Wing Chun Sparring

[anerlich]

It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts".

I definitely disagree WC is "more scientific". Only someone who has not studied multiple arts at a reasonably high level and swallows the advertising uncritically would say that. Jiu Jitsu can be as scientific as it gets. Not everyone pursues either style at or to that level, of course.

I agree it requires more precision than most. Which I see as a weakness as much as a strength. Other styles are arguably more forgiving of minor errors, which are inevitable in the fog of war.

 

[Juany118]

The movements are there. You say "How it is used in practice and a curriculum of teaching can often be two VERY different things". I say why? It's contradictory to the theory of the art, simple, direct, efficient to practice a movement in one manner & apply in another.

This is true of almost all TMAs, though some, as illustrated by the Crane photo I showed, are even more obvious than WC. I also explained elsewhere why. Fighting is dynamic and under huge pressure, training (especially today) is far less so because they don't want students hospitalized regularly. That is why I say it's about learning to "feel" in the perfect structure because you can "feel" that in structures that would not be seen as obviously "WC" but that one may assume in a dynamic encounter. The later I have, regrettably, experience with

Arts are no different today, you get back what you put in. My argument is to train smarter not harder as a means of compensation.

And that is subjective. I actually find WC order to be quite smart, logical and orderly. The difference is when do you expect gratification?

You stated "To try and learn to do a proper tan or bong while also moving would actually create more headaches imo". I disagree, many of the techniques in WC are used in many arts, both north & south, who perform the actions while moving when learning them. Through practice they are perfected. They are not perfected first then practiced.

Saying, essentially, that other arts did it a different way doesn't mean that WC's method is inherently flawed, only that it is a step by step, paint by numbers method that may not "work" for you. For me it works very well. All the time at work while interviewing subjects I say "okay slow down and please answer my questions, don't elaborate, I need you do go A, B, C, D, E etc."

"It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts". Again I disagree. Tai Chi is very profound, as is Ba Gua, Hsing Yi, Long Fist, Southern Mantis, Northern Mantis etc. WC is not unique in strategy, theory or technique but in approach. An approach that we have seen all to often fail under pressure. The question is why?

I am not talking about how it actually works. All martial arts are based on biomechanics and thus science. BUT if you look at the training method... as I elaborated on by breaking down the first three steps, it is. The others often use a more philosophical approach.

When these other arts are pressure tested, aside from Tai Chi, they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. We need to understand why. I have voiced my opinion as to why, but am countered with the same old rhetoric that doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

Well as I said elsewhere, where are our sources for the alleged breakdown? I have seen videos labeled as WC that later after research I verified were not WC at all (simply one example.) Second we are confronted with the idea of was it really a breakdown because at this point there is so much divergence between some lineages that I have seen people say "that wasn't WC..." or "their structure broke down.." only to see another reliable person say "that is what my lineage looks like." Hell I have had people say just the BJ form of my Lineage isn't WC.

You said "Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective". Many have, yet, as the topic of this thread discusses, why do they then resort to "Sloppy Kickboxing"?

See above but refined, is it "sloppy kick boxing", or whatever, if a persons body, through a different alignment achieved the exact same "feel" of grounding and support for attack and defense? I posted earlier videos of Sifu Jerry Devone in MUSU. A LOT of people would say that wasn't WC, but sloppy kickboxing. In my Lineage it was what honest to goodness good WC can look like in a real fight.

Especially if the method of instruction is superior? My response all along, and I have been consistent, is that it isn't. Many have agreed with my assessment, or at least agreed that they were worth considering, only to later retract by spouting the same old rhetoric that the methodological approach is superior, without actually countering any point I've made.

I for one dont say WC is a superior art or that it's method of construction is superior. I just say it's different. Before I became a Soldier and then a LEO I was a History Secondary Ed Major. The number of methods of education just for academics is vast. They work better or worse often because of the student and what the goal is. If your goal is "learn to fight with only WC now" WC's method is indeed questionable. If the goal is "when I graduate I will be a dang good WC fighter" then the method works.

How is the current manner in which WC is taught, superior to the manner in which nearly all other CMAs are taught?

see above

When the majority of evidence suggests otherwise. Ex. WC straight punch taught from goat stance vs. Boxing straight right taught from fighting stance.

That isn't how I am taught. We do SLT at the beginning of class (you should also do that at home) but after that we do drills with foot work and movement. The strikes and defenses all applied from fighting stance. Heck Sifu says "be a good training partner, zone, use footwork, don't stand there like a log." SLT is to teach the principles. To teach the proper angles, breathing, etc. That is why I said when you move to the following forms it's easier, you should have already been using foot work in training before to move to the forms that follow SLT. (maybe this is limited to GM Cheungs TWC I don't know).

How is WC supposed to be a simple streamlined art that is supposed to take little time to learn, when it is proven that quicker results can be had with other methods? Ex. WC basics taught in SLT while in goat stance vs. Boxing basics. Which one are you going to be able to use right away? Both can later be refined via structure and delivery.

