no problem what so ever with) once he actually knows VT.

This has gone from being a person asking for peoples opionons to you justifying why that school did it, to lets make out this guy doesnt know anything so we look better, hence the "IF/when you become a teacher", wow thats not condesending at all.. You and the other guy turned this into a talk about the way your system is run. I was talking about the school that this guy went to. Their are schools that I dont like in the WSLVT system but I dont justify them trying to take peoples money just because they are from the same system.

[Chango]

Some understand and some don't understand some choose not to understand.

* No one said you have to learn other things in order to learn wing chun.

- Nothing wrong with giving someone a general martial arts foundation to build off of. If you don't need it test out out of it. If you don't like it all of this is your choice. (nothing dodgy about that) I'm sure there are methods and things your school does that I might take issue with. can't please everyone.LOL!

* Everything we do we do with purpose and reason. You may call that justification.

-That's fine you have a choice to agree or disagree. Some people like some don't that is one of the reasons we have many schools styles etc...

*belts and sashes have been debated for years.

- I can see a down side and a upside with them. you have pointed out how thier could be a downside. The upside is that when you have more then 20 students you can have some Idea of what they have been exposed to with out constantly asking them. Once again the choice is yours belts no belts.


It all boils down to the fact that you have a choice and a opinion. I can only urge others to come a see first hand. HFY is not for everyone! The problem may be the school the teacher or the person wanting to learn. I just urge people to take the time do the research before investing thier time and resources. Find a school, teacher, system etc.. that fits! I'm just glad people are getting involved with martial arts no matter what art!

[Tom Kagan]

1. Weapons were originally taught before hand forms. In this day an age, we choose not to teach weapons before hand forms because it makes more sense give the conditions of our times.

When did "this day and age" start and what are "the conditions of our times" which led to such a decision?

[CFT]

When did "this day and age" start and what are "the conditions of our times" which led to such a decision?

Presumably when we stopped carrying weapons around as a matter of course.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

When did "this day and age" start and what are "the conditions of our times" which led to such a decision?

semiautomatic handguns?

[Tom Kagan]

Presumably when we stopped carrying weapons around as a matter of course.

So, like when ... never?

semiautomatic handguns?

Because a cannon, a rifle, a revolver, a peppergun, and/or a lowly single-shot couldn't quite kill you as dead from a distance of 20 feet or more?


Notwithstanding the amusement I find in the first two responses essentially contradicting each other, I am still interested in duende's response.

[CFT]

Outside of niche communities who really does carry around bladed weapons or handguns? Not many people are living subsistence lifestyles, collecting firewood and water, hunting, etc.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Because a cannon, a rifle, a revolver, a peppergun, and/or a lowly single-shot couldn't quite kill you as dead from a distance of 20 feet or more?

Of course they could... but they only had one shot. If I had, say, a sword, and some agility skills, I'd still have the perception (well founded or otherwise) that I could reach my target and hack'n'slash repeatedly before they had a chance to reload.

With a semi, it's a different story. One shot may miss, maybe the second, but from then on it's a game of who homes in first... and the semi's chances get better the closer I get. In a world of semis, a bladed strategy leads quickly to tragedy.

P.S. Maybe instead of "Semiauto" being the endgame of blades, I should say "repeat loader?"

[duende]

When did "this day and age" start and what are "the conditions of our times" which led to such a decision?

Hey Tom,

That quote of mine was in response bennyvt's misassumption and to describe why we do not teach weapons first or after two years.

However, not only is the answer to your question quite obvious, but it's already pretty much been answered at this point. One needs to look no further than our own law enforcement or military personal and see the weapons they carry.

If you'd like to debate the fact that mankind's advancement in technology and military weaponry have been linked since the dawn of our times, then I suggest you start a new thread and do it there.

Best,

Alex