"Functionalizing" WCK

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

[QUOTE=KPM;822152]Hey Guys!

Some good responses so far. I agree with several of the points made and offer some of my own:

  1. Realistic sparring with opponents doing something other than WCK is key to finding out what works.
    [/QUOTE]

Realistic sparring (and realistic drills which are snippets of sparring) are the only way to develop realsitic skills. Everything else is just prep work. That stuff may be necessary, but it is still only prep. The “real work” for developing fighting skill is the realistic sparring.

For sparring to be “realistic”, however, it needs to have the participants actually working at or near 100% intensity (power, speed, etc.), genuinely resisting each other, and otherwise “behaving” like a fight. You should be able to map what you are doing in sparring onto a fight, 1-to-1. It’s that 1-to-1 correspondence that is key.

Moreover, while doing that with nonWCK people is important (because you don’t want to just deal with “programmed” people), the quality (skill-level, attribute level) of your opponents is most critical. Because you will only get as good as your training/sparring partners. You’re not going to become a BB in BJJ rolling only with white belts.

  1. A “functionalized” WCK may begin to resemble JKD more and more.

No, it doesn’t. The “easy” way to tell if you are using WCK is to see if you are actually using WCK – are you regularly and consistently using the tools of WCK in your sparring. WCK has a relatively small “tool belt”, and if you are not using most of the tools in your sparring, then I’d suggest there is something “wrong” with what you are doing (your approach).

The tools of WCK, just liek the tools of any MA, have specific functions, they answer or deal with certain, specific combative problems. If you are not using them, it is because by what you are doing you are not facing those combative problems. So, for instance, if you “kickbox” with WCK, you’ll find little use of the WCK tools since the problems inherent in kickboxing are not the problems the WCK tools address. This is why you don’t see them come out.

  1. Training should be done with more “realistic” modern weapons such as sticks and tactical folders…again making it appear more like JKD.

None of that has anything to do with WCK.

  1. Conditioning is very important and should be an integral part of the training.

Conditioning is your bodies level of readiness to do your activity, in this case fight. What athlete doesn’t know that conditioning is vital?

  1. Training should include modern equipment such as focus mitts and heavy bags to help develop realistic striking power.

Yes and no. Specific equipment is useful for developing specific skills, attributes, etc.

  1. Including training in the clinch range and on the ground is essential to being a more “well-rounded” fighter. This should be blended smoothly with the stand up WCK skills.

It depends on what a person wants. Look, boxing and BJJ are both great and a person can practice either and develop realistic skills in those areas. If that’s all they want to do, that’s their perogative. To be a well-rounded fighter, however, requires our training be well-rounded. FWIW, in my view WCK is a “clinch” method.

There are some points that have not come up yet on this thread. Do we keep the traditional WCK forms? Do we modify the forms to reflect what we discover to be more functional and realistic? Do we keep the wooden dummy?

Any form or linked set is useless as training (it won’t develop skills). If you want to retain them as a teaching device, that is up to the individual. But I think they are more trouble than they are worth (which is why we don’t see forms used in functional arts).

As far as the dummy goes, it depends on how you use it.

Here’s a thought that I had…develop a “san sik” system of “separate points” as in Ku Lo Wing Chun. Break out of the traditional forms those movements that are key to the WCK body structure as well as those movements proven to be functional in a realistic sparring situation. Develop them as short "san sik"sequences that are practiced solo, with a partner in a two-man “set” format, applied on the dummy, and in sparring. This would be similar to a boxer that works specific combos solo, against the focus mitts, on the heavy bag, and in sparring. This “san sik system” could be either a supplement to “traditional” WCK, or its own independant version of WCK. It would allow one to focus on and develop those WCK movements that are the most functional and useful. But now the question becomes…which parts of the forms would you break out as a san sik? What movements of your own would you put into a san sik? Here’s an example:

Bong-Lop Da…solo…two-man version = classic Lop Da drill…practiced on the dummy…worked into sparring against a resisting opponent.

In my view, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. What we need to do is realize that for WCK or any martial art to be a functional MA, that we need to approach our learning/training as a functional MA. And to do that, we need to look at the common characteristics of all proven functional martial arts. If we do that, we see they all use the same “process”, where the learning/training/fighting corresponds 1-to-1-to-1. We see that functional martial arts are skill-based activities. We see that they focus on results in personal performance. That sparring is the core of their training. Etc. We also need to get rid of the traditional worldview, and the associated magical thinking, because that is a signficant obstacle that holds us back.

