Looking at schools locally

[MetalBoar]

So, now that I know where I'll be living for a while and I expect I'll be able to get the vaccine soon I've been checking out schools on the Internet that are near-ish my new home. I haven't researched any of these very thoroughly yet, I'm just sort of trying to pair down my list to figure out what to check out first.

As I think I've said in other posts, while most of my MA training hasn't been in the CMA's I really like that they usually encompass both striking and stand up grappling. I'll probably make a similar post in the forums specific to a couple or three other martial arts but I'm starting out in the Chinese Martial Arts forum because in general a good CMA school would probably be my first choice.

So I'd love feedback from anyone who has experience with or thoughts about some of the schools I've found so far. I'm looking for a place that teaches applications and isn't just focused on forms. I'm happy to study forms I just want to make sure I'm learning how the art is applied too.

All of these are within 10-20 minutes drive of my house. I'd be willing to go farther than that for great instruction though so far I haven't seen anything that really jumps out at me as being worth the extra travel. I am open to suggestions if you know a great place that isn't on my list.

https://www.pansanda.com/ - Sanda has interested me for quite a while. There are 2-3 other places around here that offer classes but this place looks like the best Sanda school near me. It looks like they've got a well equipped facility and sounds like they're serious about their training. They offer an hour each of open mat, striking and Shuai-Jiao M-Th. plus 2+ hours of sparring every Friday and private lessons on the weekend. I do worry a little that I might not fit in very well at the age of 50 since I get the impression a lot of organizations limit Sanda competition to 45 and under. I don't care that much about actually competing but I have had experiences in other arts with very competition focused schools that just wanted to take your money and give you cardio and busy work so that they could put their efforts into their competitors.

Falling Leaves Kung Fu - I've heard mixed reports about the legitimacy and efficacy of I Liq Chuan but I've also heard that Ashe Higgs is one of the best people to train with if you're going to study it. If anyone has any experience with the style I'd love your thoughts.

There's a lot of Wing Chun in the area but the places that look most interesting to me are:

Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kung Fu of Arizona- All Wing Chun seems to be pretty controversial and Hung Fa Yi seems to be somewhat controversial within the Wing Chun community itself. Still, I've heard some good things about this place and they offer 90 minute classes 4 days a week. I don't know if they spar or work with much resistance and those are a couple of the things I'll ask them when I give them a call.

Black Sun Boxing 黑日拳法 - Wing Chun MMA, Kickboxing, Catch Wrestling, Phoenix, AZ - Phoenix Wing Chun MMA Phoenix Arizona wing chun, catch wrestling, kickboxing PHX AZ catch as catch can wrestling cacc savate boxe francaise boxe française et anglaise quan fa kenpo chinese boxing phoenix az kung fu bruce lee jkd jeet kune do ip man wing chun - I'm not sure how good this place is and it might be hard to make it to a class that starts at 5:30pm, but they're open 6 days a week and they definitely spar. Plus Catch Wrestling is something I've had an interest in and they offer classes in that as well.

Then there's http://www.vingtsunaz.com/ - though it looks like @geezer's web site is down. I like his attitude and posts about training and FMA is one of my other top interests and I know he trains that as well. I get the impression that there might not be a lot of sparring at this school but I also get the impression that there would be no bad feelings if I wanted to cross train at an MMA gym or elsewhere. I don't know if he's still actively teaching or not but I think I might know where to get in touch to ask him...

Finally, there's a gentleman named Peter Pena who was teaching Hung Gar at one of the local community centers up until the pandemic hit. I did a little Internet research and it appears he's also supposed to be a legitimate instructor for Bak Mei and Lung Ying as well. Southern CMA's and Bak Mei in particular have been an interest of mine for a long time and of course both Bak Mei and Lung Ying are very hard to find. I don't know anything about Mr. Pena's training methods, though I get the impression he's very traditional, nor whether he's taking any new students but I plan to email him and see what the status of his classes is at this point.

As I said before, I'm just sort of entertaining myself and sorting through my options in anticipation of getting vaccinated and starting a new school. Any input would be welcome.

Thanks!

 

[Flying Crane]

Remind me what your background has been so far?

