Hey guys,
I think the following link has a lot of ving tsun principles in it and hey that single collar tie looks like something we have in our mook jong form
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw04qkqTeZs
Sorry just a quick edit.
For anyone who saw that clip would you say that’s bad ving tsun?
It’s dumog [FMA]
been doing that stuff for years , got it from Vu , has VT priciples and we do ‘‘chi sau’’ off the neck for rounds , also includes the clinch , head butts knees elbows and takedowns ,eye gouge and biting in that range with those clinch positions
stuff is a must with my group , more ''street common positions and energy ‘’
but i would not call it wing chun , since the body mechanics and conditioning needed to control and fire effective strikes is not the same . 
[QUOTE=Jeff Bussey;750151]Hey guys,
I think the following link has a lot of ving tsun principles in it and hey that single collar tie looks like something we have in our mook jong form
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw04qkqTeZs[/QUOTE]
That is a basic wrestling head control tie up, modified for MMA.
That’s probably the first tie-up most high school wrestlers learn.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750131]Positioning is a key or core skill in BJJ, no argument there. But positioning is not a concept or a principle: it is an essential skill in playing that game. [/QUOTE]
I disagree.
Positioning is the principle. The principle is getting to the best position to give you the most control.
The skill is getting, holding, and/or improving positioning.
[QUOTE=Jeff Bussey;750101]Hey Knifefighter
what do you mean by it’s a better defensive than offensive system?
J[/QUOTE]
I think it is better to use the techs and principles on the outside to keep the opponent away.
[QUOTE=Jeff Bussey;750147]Hey Terence
My point was that the core is based on principles, just like in your example above to get into the proper position is a skill which you’ll get no argument there from me, but that skill is based on principles. I’m talking if you strip everything away, from any sport or martial art it’s core is the principles, and it’s how you apply those principles (skill) that matter.
[/QUOTE]
Principles/concepts are only ideas, mental constructs; they are not physical skills. Riding a bike is a skill, and like any skill you learn and develop it by doing it. Principles/concepts can help (though you don’t need them) a novice learn or develop a skill, that’s all. Martial arts are no different than any other sport/athletic activity, so it’s not a good idea to think about them differently. Theoretician nonfighters love concepts because they are not doing the activity. And they always have lots of ideas/concpets of how things should work.
Just like in basketball, when you have to move around another player. They’ve taught you to pivot way back when you first started learning, it’s mainly on the ball of the foot and that’s the principle, but how you apply it is your skill level. You look in one direction, pivot in the other to pass or whatever. That skill is based on the principle of pivoting on the ball of your foot in combination with other elements of course.
Your way of viewing “principles” is all-inclusive: anything and everything could be a “principle” by your way of thinking. What you are talking about above is not a principle, it is simply function (what you must do for it to work). Try pivoting on some other part of your foot and you’ll see it just doesn’t work (certainly not as well). This is the result of over-thinking the process, of intellectualizing it. If you just play basketball, you’ll naturally find out how to pivot properly.
There are so many things wrong with the so-called “conceptual model view” of WCK that I don’t know where to begin. Let’s just say that WCK, like boxing or wrestling, is not a “conceptual martial art” and is not “conceptually-based”, they are skill-based activities. The principle or concept won’t lead you to skill – doing the activity leads you to skill.
I suppose one could say everything is based on some idea, but I don’t think this really gets us far. In fact, much skill in any fighitng method is developed implicitly – from practice without conscious direction (reference to some condept). Experts often don’t even realize they are doing certain things as they have developed them unconsciously from practice (experience).
Now you brought up judgement, which again is another big factor for sure. Poor judgement could have you end up somewhere that you don’t want to be. Good judgement comes from experience, hands down, experience comes from practice, practice comes from applying a learned set or drill or technique which is based on a principle.
Sets, drills, techniques are to learn and/or develop skills – means of achieving some objective with max certainty with min time and/or energy or some other physical attribute. For example, punching, like throwing a ball, is a skill/ability, it is not a principle. You learn it and develop it by doing it, getting feedback, refining it, etc. Intellectualizing the process only hinders the process.
