[QUOTE=Knifefighter;723609]
Yes, individual techniques are learned and maybe three or four of them are learned in combinations by the beginner in an alive environment. However, it isn’t long before he begins to put combinations together on his own… and never more than five or six combinations at the most.[/QUOTE]
You are assuming whole forms fight just one guy. Thats not the way.
I’ve said it before, the strength of CMA is also it’s weakness in many ways
In one sense, forms were meant to provide a training method in which options were presented. Avoiding obvious extremes and silliness as such, forms DO present the techniques so that there are more than one option. Pretty much in most of the sets I learned, there were 2 or 3 logical and reasonable different techniques I can do. Not 27, not the death touch, not anything secret only the “in door” can learn..
The problem is, people start to argue over the different possible interpretations, they look for stuff that isn’t there, they get interpretations that are fanciful and not practical
They also often don’t actually DRILL those applications, feeling that if they know the application then tht’s good enough
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;723614]Thats just another problem with forms. You look at it and “see” all these things about it. There is nothing to “see” without an oppoent in the equation.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. There is nothing mystical about a block and a punch.
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;723616]
They also often don’t actually DRILL those applications, feeling that if they know the application then tht’s good enough[/QUOTE]
Right on point. Many do go overboard. They tend to forget what the base is.
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;723616]Pretty much in most of the sets I learned, there were 2 or 3 logical and reasonable different techniques I can do. Not 27, not the death touch, not anything secret only the “in door” can learn..[/QUOTE]
Whats funny about “in the door” is that if and when you are “in the door” you realize that what you are learning is just correct basics. More BS politics that is ruining CMA in america.
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;723612]The problem is that most forms are at least three generations old.[/QUOTE]
That’s not the problem. What worked three generations ago will work today. Forms coherently organize the techniques of a given style. In good Kung Fu training, those techniques are taught and drilled. It becomes a problem when the person practices forms without having a clue as to the material present within them. When these people do spar, I tend to see sub par kickboxing and whacky Bruce Lee imitations.
[QUOTE=SifuAbel;723619]Whats funny about “in the door” is that if and when you are “in the door” you realize that what you are learning is just correct basics.[/QUOTE]
That is probably a whole new thread, why CMA developed a concept of teaching the mass either incorrectly or just plain sloppy only to later bring them “in the door” and only then start to teach them correctly
Whole different mentality… my sifu a PRIME example. Why teach crap when you have good stuff? Don’t you care that people who say they trained with you have utter trash?
Nope, don’t care, the people who “know” know about in and out door, etc etc blah blah
But I also know a lot of people who got out of the door stuff who think they got in teh door stuff!
When it shows up in sparring, thats a sign that they don’t even have the faintest clue as to what they are doing. Where are the defenses and strikes, where is the footwork. Where is the power?
This is true cloud walking form fairy stuff.
It does happen. It IS a problem .
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;723621]
But I also know a lot of people who got out of the door stuff who think they got in the door stuff![/QUOTE]
Then the desception was complete. Its no good that the rice bag gets “boiled” before dinner.
Its the way teachers mark their student. I was luckey that my teacher only changed one or two movements slightly in order to mark the forms, etc in case of video theft. The moves themselves were incosequential in the change or just out of order. Others took it to an extreme.
Some traditional teachers have this sort of “I show you the door, you walk through it” teaching method. This kind of teacher may show his students some applications, but expect them to find others by themselves and to drill and spar with them. Wing Lam used to avoid answering my questions outright. Usually, he just said “you tell me.” From his point of view, once we had shown some basic facility, we should figure out what works and what doesn’t on our own; he wouldn’t hold our hands. If we showed the initiative to try to figure things out on our own, then he’d offer his own insight and tweak stuff for us. Similarly, Lai Hung has never offered to teach me anything other than forms. It’s up to me to practice the drills and spar and then he’ll come over to correct and teach me. He doesn’t speak much English though, so usually he mimes something, hits me with it, and then asks if I understand.