I can make any recommendations In Arizona, I just don’t have any experience with schools there. I have heard of Peter Pena, if I remember correctly he is a student of Bucksam Kong in LA. I suspect he is legit in Hung Ga but if he teaches Bak Mei and Lung Ying, I do t know his lineage. I would definitely check him out, those are systems I would find interesting.

 

[geezer]

...Then there's http://www.vingtsunaz.com/ - though it looks like @geezer's web site is down. I like his attitude and posts about training and FMA is one of my other top interests and I know he trains that as well. I get the impression that there might not be a lot of sparring at this school but I also get the impression that there would be no bad feelings if I wanted to cross train at an MMA gym or elsewhere. I don't know if he's still actively teaching or not but I think I might know where to get in touch to ask him...

I'm still training with a few guys privately. And I know a lot of the other guys in the area and can share opinions if you are interested. And, yeah, I support cross training.

 

[MetalBoar]

Remind me what your background has been so far?

I'm 50 now and have been doing MA off and on since I was about 16. I started in Aikido and a little Tang Soo Do. I did a lot of sport fencing in college and took it very seriously but couldn't find a school after I moved when I left school. Next I did a couple of years of Tracy's Kenpo and quit when my instructor left the school. Then I found a world class Hapkido instructor and trained with him for 5 years until his school closed. After that I had about a 10 year gap. Got back into things with kali and silat but that instructor developed health problems. Did some MMA (mostly Muay Thai, plus a little Sambo and BJJ) with a very skilled friend of mine but he lost access to his training space before I could get more than the basics. Had similar problems with boxing, it was hard to find quality instruction and then when I did the guy moved after just a few months. Scattered in over the years there's been more Aikido, a little Tai Chi, some WMA (rapier mainly) and few other things that didn't last for one reason or another. I'd finally found a really good Tai Chi instructor and had been training with him for about 18 months when the pandemic closed down his classes and then I had to move.

So, here I am. I'm not terribly skilled at anything anymore but I've got a very broad exposure to a number of styles. My cardio isn't what it was before the pandemic started and I've never been flexible but I'm an avid weight lifter and still in pretty good shape for my age. I'd love to find a good instructor teaching a style with enough depth that I could stick with - and of course they'd need to keep teaching for more than about 9 months!

I can make any recommendations In Arizona, I just don’t have any experience with schools there. I have heard of Peter Pena, if I remember correctly he is a student of Bucksam Kong in LA. I suspect he is legit in Hung Ga but if he teaches Bak Mei and Lung Ying, I do t know his lineage. I would definitely check him out, those are systems I would find interesting.

I saw a bio for Mr. Pena online that seemed to be current and accurate but I can't seem to find it again. I did find a very old thread here on Martial Talk with a bio (posted by a prospective student) of unknown accuracy. It says that he started Hung Gar with Master Yee Chi Wai and then continued his training with Master Y. C. Wong in San Francisco, trained in Bak Mei style under Master Kwong Man Fong, and Lung Ying and Mok Ga with Master Steve Martin in San Diego. From the thread: Need advice on choosing a school

 

[MetalBoar]

I'm still training with a few guys privately. And I know a lot of the other guys in the area and can share opinions if you are interested. And, yeah, I support cross training.

That's great and I appreciate it. I'd love to talk with you about your classes and who's who in the area.

Thanks!

 

[BrendanF]

Given your post I would recommend Ashe and ILQ. Check it out.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm 50 now and have been doing MA off and on since I was about 16. I started in Aikido and a little Tang Soo Do. I did a lot of sport fencing in college and took it very seriously but couldn't find a school after I moved when I left school. Next I did a couple of years of Tracy's Kenpo and quit when my instructor left the school. Then I found a world class Hapkido instructor and trained with him for 5 years until his school closed. After that I had about a 10 year gap. Got back into things with kali and silat but that instructor developed health problems. Did some MMA (mostly Muay Thai, plus a little Sambo and BJJ) with a very skilled friend of mine but he lost access to his training space before I could get more than the basics. Had similar problems with boxing, it was hard to find quality instruction and then when I did the guy moved after just a few months. Scattered in over the years there's been more Aikido, a little Tai Chi, some WMA (rapier mainly) and few other things that didn't last for one reason or another. I'd finally found a really good Tai Chi instructor and had been training with him for about 18 months when the pandemic closed down his classes and then I had to move.