A huge problem I’ve found with the “concept” people is that they always have a concept or idea, but it is usually a silly idea, and they spend their time chasing their idea of how things should work instead of just doing the activity. More often than not, their concepts - how things should work - get in the way of their development. They become blinders. Don’t concern yourself with the concepts, concern yourself with playing the game.
When we look at other athletic activites/sports, even the combatvie ones, we hear references here and there to concepts, but they are not the big deals that “martial” artists make them out to be.
As for your final outcome not following a general principle I’m not sure if that’s really the case. It may not ‘look’ picture perfect but for the most part if you analyze whatever it is, I’m willing to bet it does. The thing with principles and concepts is that they’re not tangible which means because they’re not rigid, it’s easier to conform to a principle than it is to go against one.
My whole thing is that the ving tsun’s principles and concepts work.
Go fight Crocop and show us. Oh, what? They don’t work agaisnt Crocop? Or, you are not able to make them work against Cropcop? It’s not a matter of “principles and concepts” of any particular method working – whomever is better skilled will win. Skills come from performance, not concepts or principles. From performance, we see what works, what doesn’t work, etc.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;750192]I disagree.
Positioning is the principle. The principle is getting to the best position to give you the most control.
The skill is getting, holding, and/or improving positioning.[/QUOTE]
Positioning as you are talking about it is a strategy.
Ernie and Knifefighter,
That wasn’t a wing chun clip but it did follow a lot of the wing chun principles. I just put it up to illustrate some of my points.
Ernie you’re right the body mechanics are slightly different and that’s where it differentiates. As for conditioning though, that’s not at the root or core of wing chun. Not saying that’s it’s not needed, just trying to strip away everything and looking at the basics.
J
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;750194]I think it is better to use the techs and principles on the outside to keep the opponent away.[/QUOTE]
I’ll agree with that. It is one of our idioms to try and stay on the outside.
J
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750131]Positioning is a key or core skill in BJJ, no argument there. But positioning is not a concept or a principle: it is an essential skill in playing that game. If you can’t get good position, you can’t play the game well. Dribbling is an essential or core skill in basketball – you can’t move the ball well if you don’t dribble, and if you can’t move the ball, you can’t play well. It’s a skill, not a concept/principle.
Beginners may use “principles” to help them in the beginning but as they get better, more and more they rely on experience (IMO). Beginners don’t know how to move, why to move, what opportunites open when you do this or that, etc. So they need something to guide them in their movements. That something are general rules (principles or concepts). These general rules are distilled from other more experienced practitioners’ experience (who find that if you generally do this or that, it will increase your chances in the game). As beginners get more and more into the game, and earn their own experience, these general rules will be unnecessary.
As I see it, concepts/principles are at best a starting point from which to begin earning our experience. From that experience, we develop judgment. It’s our judgment that tells us what to do, when to do it, etc. A expert in an area (in our case, a good fighter) doesn’t do soemthing because it conforms to some general principle; he does it because in his judgment, forged from loads of actual experience, he has found that is the best way to go for him. And very often, that may even be contrary to the “general principle.”[/QUOTE]
I very much disagree. No offence meant but, how do you know an ‘expert’ doesn’t do something because it conforms to a principle? You are not in thier shoes, so you cannot speak from any experience but your own. Unless you are saying you ARE an expert? sometimes you come off as trying to portray one 
What I think you are missing is it’s the PRINCIPLES (and/or concepts) that GUIDE the person to the proper position. IMO it’s identifying these principles and staying with them can greatly decrease learning time (in the example of a beginner), and it’s the understanding of these that give the ‘expert’ the edge - whether or not they can readily identify the principles, they are still there.
And, I feel Experience = increased skill. I don’t feel the principles just ‘dissapear’ once a certain skill is reached - they are still right there. To use your terminology, the ‘rules’ haven’t changed - you can’t ‘cheat’ nature.
‘IMMHHHHOOO’ (I always wanted to type that) it’s the principles that guide us through what we do if we do things correctly. That doesn’t mean someone always has the ability to identify them and say “see, that is why this works!”
Jonathan
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;750210]I very much disagree. No offence meant but, how do you know an ‘expert’ doesn’t do something because it conforms to a principle? You are not in thier shoes, so you cannot speak from any experience but your own. Unless you are saying you ARE an expert? sometimes you come off as trying to portray one
What I think you are missing is it’s the PRINCIPLES (and/or concepts) that GUIDE the person to the proper position. IMO it’s identifying these principles and staying with them can greatly decrease learning time (in the example of a beginner), and it’s the understanding of these that give the ‘expert’ the edge - whether or not they can readily identify the principles, they are still there.
