When you were ranting about masters and grandmasters you technically insulted your sifu, Robert. How can you praise him and diss him at the sane time? What you don’t seem to understand is that you learned wck from someone that has never fought a professional fight. So how do you know what he teaches is functional? I am not speaking badly of your sifu. I am just pointing out the major flaw in all of your logic.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1011717]Consider this –
Look at how good fighters, in the functional martial arts, teach their students. They don’t teach from a “conceptual” POV (X is a conceptual martial art) – instead they teach the things they are doing that are working in fighting at a very high level. In other words, they are teaching WHAT THEY ARE DOING, what is working consistently, and working against good, skilled people. So their students are learning fundamentally sound skills, things that will work under pressure. Then they practice them under pressure in sparring (which is the core of all the functional martial arts). In summary, you’ve got good fighters teaching others what they do successfully do in fighting and then having those students practice it in fighting. In the functional martial arts, what you see taught, you will consistently see again and again successfully work in sparring. If it doesn’t work, they will drop teaching it. Is it any wonder this produces good results in the students?
Now, contrast that with most WCK teachers (including the masters and grandmasters). They teach “concepts” (ideas of how they think things should work) and various “applications” that they NEVER consistently pull of in sparring (isn’t it funny when these guys put on demos of WCK --why is it their “fighting” never looks like what they demo?), and certainly not against any decently skilled people. So, by teaching concepts and theoretical “applications”, they are teaching their students things they cannot do. And they practice them mainly in unrealistic exercises/drills (which doesn’t develop realistic skills) or against scrubs which tricks them into believing that those things are good. This is training to fail. It’s the blind leading the blind.
One of the chief signs of training to fail is that people move one way in how they learn/practice and another way when they fight. With good training, the way you learn/practice is the same as what you do in fighting.
Why can’t WCK people teach like the fighters in the functional martial arts do?
The answer is they are not fighters. They don’t train like fighters, they don’t train/spar with good fighters, etc. They can’t teach what is working for them since they aren’t fighting (except in their imaginations, when they are “bouncing”, when the ninja attack them in the street, etc.), and they don’t know what works against decent fighters.
Alan and his guys are fighters, they train like fighters, they go out and train with/ spar with the best fighters (MMA, etc.) they can find. Alan and his guys have traveled from the UK to the US to train with Eddie Millis. They also train with the best people in the UK. They work out through fighting what works and what doesn’t, etc. Anyone can do what they do – if they put in the work, the right kind of work.
Who else is doing that? You see, it’s not about CSL WCK. But Robert, to his credit, tells his students this is what they MUST do if they want to develop their WCK to be functional. This is what “let application be your sifu” means.[/QUOTE]