So, here I am. I'm not terribly skilled at anything anymore but I've got a very broad exposure to a number of styles. My cardio isn't what it was before the pandemic started and I've never been flexible but I'm an avid weight lifter and still in pretty good shape for my age. I'd love to find a good instructor teaching a style with enough depth that I could stick with - and of course they'd need to keep teaching for more than about 9 months!


I saw a bio for Mr. Pena online that seemed to be current and accurate but I can't seem to find it again. I did find a very old thread here on Martial Talk with a bio (posted by a prospective student) of unknown accuracy. It says that he started Hung Gar with Master Yee Chi Wai and then continued his training with Master Y. C. Wong in San Francisco, trained in Bak Mei style under Master Kwong Man Fong, and Lung Ying and Mok Ga with Master Steve Martin in San Diego. From the thread: Need advice on choosing a school

I realized after I posted that Pena might actually be under Frank Yee on the East Coast. I wasn’t aware that he also trained under Y.C Wong in SF. I worked in SF Financial District for many years and would often take a lunchtime walk through Chinatown, not far from my office. I’ve walked past his school many many times. At any rate, those three guys, Bucksam Kong, Frank Yee, and Y.C. Wong, plus Wing Lam in Sunnyvale CA are all very senior, old-school hung ga guys. Wing Lam passed away a few years ago.

Tracy Kenpo was my beginnings in the martial arts, it’s what I earned my shodan in. I dont train it any more. I also did a bit of fencing in college for a physical.-Ed course. And have done a lot of Taiji over the years as well. I was looking at your member profile to see if you had listed your martial training, and happened to notice you were born exactly one month before I was. I’m starting to think you might be my dopple-ganger.

 

[MetalBoar]

Given your post I would recommend Ashe and ILQ. Check it out.

Have you trained in ILQ? What are your thoughts about the system?

Thanks!

 

[BrendanF]

Have you trained in ILQ? What are your thoughts about the system?

Thanks!

I have - one of my Wing Chun brothers left wc to start ILQ; he was one of the first in Oz to do ILQ and taught me some. I also went to a few seminars with Sam Chin. I was never a long term student though, so take my thoughts for what they're worth.

It seems to be a great 'internal' cma - if you're interested in Taijiquan or the like, I feel like the body skills are similar, and more directly taught. Lots of focus on structure and sensitivity, driven largely by their 'spinning hands' practice, which is akin to their version of WC's chi sau. They are great at 'pushing hands' or tui shou type work.

What I didn't like about it was the verbosity - while Sam Chin is an incredibly articulate gent, I felt like there was such a high ratio of signal/noise that it put me off somewhat. There is a lot of theoretical talk and instruction in convoluted and flowery terms (to my mind) where the real benefits of the art clearly come from the physical drills and two man work. I'm also not a huge fan of rou shou/tui shou/chi sau as an advanced training drill - I think those things only work well as introductory, minor aspects of a larger study. With that said, it's my understanding that of the 'neijia', ILQ has a decent amount of students competing in sanda and other competitive fora. There are a lot of youtube clips of ILQ folks out there, and reference material showing Sam Chin performing.

I hope that helps!

 

[MetalBoar]

I have - one of my Wing Chun brothers left wc to start ILQ; he was one of the first in Oz to do ILQ and taught me some. I also went to a few seminars with Sam Chin. I was never a long term student though, so take my thoughts for what they're worth.

It seems to be a great 'internal' cma - if you're interested in Taijiquan or the like, I feel like the body skills are similar, and more directly taught. Lots of focus on structure and sensitivity, driven largely by their 'spinning hands' practice, which is akin to their version of WC's chi sau. They are great at 'pushing hands' or tui shou type work.

What I didn't like about it was the verbosity - while Sam Chin is an incredibly articulate gent, I felt like there was such a high ratio of signal/noise that it put me off somewhat. There is a lot of theoretical talk and instruction in convoluted and flowery terms (to my mind) where the real benefits of the art clearly come from the physical drills and two man work. I'm also not a huge fan of rou shou/tui shou/chi sau as an advanced training drill - I think those things only work well as introductory, minor aspects of a larger study. With that said, it's my understanding that of the 'neijia', ILQ has a decent amount of students competing in sanda and other competitive fora. There are a lot of youtube clips of ILQ folks out there, and reference material showing Sam Chin performing.