And, I feel Experience = increased skill. I don’t feel the principles just ‘dissapear’ once a certain skill is reached - they are still right there. To use your terminology, the ‘rules’ haven’t changed - you can’t ‘cheat’ nature.
‘IMMHHHHOOO’ (I always wanted to type that) it’s the principles that guide us through what we do if we do things correctly. That doesn’t mean someone always has the ability to identify them and say “see, that is why this works!”
Jonathan[/QUOTE]
Johnathan, no offense taken.
In my view, concepts/principles are ideas, general ideas of what to do, how to do it, etc. A novice doesn’t know – from experience – what to do, how to do it, etc. so giving them general ideas can be a way to help them along ("generally, you want to do this, etc.). As they get experience, they will find how things really are for them, how they need to move to make things work, what they need to do to make things work, etc. These will be very individualized (as all open skill activities are). They will be doing them NOT because they conform to some general idea (principle), but because they get results for them.
A serious problem with the “concept” approach is people do exactly waht you say to do – keep sticking to their principles. They pursue principles instead of results. You see, I don’t do something because it conforms to some principle, I do it because it gets me the best results (for me).
Let me use an example, the principle or concept of moving away from the rear hand. This is a common one, used in boxing, Crazy Monkey, TWC, etc. And it’s based on a good idea: moving away from the opponent’s power hand makes it more difficult for him to land a power shot, if he does hit you it’s when you’re moving away from the strike, etc. Fine and dandy. It gives a beginning fighter an idea of how to move. But with experience, he’ll see the limitations. There are times when moving straight in will work better. He’ll find that if he always moves a certain way, that he becomes predictable. And so on. So he’ll begin to move in ways he finds works best for him. He’ll develop his own individual way of moving and no longer be moving to adhere to some principle. Wasn’t it Bruce who said, learn the principle, abide by the principle, dissolve the principle? The principle is a tool to take you to a certain point; once you reach that point, the tool becomes a liability.
When you mentioned “Nature” you hit the crux of the problem – people see these principles as “laws of the universe”. They’re not. They’re general rules of thumb. And many times these “principles” aren’t even based on the experience of really good fighters, they’re silly things nonfighting theoreticians dream up or derive from unrealistic practice. Be guided by results, not principle.
IME, and from what I have observed working and talking wtih good people, generally (the principle) the less theory you have the better.
Hey Terence
Principles/concepts are only ideas, mental constructs; they are not physical skills.
Riding a bike is a skill, and like any skill you learn and develop it by doing it. Principles/concepts can help (though you don’t need them) a novice learn or develop a skill, that’s all. Martial arts are no different than any other sport/athletic activity, so it’s not a good idea to think about them differently. Theoretician nonfighters love concepts because they are not doing the activity. And they always have lots of ideas/concpets of how things should work.
>I never said they were physical skills, I said they develop into them. They’re also not >my ideas/concepts. I actually wish they were because I’d make a killing selling >them.
Your way of viewing “principles” is all-inclusive: anything and everything could be a “principle” by your way of thinking.
>Nope. But anything and everything is probably based on a principle.
Try pivoting on some other part of your foot and you’ll see it just doesn’t work (certainly not as well). This is the result of over-thinking the process, of intellectualizing it. If you just play basketball, you’ll naturally find out how to pivot properly.
I just used pivoting as an example it may have been a poor example. But one thing is for sure people who haven’t been taught to pivot versus someone who has been taught to pivot will more than likely do it better than just the person who plays. It’s like me when I was a kid playing street hockey against the guys who were on actual ice hockey teams. They’ve been taught all of the fundamentals and running circles around me.
The principle or concept won’t lead you to skill
Actually that’s exactly where it leads you
– doing the activity leads you to skill.
doing the activity develops your skill
I suppose one could say everything is based on some idea, but I don’t think this really gets us far.
right. I’m just going back and forth for fun. My initial question was what is wrong with wing chun principles and concepts
A huge problem I’ve found with the “concept” people is that they always have a concept or idea, but it is usually a silly idea, and they spend their time chasing their idea of how things should work instead of just doing the activity. More often than not, their concepts - how things should work - get in the way of their development. They become blinders. Don’t concern yourself with the concepts, concern yourself with playing the game.