The problem is that, without someone forcing us to drill, some do and some don’t. Also, this method of teaching leads to all kinds of different interpretations and, in some cases, blatant misunderstandings. Basically, if the student only drilled enough so that he thought he knew how it all worked, and if that student opens his own school and takes students, we get a lot of the clueless guys we see today.
Obviously, this traditional method doesn’t really turn out a large number of good fighters… more like a majority of bad ones and a handful of good ones. I guess the practice ethic must have been different “in the old days” when self protection was more of an issue, but when you don’t have to fight all the time in the real world, you probably won’t have the initiative you need to learn this way.
I learned a lot from doing San Shou as well as the limited Muay Thai and BJJ I’ve practiced. In order to ensure some proficiency, a core of techniques need to contantly be taught, drilled, sparred with, and tweaked. There’s really no other way. And the arts that train to compete do this all the time. A good coach makes the student drill way more than they would without someone yelling at them. TMA can and do benefit from the same approach.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the forms-collectors are allowed to do so by the traditional way of teaching. If they don’t drill their stuff or show interest in sparring, that’s on them, right? On an individual level, yeah, but doesn’t it seem important to ensure some base-level proficiency? I’m grateful to my teachers for what they’ve taught me, but I always wondered at this. I suppose the two methods might not be completely incompatible, though. Group classes could be run like a San Shou class, while small-group stuff might be more open-ended for intermediate and advanced students. Just letting students “figure it out” definitely doesn’t produce a lot of fighters. Of course, there’s more to TMA than fighting…
That’s just this student’s 2 cents, anyway.
Edit: god**** it, I’m long-winded. Sorry about the length, people.
[SIZE=“6”]Fantastic F-in POST, 3 thumbs up![/SIZE]
[QUOTE=Ravenshaw;723629]Some traditional teachers have this sort of “I show you the door, you walk through it” teaching method. This kind of teacher may show his students some applications, but expect them to find others by themselves and to drill and spar with them. Wing Lam used to avoid answering my questions outright. Usually, he just said “you tell me.” From his point of view, once we had shown some basic facility, we should figure out what works and what doesn’t on our own; he wouldn’t hold our hands. If we showed the initiative to try to figure things out on our own, then he’d offer his own insight and tweak stuff for us. Similarly, Lai Hung has never offered to teach me anything other than forms. It’s up to me to practice the drills and spar and then he’ll come over to correct and teach me. He doesn’t speak much English though, so usually he mimes something, hits me with it, and then asks if I understand.
The problem is that, without someone forcing us to drill, some do and some don’t. Also, this method of teaching leads to all kinds of different interpretations and, in some cases, blatant misunderstandings. Basically, if the student only drilled enough so that he thought he knew how it all worked, and if that student opens his own school and takes students, we get a lot of the clueless guys we see today.
Obviously, this traditional method doesn’t really turn out a large number of good fighters… more like a majority of bad ones and a handful of good ones. I guess the practice ethic must have been different “in the old days” when self protection was more of an issue, but when you don’t have to fight all the time in the real world, you probably won’t have the initiative you need to learn this way.
I learned a lot from doing San Shou as well as the limited Muay Thai and BJJ I’ve practiced. In order to ensure some proficiency, a core of techniques need to contantly be taught, drilled, sparred with, and tweaked. There’s really no other way. And the arts that train to compete do this all the time. A good coach makes the student drill way more than they would without someone yelling at them. TMA can and do benefit from the same approach.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, the forms-collectors are allowed to do so by the traditional way of teaching. If they don’t drill their stuff or show interest in sparring, that’s on them, right? On an individual level, yeah, but doesn’t it seem important to ensure some base-level proficiency? I’m grateful to my teachers for what they’ve taught me, but I always wondered at this. I suppose the two methods might not be completely incompatible, though. Group classes could be run like a San Shou class, while small-group stuff might be more open-ended for intermediate and advanced students. Just letting students “figure it out” definitely doesn’t produce a lot of fighters. Of course, there’s more to TMA than fighting…
That’s just this student’s 2 cents, anyway.