I hope that helps!

Cool! That's good info, thanks!

 

[JowGaWolf]

Finally, there's a gentleman named Peter Pena who was teaching Hung Gar at one of the local community centers up until the pandemic hit. I did a little Internet research and it appears he's also supposed to be a legitimate instructor for Bak Mei and Lung Ying as well. Southern CMA's and Bak Mei in particular have been an interest of mine for a long time and of course both Bak Mei and Lung Ying are very hard to find. I don't know anything about Mr. Pena's training methods, though I get the impression he's very traditional, nor whether he's taking any new students but I plan to email him and see what the status of his classes is at this point.

Not sure about you but this would definitely be my choice.

 

[MetalBoar]

Not sure about you but this would definitely be my choice.

So, all things being equal I agree with you. I like what I've seen of Hung Gar and Bak Mei and Lung Ying have been at or near the top of my "wish list" for years. I definitely plan to get in touch with Mr. Pena and see if he's taking students and learn about his teaching philosophy. That "all things being equal" qualifier is there because I've run into more traditional CMA instructors who are teaching forms and don't have an interest (or perhaps the knowledge) to teach applications than I have those who want to teach a complete system. I know nothing about Mr. Pena's teaching style so this is nothing against him in particular, I've read some reports online that he's great, I'm just wary based on past experience. A big part of the reason for this post was hoping that I might get some feedback from people who have direct experience with some of these instructors to get a better feel for this sort of thing.

 

[JowGaWolf]

CMA instructors who are teaching forms and don't have an interest (or perhaps the knowledge) to teach applications than I have those who want to teach a complete system.

If the techniques are legit then you can learn some basic applications from there and figure alot of the other applications later.

 

[MetalBoar]

If the techniques are legit then you can learn some basic applications from there and figure alot of the other applications later.

You know, thanks to all your posts about your journey with Jow Ga, I was already giving this option some consideration if it turned out to be a very forms focused school. I'm not completely opposed to the idea but I'd like to go into it with my eyes open. In general, I'd just prefer to train in an environment where my interests and those of my instructor were in alignment and I feel pretty confident that there are instructors around here that are a good fit for my goals, teaching arts that I'd like to learn and I might prefer to study with them, even if I'm not quite as excited by their art, if this turns out not to be the best match in that regard.

On a related note, I have a lot of respect for the work you've been doing in this regard and find it inspiring.

 

[Flying Crane]

If the techniques are legit then you can learn some basic applications from there and figure alot of the other applications later.

I agree with this and I think it is kind of an important point. If the methodology is sound and you understand how the principles of power generation and rooting and application translate into the techniques, then how you use and apply it all kind of becomes intuitive and even obvious.

I do believe that there is a tendency to over-complicate things. Even to the point where we caution ourselves against over-complicating things while we are in the middle of doing just that. Application should be pretty direct. If there is extensive set-up required, you are probably over-complicating it. If you are planning out an eight-move combination and sequence, you are probably over-complicating it. If you intentionally put yourself into an odd and awkward position in order to apply a stylized technique or posture seen in a form, you are probably over-complicating it.

Chinese martial arts are an interesting thing because some of them include curriculum that can be complex, while application should be simple and direct. This can be a contradiction, but it can also make sense if you are looking at it In the right way. I have my own theory about this.

personally, I believe that forms are best viewed as a moving exercise meant to reinforce the foundational principles in a dynamic experience. When we practice our basics, one punch from the basic stances for example, that is a foundational level of training. When we begin to move while doing that same thing, stepping and punching, and punching in combinations, it becomes more difficult to maintain the foundation, to keep the rooting and power generation intact. This is a step up from basic foundation work. Forms are another step up because they tend to be more lengthy and complex yet, with a lot more movement. I see them as an exercise in increasing complexity of movement, meant to give you practice in maintaining the foundational principles within a dynamic and changing environment. But that is a training purpose and not necessarily an application purpose. Direct application can be found within the forms. Still other parts of the forms can reveal application if you kind of squint and look sideways at it just right. But I think that is entering the realm of over-complicated. I feel that application should come down to very simple and direct concepts and techniques, and forms training is primarily meant for reinforcement of those concepts, while also giving a vision of what is possible, that you can experiment with.