People making up their own ideas and concepts is one thing, but I’m talking about wing chun’s. I do agree that there are too many people thinking too much about things
When we look at other athletic activites/sports, even the combatvie ones, we hear references here and there to concepts, but they are not the big deals that “martial” artists make them out to be.
This is probably due to the fact that martial arts in general attracts ego maniacs. Want to be the centre of attention type of people, either that or they’re the quiet sheep who do as they’re told (Lurkers vs posters on a forum)
Go fight Crocop and show us. Oh, what? They don’t work agaisnt Crocop? Or, you are not able to make them work against Cropcop? It’s not a matter of “principles and concepts” of any particular method working – whomever is better skilled will win. Skills come from performance, not concepts or principles. From performance, we see what works, what doesn’t work, etc.
[COLOR=“rgb(154, 205, 50)”]Done. I’m calling him right now but he’s not picking up. I’ll try again later.
Until then though, I think my inability to beat “crocop” has more to do with me and not wing chun or in other words my wing chun. That’s a complete guess though.
Again my whole thing is what’s wrong with the wing chun principles
other than the principles trying to beat up a professional fighter [/COLOR]
I’ve obviously messed something up and suck at the interweb but you’ll get my points
J
One thing I have to give you Terrance, you sure are entertaining - I’m dying over here!
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750195]Principles/concepts are only ideas, mental constructs; they are not physical skills. Riding a bike is a skill, and like any skill you learn and develop it by doing it. Principles/concepts can help (though you don’t need them) a novice learn or develop a skill, that’s all. Martial arts are no different than any other sport/athletic activity, so it’s not a good idea to think about them differently. Theoretician nonfighters love concepts because they are not doing the activity. And they always have lots of ideas/concpets of how things should work. [/QUOTE]
I’m curious, can you name some ‘Theoretician nonfighters’ that are ‘not doing the activity’? Are you speaking from direct experience, or are you just making assumptions? if experience, I would love a more in-depth explenation of what and WHO you are referring too
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750195]There are so many things wrong with the so-called “conceptual model view” of WCK that I don’t know where to begin. Let’s just say that WCK, like boxing or wrestling, is not a “conceptual martial art” and is not “conceptually-based”, they are skill-based activities. The principle or concept won’t lead you to skill – doing the activity leads you to skill.
I suppose one could say everything is based on some idea, but I don’t think this really gets us far. In fact, much skill in any fighitng method is developed implicitly – from practice without conscious direction (reference to some condept). Experts often don’t even realize they are doing certain things as they have developed them unconsciously from practice (experience). [/QUOTE]
I think you are confusing ‘end result skills’ with how you get there. I agree 100, the activity DOES lead to skill, but there are MANY MANY ways to train and actively develop skills. Sure, you could just learn a bunch of techniques, go hit the mats, try this, try that, see waht works, come back, try again, etc, etc. This will build skill, and I feel this is your argument. I think without understanding and identifying key principles and concepts up front, you’re just going to have a longer road to the same skill level.
But I guess you have to do what works/doesn’t work for you.
And I agree, ‘Experts’ might not realize they are doing certain things they have developed. Still are great fighers, but can they readily teach someone else how they got there? All they can do is tell the people to ‘put the time in like they did’.
Wouldn’t it be great if they could pick apart WHY what they are doing ‘by experience’ works and pass that along??? I wonder if identifying the principles behind what they do could help… maybe this would speed up the next person’s learning curve. Or has this been done for us already?
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750195]Sets, drills, techniques are to learn and/or develop skills – means of achieving some objective with max certainty with min time and/or energy or some other physical attribute. For example, punching, like throwing a ball, is a skill/ability, it is not a principle. You learn it and develop it by doing it, getting feedback, refining it, etc. Intellectualizing the process only hinders the process.[/QUOTE]
C’mon man! You’re mixing 2 things together and calling them the same thing! Re-read what you just wrote. I don’t think anyone has said that drills, sets and techniques are principles!