Because historically, hell today, you don't start sending people to war until they have completed training. In the context of WC, previously it took over a decade to turn a person into what was considered a "competent" martial artist. Typically a martial artist (as opposed to a mere soldier, soldiers amounting to cannon fodder) began training as children and were not seen as "competent" until their late teens/early 20s. WC was about taking 10-15 years and making it ~5 years. This seems odd today but it is the nature of the era and it is something that must be considered.

Is maintaining WC structure so important that people will sacrifice practical utility in order to prove effectiveness of a particular technique or method?

Well I never said that. As a matter of fact more than once to KPM I said perfect structure is a training tool so that you can learn how your body should "feel" when fighting. Once you learn to "feel" you can fight using the principles without the picture perfect structure.

Many that are successful with WC are so because it is not the first art they were trained in. Which was my point that WC is not an art for beginners and is truly an art of refinement. An art that elevates beyond "Sloppy Kickboxing", but IMO requires a firm foundation to chip and mold into something better.

Indeed but there are also students who did very well in WC because they lacked the preconceptions of other arts and managed to have an open mind as well.

The legends state that WC was developed to counter traditional Siu Lam methods. It was never mentioned how this was to be accomplished. By looking at the various lineages we can see everyone has a different approach. Which leads me to believe that "How" wasn't necessarily passed on or perhaps forgotten, as WC evolved. Training in Ku Lao is a clue as it harkens back to how the art appeared when it was first concueved.

Some legends yes but not all and that is the thing about legends, drawing the fact from the fiction.

 

[Jake104]

The way I was taught is that ALL the forms are simply teaching you letters of the WC alphabet. Drills teach basic, small, short "words" or vocab. Use the letters as you see fit, with the goal being to use them within the WC principles and guidelines.
So, when an adversary attacks you, create the shortest WC word you can as your response. If your response contains letters from SLT, BJ, and pole...who cares...so long as the bad guy is headed to the emergency room and you are not.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

This is how I learned also.. The 'Intellectuals' are the ones who feel a need to pontificate with the intent to over complicate a martial art which is historically known for its simplicity........(Wow I hope I pulled that one off with themz big wordz)

Anyhow IMO, they loose focus of what the goal is or was....fighting! K.I.S.S... Train and you'll see (Mr OP) that you may answer your own questions?.. In correct training, comes answers.. hopefully???

 

[Juany118]

I didn't say it was just qigong. Some people say it can be used for qigong. I was taking issue with the assertion that it is taught first to instill aggression.

"People all too often forget" - really? Who exactly? I usually do the SLT pretty damn slow myself. I prefer the maxim "slow is smooth, and smooth is fast", but ... whatever.

All the forms are integral parts of WC. Well, maybe not Koo Loo (sp?). I never said otherwise.

I'm not sure about "forward intent", though. I think you need chi sao, contact, to develop that.

Does anyone not practice or teach basic stepping and punching at the same time they are teaching SLT? I get introductory lesson peeps to step and punch mitts on day one because IMO this gives them the idea of integrating the entire body behind a punch. And, yes, forward intent.

See my previous answer regarding my meaning behind scientific (its not regarding the art itself, rather the structure of the forms as a teaching method). I agree with the last statement, my lineage indeed teaches foot work while learning SLT. That is why I say that the learning curve can be seen as front weighted, but once past the initial hump it becomes easier because you start learning forms with foot work, after you have already been using techniques with footwork.

As for forward intent, when we are learning SLT we are taught constantly how when even simply a tan we should be focusing on the forward intent, the focal point being the elbow. It is essentially the introduction to everything in WC, including forward intent.

The idea of "can't do it slow..." was not necessarily focused at you, apologies for not clarifying that. However often I often see people who really have it down blasting through it as if to say "look at me", they begin to miss the point. SLT is about a lot more than simply the hand and arm movements. Some people miss that but I did not mean you.

 

[Juany118]

The way I was taught is that ALL the forms are simply teaching you letters of the WC alphabet. Drills teach basic, small, short "words" or vocab. Use the letters as you see fit, with the goal being to use them within the WC principles and guidelines.
So, when an adversary attacks you, create the shortest WC word you can as your response. If your response contains letters from SLT, BJ, and pole...who cares...so long as the bad guy is headed to the emergency room and you are not.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

And this is essentially how I am taught. I think the debate has ventured into the land of "due the forms teach the rules of the language in an order that allows the student to start communicating as well as it could?" I don't think it's a big issue myself. Others do but I think its because

1. there are a retarded number of different lineages with different curriculums, all of which claim to be Yip Man Lineage to boot.
2. There are then different Sifus that use their own methods within the limits of their Lineage. Example, my Sifu admittedly teaches from the attitude of "I used this to fight people trying to kill or beat my on the street as a LE Operator and I teach Federal Agents now." This may have created a different learning environment for me.
3. people think YouTube is actually representative of reality without actually knowing the context.

 

[anerlich]

My first KF instructor taught me that all forms were "to give you a vocabulary of techniques". Another metaphor I like is that of toolboxes.

I have to ask myself sometimes whether the "deeper" and "more subtle" aspects of the forms, let alone the sequence in which they are taught, are more than figments of overactive imagination, and the result of searching desperately for meaning and significance that isn't actually there. I still don't know the answer, but believe a healthy scepticism is the appropriate attitude.