All of this takes effort on your own part. We in the West tend to expect a teacher to lay it all out for us. That tends to give faster results in the beginning, and one can go a long way with that. But I think there is greater ultimate potential when the student is given guidance with the directive to explore and see what makes sense. If a teacher is trying to take every piece of every form and show a direct application for it, I think their approach is not right and likely a lot of it will be over-complicated.

One’s mileage may vary.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I agree with this and I think it is kind of an important point. If the methodology is sound and you understand how the principles of power generation and rooting and application translate into the techniques, then how you use and apply it all kind of becomes intuitive and even obvious.

I do believe that there is a tendency to over-complicate things. Even to the point where we caution ourselves against over-complicating things while we are in the middle of doing just that. Application should be pretty direct. If there is extensive set-up required, you are probably over-complicating it. If you are planning out an eight-move combination and sequence, you are probably over-complicating it. If you intentionally put yourself into an odd and awkward position in order to apply a stylized technique or posture seen in a form, you are probably over-complicating it.

Chinese martial arts are an interesting thing because some of them include curriculum that can be complex, while application should be simple and direct. This can be a contradiction, but it can also make sense if you are looking at it In the right way. I have my own theory about this.

personally, I believe that forms are best viewed as a moving exercise meant to reinforce the foundational principles in a dynamic experience. When we practice our basics, one punch from the basic stances for example, that is a foundational level of training. When we begin to move while doing that same thing, stepping and punching, and punching in combinations, it becomes more difficult to maintain the foundation, to keep the rooting and power generation intact. This is a step up from basic foundation work. Forms are another step up because they tend to be more lengthy and complex yet, with a lot more movement. I see them as an exercise in increasing complexity of movement, meant to give you practice in maintaining the foundational principles within a dynamic and changing environment. But that is a training purpose and not necessarily an application purpose. Direct application can be found within the forms. Still other parts of the forms can reveal application if you kind of squint and look sideways at it just right. But I think that is entering the realm of over-complicated. I feel that application should come down to very simple and direct concepts and techniques, and forms training is primarily meant for reinforcement of those concepts, while also giving a vision of what is possible, that you can experiment with.

All of this takes effort on your own part. We in the West tend to expect a teacher to lay it all out for us. That tends to give faster results in the beginning, and one can go a long way with that. But I think there is greater ultimate potential when the student is given guidance with the directive to explore and see what makes sense. If a teacher is trying to take every piece of every form and show a direct application for it, I think their approach is not right and likely a lot of it will be over-complicated.

One’s mileage may vary.

In terms of understanding forms, techniques, and applications. I would like to add this: Keep an open mind and get used to exploring possibilities. You'll discover, if you have not already done so, that the applications that are correct, are often the ones that make the most sense. Remember to put everything into context. If the application is awkward then it's problem incorrect, which sometimes means that it's being viewed out of context.

 

[_Simon_]

personally, I believe that forms are best viewed as a moving exercise meant to reinforce the foundational principles in a dynamic experience.

This... yep! Love how you expressed it

 

[MetalBoar]

I agree with this and I think it is kind of an important point. If the methodology is sound and you understand how the principles of power generation and rooting and application translate into the techniques, then how you use and apply it all kind of becomes intuitive and even obvious.

I do believe that there is a tendency to over-complicate things. Even to the point where we caution ourselves against over-complicating things while we are in the middle of doing just that. Application should be pretty direct. If there is extensive set-up required, you are probably over-complicating it. If you are planning out an eight-move combination and sequence, you are probably over-complicating it. If you intentionally put yourself into an odd and awkward position in order to apply a stylized technique or posture seen in a form, you are probably over-complicating it.