Here’s a few definitions of ‘principle’ so we are all on the same page (at least, the definition I think most of us are referring to):
“a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.”
“a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction.”
(taken from here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle)
So, are you saying that there are no laws of our known universe? Are you saying that we are not bound by natural laws? Are you also saying that we cannot identify these principles/laws?
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750195]A huge problem I’ve found with the “concept” people is that they always have a concept or idea, but it is usually a silly idea, and they spend their time chasing their idea of how things should work instead of just doing the activity. More often than not, their concepts - how things should work - get in the way of their development. They become blinders. Don’t concern yourself with the concepts, concern yourself with playing the game.[/QUOTE]
haha. This is just funny. And all opinion, but you speak it as fact. You must know a TON of these ‘concept’ people you talk about and how they train, fight, etc huh..
Since I am of the ‘principle/concept people’ crowd, I am glad you have just opened my eyes! I’ve been doing it all wrong! I should just not concern myself with silly ideas and just use trail and error - soon or later (probably MUCH later) I MIGHT figure it out!
haha, good luck to you if that’s how you do it! Not to make it personal, but maybe that’s why you said on another thread how much you suck? Keep doing what ‘works’ for you
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750195]When we look at other athletic activites/sports, even the combatvie ones, we hear references here and there to concepts, but they are not the big deals that “martial” artists make them out to be.
Go fight Crocop and show us. Oh, what? They don’t work agaisnt Crocop? Or, you are not able to make them work against Cropcop? It’s not a matter of “principles and concepts” of any particular method working – whomever is better skilled will win. Skills come from performance, not concepts or principles. From performance, we see what works, what doesn’t work, etc.[/QUOTE]
**** edit ***
HAHAHA - I’m dying over here!!! You’re right, I’ll just take my concept and bash him over the head with it! I hope this was a big silly joke and you weren’t in the slightest bit serious in your comparision of skill vs. principles. I think we all know that’s not what anyone means or how it works.
You’re talking a test of SKILLS. Skills come from whatever training methods you use. Skills come from ACTIVITY, not performance. Performance is your ability to display your skills. Believe it or not, skills can be derived from more than one method.
Maybe you just don’t buy all the principle/concept silly ideas because you either were not shown them, or just didn’t understand…
Not a big deal, but you can’t speak for everyone, just your experience. And believe it or not, your experiences might be limited..
Jonathan
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750220]Johnathan, no offense taken.
In my view, concepts/principles are ideas, general ideas of what to do, how to do it, etc. A novice doesn’t know – from experience – what to do, how to do it, etc. so giving them general ideas can be a way to help them along ("generally, you want to do this, etc.). As they get experience, they will find how things really are for them, how they need to move to make things work, what they need to do to make things work, etc. These will be very individualized (as all open skill activities are). They will be doing them NOT because they conform to some general idea (principle), but because they get results for them.
A serious problem with the “concept” approach is people do exactly waht you say to do – keep sticking to their principles. They pursue principles instead of results. You see, I don’t do something because it conforms to some principle, I do it because it gets me the best results (for me). [/QUOTE]
Terrance,
Maybe you just do not have the experience to speak about/for the ‘concept people’?
You said “A serious problem with the “concept” approach is people do exactly waht you say to do – keep sticking to their principles. They pursue principles instead of results.”
Are you sure about this last part? 100%? So, if I’m one of the concept/principle people, I don’t pursue results?
Or maybe you are implying that in my training I just sit around and theroize about the laws of the univers and what-not, meditate and call it a day? Or maybe not me directly, but a mojority of the ‘concept’ people then? Or just a few?
Or maybe you can’t speak for any of them and just yourself?
Or can you share what exact experience you have with how concept people train?
Speaking from my own experience, I do exactly what you are saying - I base my actions on the results I have gotten through physical training. But, I got them from aplying a concept, understanding a given principle(s), testing it and seeing what happens.
I use a method from what you use, but that by no means makes it a poor way to t. I use more than just ‘matt time’ to guide what I do. Yes, it’s the matt time that builds the skill, but I just build it with a different mindset than you.