 

[anerlich]

This may have created a different learning environment for me.

Maybe, maybe not. Most of my KF instructors consulted to law enforcement or the military at various times. I regularly do seminars with a 5th degree BJJ black belt who has and continues to consult to police and military in Australia and overseas. I did a seminar last Saturday with Dave Camarillo, who teaches BJJ and combatives and regularly consults with LE agencies.

 

[anerlich]

people think YouTube is actually representative of reality without actually knowing the context.

This only seems to be a problem with TMAs. After a few years training you can pick up lots of good BJJ info from Youtube and slot it right in to what you do.

 

[anerlich]

See my previous answer

Read it already, bro. Nothing changes.

 

[Juany118]

Maybe, maybe not. Most of my KF instructors consulted to law enforcement or the military at various times. I regularly do seminars with a 5th degree BJJ black belt who has and continues to consult to police and military in Australia and overseas. I did a seminar last Saturday with Dave Camarillo, who teaches BJJ and combatives and regularly consults with LE agencies.

All I really meant was to say "my instructor has used WC in actual encounters and made it work. When you have experience in making an art work in real street fights you may have a different method of instruction based on the practical experience."

 

[Juany118]

Read it already, bro. Nothing changes.

So you don't see a difference in teaching methodology, some being more "organic" vs others being more "scientific" or perhaps a better word is "logic" based?

 

[Juany118]

This only seems to be a problem with TMAs. After a few years training you can pick up lots of good BJJ info from Youtube and slot it right in to what you do.

And I think this is because most TMA instructors don't pressure test. They focus on the A of "MA" far more than the "M". There are a couple WC instructors who have good stuff on youtube imo. I will PM ya them if you want but every time I post their names people tend to come out of the woodwork saying "thats not WC!!!!!!" and I am trying to dodge that atm as enough is already being debated.

 

[Juany118]

A thought this thread brought to mind. It seems to revolve around more than a couple threads. Would we be well served if we started a thread about "why do so many TMA's instructors not pressure test the way they should so the student can turn what they learn into a "street" art?" There are instructors who do but they seem to be the exception and not the rule.

 

[anerlich]

All I really meant was to say "my instructor has used WC in actual encounters and made it work. When you have experience in making an art work in real street fights you may have a different method of instruction based on the practical experience."

You ain't Robinson Crusoe there, either. Not trying to start a dick measuring contest, just pointing out a lot of old timers really did test this stuff out in various arenas. In a lot of ways going down this road is just an appeal to authority or experience, logical fallacies.

 

[anerlich]

So you don't see a difference in teaching methodology, some being more "organic" vs others being more "scientific" or perhaps a better word is "logic" based?

I see a difference.

Not sure that the usual WC curriculum with respect to forms falls into either category. I'd say 99.9999% of instructors teach the way they do because that's the way their seniors did it, and then look for reasons to call it scientific or logical to justify their choice, or non-choice, afterwards. Under the constraints of a large organisation with many schools your choices may be restricted, in any case.

Arguably, doing something the way it was done before which worked is somewhat evidence based. Not everyone has the time or inclination to experiment, study theories of education, etc. to a deep level. you could argue using students as pedagogical guinea pigs is marginally unethical. Tradition is arguably a safe approach, and one that often works to a large degree

 

[Juany118]

You ain't Robinson Crusoe there, either. Not trying to start a dick measuring contest, just pointing out a lot of old timers really did test this stuff out in various arenas. In a lot of ways going down this road is just an appeal to authority or experience, logical fallacies.

Oh I know but these instructors seem to be the exception in TMA these days. That's all I meant. Since I don't know the education of the other people here (I know yours now) I don't know how this difference may be impacting my experience of WC vs others. Sorry if it seems like I was "whipping it out" just trying to avoid my typical wall of text posts.

 

[Nobody Important]

I definitely disagree WC is "more scientific". Only someone who has not studied multiple arts at a reasonably high level and swallows the advertising uncritically would say that. Jiu Jitsu can be as scientific as it gets. Not everyone pursues either style at or to that level, of course.

I agree it requires more precision than most. Which I see as a weakness as much as a strength. Other styles are arguably more forgiving of minor errors, which are inevitable in the fog of war.

I agree with you and stated as much in my post. The quote you pulled was JUANY118.

 

[anerlich]

I agree with you and stated as much in my post. The quote you pulled was JUANY118.

My apologies, that was my mistake.

 

[Juany118]

I agree with you and stated as much in my post. The quote you pulled was JUANY118.

And I am not referring to WC as an executed art either, only to the manner in which I have been instructed. I think my teacher training may be coming out unconsciously and so I am not more firmly delineating the line between practice and instruction, the later as I have experienced.

 

[drop bear]

A thought this thread brought to mind. It seems to revolve around more than a couple threads. Would we be well served if we started a thread about "why do so many TMA's instructors not pressure test the way they should so the student can turn what they learn into a "street" art?" There are instructors who do but they seem to be the exception and not the rule.

do deadly to spar.

whole new thread resolved.