22

Hey!! Who stole Mr. Niehoff’s login & password and posted for him?? This last post sounds like something that comes from a pro-WCK guy, not the regular T we all know and love…
This post actually makes it hard to disagree with him… crazy…
:smiley:

23

The “easy” way to tell if you are using WCK is to see if you are actually using WCK – are you regularly and consistently using the tools of WCK in your sparring. WCK has a relatively small “tool belt”, and if you are not using most of the tools in your sparring, then I’d suggest there is something “wrong” with what you are doing (your approach).

—But that begs the question…how do you develop the “tools” of WCK that are functional and realistic? By practicing the traditional forms? By doing the traditional two man drills? This goes back to my prior question…how do you “functionalize” WCK without “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” and having it become something else? How much of the “traditional” WCK base do you continue to use and practice?

FWIW, in my view WCK is a “clinch” method.

—There’s a good starting point then. How do you practice and develop WCK methods in the clinch?

Any form or linked set is useless as training (it won’t develop skills). If you want to retain them as a teaching device, that is up to the individual. But I think they are more trouble than they are worth (which is why we don’t see forms used in functional arts).

----Then from where do you get your essential WCK “tools” that you mentioned previously?

As far as the dummy goes, it depends on how you use it.

—I tend to look upon it as a rather sophisticated heavy bag. :slight_smile:

In my view, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

----Its not “reinventing” the wheel, just “reformatting” the wheel. Its just as Leung Jan did when he retired to his hometown in Ku Lo. He reformatted the previous WCK he had learned into a system of san sik that included what he considered to be the essential elements needed to fight with WCK. From what I understand, the Ku Lo system was Leung Jan’s version of a “functionalized” WCK for his day and time. Same or very similar content, just a different teaching format.

What we need to do is realize that for WCK or any martial art to be a functional MA, that we need to approach our learning/training as a functional MA. And to do that, we need to look at the common characteristics of all proven functional martial arts. If we do that, we see they all use the same “process”, where the learning/training/fighting corresponds 1-to-1-to-1.

—That sounds good. Can you lay out the individual steps in a bit more detail for us? That would seem to form a good “blueprint” to follow.

We also need to get rid of the traditional worldview, and the associated magical thinking, because that is a signficant obstacle that holds us back.

—I agree. I’ve been burned by that type of mindset in the past. Thanks Terence. Good post. Let’s keep it up.

24

Hey Victor!

A “functionalized” wing chun will look something like JKD. Not exactly like it - but the basic approach of a functionalized wing chun has to have certain things going for it that do resemble the path Bruce Lee took in a number of ways.

—Seems we are thinking along the same lines. :slight_smile: Some of the inspiration I have had for “functionalizing” my own WCK has come from seeing Ron Balicki’s JKD. He does a lot of things that are straight up WCK. But then there are others that deviate, but that wouldn’t have to. For instance, he does punching combos on the focus mitts that are standard kickboxing. But the same combos could be done with WCK punches rather than boxing punches. Many of the “functional” drills he does in a kickboxing format would become WCK if he was simply using the right body structure.

  1. A more mobile footwork at longer ranges especially - and with some longer range kicking (including roundhouse kicks) and the corresponding footwork used as a delivery system that resembles more of a boxing, kickboxing, mma type, Muay Thai footwork than a more “typical” wing chun type footwork. (Although some wing chun systems like TWC do have similar footwork and roundkicks already - but this is a wing chun exception and not the rule).

----I agree. The footwork I have been using comes primarily from TWC for those reasons, though some of the JKD footwork is appropriate as well. What I have found that DOESN’T work well is dragging the feet when stepping and trying to keep the weight on the heels.

but the line between this and a more “boxing-like” approach to these punches can get very thin. Very thin indeed.

—Again, I agree. But only as long as the proper body structure is used. This I learned from watching Alan Orr’s videos. :slight_smile:

—So how do you go about “functionalizing” your WCK from a TWC perspective? Do you break out techniques from the forms and drill them for application? Do you ignore the forms and just work the essential “tools” in a sparring format? What are the things that you are finding to work the best and most consistently in realistic sparring? Thanks Victor.

25

[QUOTE=KPM;822704]—But that begs the question…how do you develop the “tools” of WCK that are functional and realistic? By practicing the traditional forms? By doing the traditional two man drills? This goes back to my prior question…how do you “functionalize” WCK without “throwing out the baby with the bathwater” and having it become something else? How much of the “traditional” WCK base do you continue to use and practice?
[/QUOTE]

It’s not a baby-bathwater matter. Forms and unrealistic drills can’t by their very nature develop functional/realistic skills/tools. They can at most be used as learning/teaching devices, although in my view, the disadvantages of using them as learning/teaching devices outweighs their usefulness.