T - " You see, I don’t do something because it conforms to some principle, I do it because it gets me the best results (for me). "
Fine. But that’s YOUR way, and by far not the only way. But I get the feeling you believe it’s the ‘best’ way, and that’s cool, that’s your expereince. Funny how you are an expert on EVERY way though huh?
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750220]Let me use an example, the principle or concept of moving away from the rear hand. This is a common one, used in boxing, Crazy Monkey, TWC, etc. And it’s based on a good idea: moving away from the opponent’s power hand makes it more difficult for him to land a power shot, if he does hit you it’s when you’re moving away from the strike, etc. Fine and dandy. It gives a beginning fighter an idea of how to move. But with experience, he’ll see the limitations. There are times when moving straight in will work better. He’ll find that if he always moves a certain way, that he becomes predictable. And so on. So he’ll begin to move in ways he finds works best for him. He’ll develop his own individual way of moving and no longer be moving to adhere to some principle. Wasn’t it Bruce who said, learn the principle, abide by the principle, dissolve the principle? The principle is a tool to take you to a certain point; once you reach that point, the tool becomes a liability.
When you mentioned “Nature” you hit the crux of the problem – people see these principles as “laws of the universe”. They’re not. They’re general rules of thumb. And many times these “principles” aren’t even based on the experience of really good fighters, they’re silly things nonfighting theoreticians dream up or derive from unrealistic practice. Be guided by results, not principle.
IME, and from what I have observed working and talking wtih good people, generally (the principle) the less theory you have the better.[/QUOTE]
Cool, that’s your expereince.
Jonathan
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;750224]One thing I have to give you Terrance, you sure are entertaining - I’m dying over here!
[/QUOTE]
I’m glad you are having fun; now if it gets you thinking, even better.
I’m curious, can you name some ‘Theoretician nonfighters’ that are ‘not doing the activity’? Are you speaking from direct experience, or are you just making assumptions? if experience, I would love a more in-depth explenation of what and WHO you are referring too
A theoretical nonfighter is anyone who isn’t fighting (what I call doing WCK) as a large part of their routine training. For example, someone who “practices” BJJ but doesn’t roll or "practices “boxing” but doesn’t get into the ring and spar. FWIW, I use the term “fighting” instead of sparring since much sparring I’ve seen is more game-like than fight-like.
I think you are confusing ‘end result skills’ with how you get there. I agree 100%, the activity DOES lead to skill, but there are MANY MANY ways to train and actively develop skills.
Actually, not – at least according to motor skill researchers. The so-called specificityprinciple pretty much says that skills can really only be develop (to a significant degree) by doing (practicing) those skills in the same context, environment, intensity, etc. And if we look at modern combative athletes, that’s exactly how they are training.
Sure, you could just learn a bunch of techniques, go hit the mats, try this, try that, see waht works, come back, try again, etc, etc. This will build skill, and I feel this is your argument. I think without understanding and identifying key principles and concepts up front, you’re just going to have a longer road to the same skill level.
I’m not suggesting it is all trial-and-error, though that does play a large part of any skill-buidling activity. We certainly want to draw upon the experience of other skilled people; they can help us accelerate the trial-and-error process as they have already done much of the work (they can point out “don’t do that” because it is a mistake, or “do this” because they’ve found it works).
But I guess you have to do what works/doesn’t work for you.
And I agree, ‘Experts’ might not realize they are doing certain things they have developed. Still are great fighers, but can they readily teach someone else how they got there? All they can do is tell the people to ‘put the time in like they did’.
Wouldn’t it be great if they could pick apart WHY what they are doing ‘by experience’ works and pass that along??? I wonder if identifying the principles behind what they do could help… maybe this would speed up the next person’s learning curve. Or has this been done for us already?
Certainly some experts are better teachers than others. But a nonexpert can hardly teach what they don’t know, what they can’t do. How can someone who can’t do it say what the “principle” is? Where do they get this information? It can’t be from experience doing it. So it is just theory, just hearsay. They are the blind leading the blind: someone who can’t do it teaching someone who can’t do it how to do it! The trouble with this approach is that almost anything can be said to be based on “principles”. Again, this approach is not performance-driven or justified by results.
C’mon man! You’re mixing 2 things together and calling them the same thing! Re-read what you just wrote. I don’t think anyone has said that drills, sets and techniques are principles!