Edit: god**** it, I’m long-winded. Sorry about the length, people.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;723621]why CMA developed a concept of teaching the mass either incorrectly or just plain sloppy only to later bring them “in the door” and only then start to teach them correctly[/QUOTE]
I don’t think teacher will need to do that. Even if a teacher teaches his students 100 correct movement but if his student don’t spend enough time to work on it then that movement still won’t work for his students. If his students do spend time and make it work for them then the teacher would love to have them as one of his “biting dogs”.
A. Dear teacher! I just beat up 1 BJJ guy, 2 MMA guys, and 3 Muay Thai guys yesterday by the move that you taught me the day before.
B. Excellent! You can skip your tuition for the next 6 months. But I do have a small favor to ask.
A. What’s that? Dear teacher?
B. Tonight, I want you to kick down that TKD school 3 blocks from here. Just don’t let them know that I send you over.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;723632]I don’t think teacher will need to do that. Even if a teacher teaches his students 100% correct movement but if his student don’t spend enough time to work on it then that movement still won’t work for his students. If his students do spend time and make it work for them then the teacher would love to have them as one of his “biting dogs”.
[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of teachers pick the “in the door” based upon who is the dog (and who is the prey). By this I think that many teachers gave the ones with potential all the attention while teaching pretty much crap to the rest…
I think this was prevelent, I aslo think it was WRONG ethically and morally
[QUOTE=Knifefighter;723609] “find” techniques in forms that they have never actually used in fighting or sparring.[/QUOTE]
If that form was created when the form creater was in his old age than that may be possible. For example, a combo such as a side kick followed by an elbow strike may look good in form demo but may not be effective in combat.
there is an onus on the student as well.
Teacher is there to teach and student is there to learn.
Most learn by doing. If student is not practicing whatt hey are taught, they stagnate their own progress. Teacher can recognize this because it is obvious.
So, what is wrong with not wanting to waste time with those who refuse to practice on their own and instead use lesson time for reiterative practice?
Those who do not practice do not move forward more from their own inaction than of the sifu not taking them forward. If you are not ready to move ahead, imo, it is an error to continue anyway. It degrades the art and doesn’t improve the student at all.
There are places out there that don’t teach applications regardless of the student’s ability, attitude, etc.
maybe so.
but if you do not want that, then don’t go there. 
patient: doctor it hurts everytime i do this.
doctor: then don’t do that.
David Jamieson
Unfortunately, these types of places, and far worse, clog the martial arts scene. There are some areas where a decent martial arts studio is rare or nonexistent.
[QUOTE=The Xia;723640]There are places out there that don’t teach applications regardless of the student’s ability, attitude, etc.[/QUOTE]
I have met many Taiji people in California. They can’t care less about application. Everytime I want to discuss Taiji application with them, they looked at me like I came from another planet. Sometime I really don’t know if they are the minority or we are.
The Xia
Good martial arts are rare. That’s why they are good.
Where there is a void of information, people will do their utmost to fill it, even if it means not having completeness or even correctness. It’s human nature to do so.
Due dilligence is required in the western buy and sell market of everything. Heck, it’s required anywhere. If you don’t know, it’s best to know that you don’t know.
Or you may very well end up with rex kwon do. 
(that rhymed!)
You can’t legislate against stupidity anymore than you can blame a hawk for killing a rat.
there’s a two way street. If it’s acceptable for people to remain gullible, then it has to be expected that they will be preyed upon by all sorts of people.
Not that I support fraudulent martial arts dissemination, I think the act of doing that is dubious, but at the same time, i can’t be bothered with pointing it out all the time. More often than not it’s self evident at this point.