Chinese martial arts are an interesting thing because some of them include curriculum that can be complex, while application should be simple and direct. This can be a contradiction, but it can also make sense if you are looking at it In the right way. I have my own theory about this.

personally, I believe that forms are best viewed as a moving exercise meant to reinforce the foundational principles in a dynamic experience. When we practice our basics, one punch from the basic stances for example, that is a foundational level of training. When we begin to move while doing that same thing, stepping and punching, and punching in combinations, it becomes more difficult to maintain the foundation, to keep the rooting and power generation intact. This is a step up from basic foundation work. Forms are another step up because they tend to be more lengthy and complex yet, with a lot more movement. I see them as an exercise in increasing complexity of movement, meant to give you practice in maintaining the foundational principles within a dynamic and changing environment. But that is a training purpose and not necessarily an application purpose. Direct application can be found within the forms. Still other parts of the forms can reveal application if you kind of squint and look sideways at it just right. But I think that is entering the realm of over-complicated. I feel that application should come down to very simple and direct concepts and techniques, and forms training is primarily meant for reinforcement of those concepts, while also giving a vision of what is possible, that you can experiment with.

All of this takes effort on your own part. We in the West tend to expect a teacher to lay it all out for us. That tends to give faster results in the beginning, and one can go a long way with that. But I think there is greater ultimate potential when the student is given guidance with the directive to explore and see what makes sense. If a teacher is trying to take every piece of every form and show a direct application for it, I think their approach is not right and likely a lot of it will be over-complicated.

One’s mileage may vary.

I think this is good information and I would agree with you. For the record, I'm not opposed to forms training and I'm most definitely in favor of exploring and experimenting from a base in foundational principles to really understand application. When I express concerns about "forms focused" schools it isn't because I am opposed to forms training, but rather because I've had some experiences with schools that focused on forms pretty much to the exclusion of all else and at the same time wanted to restrict their students in training outside the school. If the instructor isn't going to provide an environment that is conducive to exploring the martial applications of the art and is also going to be offended if the student ever wants to find an environment outside of the school to explore the martial applications of the art then that represents a non starter for me.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think this is good information and I would agree with you. For the record, I'm not opposed to forms training and I'm most definitely in favor of exploring and experimenting from a base in foundational principles to really understand application. When I express concerns about "forms focused" schools it isn't because I am opposed to forms training, but rather because I've had some experiences with schools that focused on forms pretty much to the exclusion of all else and at the same time wanted to restrict their students in training outside the school. If the instructor isn't going to provide an environment that is conducive to exploring the martial applications of the art and is also going to be offended if the student ever wants to find an environment outside of the school to explore the martial applications of the art then that represents a non starter for me.

Understood, and a very reasonable position to take.

my system has a fairly large forms curriculum and we do end up spending a lot of time on it. But Sifu says, if you just want to be able to fight effectively then he can teach that in a year, with no forms. Forms are definitely not a requirement to be an effective martial artist.

my feelings: from my experience and the forms in my system, I like them. But they are one tool of many. They are useful to train. But if you don’t have them, or don’t have all of them, or even half of them in the system, you arent missing anything as long as you’d foundations are solid and you understand the principles.

I like them. I don’t need them. They are useful. If you don’t have them, You aren’t missing anything.

how is that for a contradiction?

 

[MetalBoar]

Understood, and a very reasonable position to take.

my system has a fairly large forms curriculum and we do end up spending a lot of time on it. But Sifu says, if you just want to be able to fight effectively then he can teach that in a year, with no forms. Forms are definitely not a requirement to be an effective martial artist.

my feelings: from my experience and the forms in my system, I like them. But they are one tool of many. They are useful to train. But if you don’t have them, or don’t have all of them, or even half of them in the system, you arent missing anything as long as you’d foundations are solid and you understand the principles.

I like them. I don’t need them. They are useful. If you don’t have them, You aren’t missing anything.

how is that for a contradiction?

Yep, stance training, forms, two person drills, tui shou, etc. can all be useful tools and none of them individually are sufficient or necessary to learn how to fight. I'm not even convinced that sparring (as many define it anyway) is necessary or sufficient, just another very useful tool and one that's harder to replace than many others.

Tracy Kenpo was my beginnings in the martial arts, it’s what I earned my shodan in. I dont train it any more. I also did a bit of fencing in college for a physical.-Ed course. And have done a lot of Taiji over the years as well. I was looking at your member profile to see if you had listed your martial training, and happened to notice you were born exactly one month before I was. I’m starting to think you might be my dopple-ganger.

On another note, looking at your signature it appears we have the same first name as well!