Nor do they “teach” the principles. They teach skills. Why do people insist on seeing WCK as different than other sports/athletic activities?
Here’s a few definitions of ‘principle’ so we are all on the same page (at least, the definition I think most of us are referring to):
“a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.”
“a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction.”
(taken from here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle)
So, are you saying that there are no laws of our known universe? Are you saying that we are not bound by natural laws? Are you also saying that we cannot identify these principles/laws?
Of course the laws of physics applies to all things, but we don’t derive our fighting skills from analyszing them. People beleive that if they have the principle or concept that they can derive application. But it doesn’t work like that. This is beginning with a theory. However, there is no way to tell whether that theory really works or not, or how well it works. Instead, we need to begin with appliation, with results, – from experience – and work backwards to determine if there is any general idea or trend. Theoreticians begin at the wrong end.
And that sort of thinking leads to the my-art-is-better-that-your-art mentality because they are using their principles as some standard for judging (after all, they’ll say, my concepts are the laws of the universe, and your practice is contrary to those). It also leads to the I-can’t-do-it-but-I-can-teach-it mentality. Do you think it coincidence that these two views are so commonly held in the TCMAs and WCK but not the functional arts like BJJ, judo, wrestling, boxing, etc.?
Yet, when we look at all forms of atheltics, this sort of conceptual thinking is essentially absent – and those athletes hit high levels of performance.
haha. This is just funny. And all opinion, but you speak it as fact. You must know a TON of these ‘concept’ people you talk about and how they train, fight, etc huh..
Since I am of the ‘principle/concept people’ crowd, I am glad you have just opened my eyes! I’ve been doing it all wrong! I should just not concern myself with silly ideas and just use trail and error - soon or later (probably MUCH later) I MIGHT figure it out!
haha, good luck to you if that’s how you do it! Not to make it personal, but maybe that’s why you said on another thread how much you suck? Keep doing what ‘works’ for you
You don’t get what I’m saying. Let’s suppose you want to learn to deal with a good wrestling shoot (single or double leg). Here’s what you do: go find a really good wrestler, some guy who wrestled at a very high level (really did it, not just learned the “principle” of it), like Div. 1 or better. Then have him show you how to do it, the fundamental skills (techniques, tactics, strategies, etc.) that you’ll need to do it. Then practice doing it with the best people you can find. Your coach won’t be teaching you from principles, he will be teaching you from experience – he knows what he is teaching you works because he’s done it against top level people and it has worked. In fact, those things didn’t even derive from principles but over time from experience (of himself and others). Sure he may give you a few “principles” to help get you started, some general guidlelines for your practice, but even these come from his experience. In your practice – if you practice enough – you’ll naturally find some things work well for you, some not so well, etc. You’ll find your own takedown prevention game.
HAHAHA - I’m dying over here!!! You’re right, I’ll just take my concept and bash him over the head with it! I hope this was a big silly joke and you weren’t in the slightest bit serious in your comparision of skill vs. principles. I think we all know that’s not what anyone means or how it works.
You’re talking a test of SKILLS. Skills come from whatever training methods you use. Skills come from ACTIVITY, not performance. Performance is your ability to display your skills. Believe it or not, skills can be derived from more than one method.
This is the crux of it: you beleive skills can be “derived from more than one method”. Skills aren’t derived from anything. Skills only come from specifically practicing the skill itself (how else can you learn or develop your dribbling except by dribbling?). Performance is doing the activity. Your performance level is how well you can perform the activity.
Maybe you just don’t buy all the principle/concept silly ideas because you either were not shown them, or just didn’t understand…
Not a big deal, but you can’t speak for everyone, just your experience. And believe it or not, your experiences might be limited..
Jonathan
My views certainly go agaisnt the majority of TMA/WCK people. People fall in love with concepts/principles.
Hey Terence,
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750357]
Certainly some experts are better teachers than others. But a nonexpert can hardly teach what they don’t know, what they can’t do. How can someone who can’t do it say what the “principle” is? [/QUOTE]
I think you may be mixing some things up. You’ve said it yourself, there are guys who just study theory. So that makes it possible to pass on the principles.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750357]
Where do they get this information? It can’t be from experience doing it. So it is just theory, just hearsay. They are the blind leading the blind: someone who can’t do it teaching someone who can’t do it how to do it! The trouble with this approach is that almost anything can be said to be based on “principles”. Again, this approach is not performance-driven or justified by results. [/QUOTE]
You can show the principles of the martial art through drills. If they can’t do that, then that’s a problem. It’s up to the individual to explore them.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750357]People beleive that if they have the principle or concept that they can derive application. [/QUOTE]
If all they have done is read a principle then that’s silly.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750357]Skills aren’t derived from anything. Skills only come from specifically practicing the skill itself (how else can you learn or develop your dribbling except by dribbling?). [/QUOTE]
Terence, I don’t think anyone would argue with you that practicing something specific will only or should only get you better at it. That’s obvious. All I was asking is what is wrong with the principles and concepts that it’s all based on. Isn’t your grip more with the people who don’t test those things through fighting and not with the principles themselves. If I’m worng, cool. Then what’s wrong with them.
I think this way of posting may be a little better than the last time I messed up
J
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;750228]Are you sure about this last part? 100%? So, if I’m one of the concept/principle people, I don’t pursue results?[/QUOTE]
How are you defining results?
Yes, it’s the matt time that builds the skill, but I just build it with a different mindset than you.
Can you explain how that mindset is different?
[QUOTE=Jeff Bussey;750373]Hey Terence,
I think you may be mixing some things up. You’ve said it yourself, there are guys who just study theory. So that makes it possible to pass on the principles.
[/QUOTE]
The “principles” are not the important thing in learning or developing martial skill – doing the skill is the important thing. People don’t “pass on” the principle or concept of riding a bike or dribbling a basketball (these are skills) – that’s not what it is about.
You can show the principles of the martial art through drills. If they can’t do that, then that’s a problem. It’s up to the individual to explore them.
If I give you a dribbling drill (let’s say dribbling around obstacles) to do, it’s not to teach you the “principles of dribbling” but to help you develop skill dribbling. Nothing is being “explored.”
Terence, I don’t think anyone would argue with you that practicing something specific will only or should only get you better at it. That’s obvious. All I was asking is what is wrong with the principles and concepts that it’s all based on. Isn’t your grip more with the people who don’t test those things through fighting and not with the principles themselves. If I’m worng, cool. Then what’s wrong with them.
I think this way of posting may be a little better than the last time I messed up
J
Specificity in motor skill development isn’t that obvious, since it wasn’t recognized (academically at least) until 50 years ago. And even today, how many people believe they can develop fighting skill without fighting?
I am trying to tell you what is wrong with being principle-based – that’s not how things work. Athletic activities aren’t based on principles, they are based on skills (doing things). Skills specific to that activity. In baseball, for instance, a fundamental skill is throwing a ball. How do you develop that skill? By throwing a ball. A lot. There is no “trick” or concept or principle that will help you do that. The only way to get good throwing a ball is by throwing a ball. Now, someone experienced in throwing a ball can help you develop by sharing their experience, pointing out errors,etc. But the foundation is skill, not principle.
When people believe in principle first or principle based, it creates a whole litany of problems.
Hey T,
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;750403]
If I give you a dribbling drill (let’s say dribbling around obstacles) to do, it’s not to teach you the “principles of dribbling” but to help you develop skill dribbling. Nothing is being “explored.” [/QUOTE]
So you won’t explore how high to bounce the ball, maybe to keep it low to the ground, being able to stop quickly with sharp turns around obstacles vs. not so sharp turns, how much you bend your knees etc.
I’m not saying that when you give me the drill I write down all of the things that could go wrong, analyze it, have my list peer reviewed in case I missed anything and then do a final check for any last minute things.
But I think you would do some exploring of how to do it best along with some coaching from someone skilled in that area. Passing on corrections. I think anyone learning a new skill or activity should do that otherwise you are just following blindly.
Those corrections that you’re getting from your coach revolve around the principles of the system or whatever it is your doing
J
T-
Sorry, not buying any of it. You post some good ‘arguments’, based on your expereince. But I don’t believe you’ve ‘experienced’ everything, so you really only have your one view. I see your points, but dissagree if what you are saying is the ONLY way, and not neccessairly the most efficient way in some cases.
It’s really no use going any further
Thanks for your views.
JP