How do you develop anything to be functional/realistic? By using them realistically – and that means using them in sparring or realistic drills (which are snippets of sparring). You see, if you practice tan sao in forms and unrealistic drills, like chi sao, and don’t use regularly and consistently in sparring, you will never develop it into a realistic skill. That only comes by using your tan sao regularly and consistently in sparring.

In my view, the forms and traditional drills is not WCK – that is “the curriculum”. Just as a math textbook is not math. WCK is the activity, it is fighting using WCK’s approach/tools. You can do the forms and traditional drills forever and you’re not “doing WCK” (just like hitting the heavy bag and skipping rope is not boxing). Skill in WCK comes from “doing WCK”, and the more you “do” it, just like with any skill, the better you get. You learn and develop boxing skills by boxing, you learn and develop grappling skills by grappling, and you learn and develop WCK by fighting.

—There’s a good starting point then. How do you practice and develop WCK methods in the clinch?

BJJ is a ground fighting method, right? How do you practice and develop BJJ? By doing it, by grappling on the ground. Boxing is a free-movement, stand-up fighting (with punches) method, right? How do you practice and develop boxing? By doing it, by boxing (punching) in stand-up, free movement fighting. So how do you think we develop WCK as a dirty clinch boxing method? By doing it, by controlling while hitting in the clinch. FWIW, I’m not talking about greco-type clinches, but dirty-boxing-type clinches.

Chi sao is an unrealistic representation of that sort of clinch. This is why most of our drills are contacdt, attached drills.

----Then from where do you get your essential WCK “tools” that you mentioned previously?

Where do BJJ and boxing practitioners get their tools – they don’t have forms/linked sets?

—I tend to look upon it as a rather sophisticated heavy bag. :slight_smile:

In a sense, yes, I agree.

----Its not “reinventing” the wheel, just “reformatting” the wheel. Its just as Leung Jan did when he retired to his hometown in Ku Lo. He reformatted the previous WCK he had learned into a system of san sik that included what he considered to be the essential elements needed to fight with WCK. From what I understand, the Ku Lo system was Leung Jan’s version of a “functionalized” WCK for his day and time. Same or very similar content, just a different teaching format.

It was a different teaching format but it wasn’t “functionalized”. The key to functional training is the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence between learning-training-fighting, so that you learn what you will do in fighting as you will do it, train it realsitically as you learned it, and then do it in fighting as you learned and trained it.

—That sounds good. Can you lay out the individual steps in a bit more detail for us? That would seem to form a good “blueprint” to follow.

I’ll tell you how to begin “the work” – get some training partners, start in contact, and fight. You already know the WCK tools, bong, tan, fook, etc. Try to use your WCK tools to control your opponent while striking him. If you do that, you will encounter many problems. Set aside the “conventional wisdom” you have been told by the theoretical nonfighters and fantasy-based guys in WCK (which IME is mostly wrong), and try to figure out answers for those problems. Keep doing contact sparring. Keep critically examining what is working, why it is working, etc. and what isn’t working, why it isn’t working, etc. Then you will be on the road toward making your WCK functional.

26

VT is functional…you just dont see it T ribbet

27

[QUOTE=k gledhill;822775]VT is functional…you just dont see it T ribbet[/QUOTE]

I’ll tell you want I don’t see: the VT fighters that can make what they do in training work in fighting as they train to. It seems they can fight well behind closed doors or on the streets when no one is looking, but for some reason, any other time, their skills mysteriously disappear. But that doesn’t stop them from posting tons of videos of them doing chi sao or forms or demos of those skill.

The truth is as close as your nearest MMA gym. You can’t fake performance. If you can make what you learn and practice to do in training work in fighting as you train to do it, then it should be a very simple thing to show. Boxers, wrestlers, BJJ, MT, etc. all seem to have absolutely no trouble doing just that. Only the fantasy-VT “fighters” do, the guys with all the street fights. You know the type. :wink:

28

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;822783]

The truth is as close as your nearest MMA gym. You can’t fake performance. [/QUOTE]
In that case the “truth” is where he trains/teaches every day if I am not mistaken.. :rolleyes::cool:

29

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;822171]

  1. A more mobile footwork at longer ranges especially - and with some longer range kicking (including roundhouse kicks) and the corresponding footwork used as a delivery system that resembles more of a boxing, kickboxing, mma type, Muay Thai footwork than a more “typical” wing chun type footwork. (Although some wing chun systems like TWC do have similar footwork and roundkicks already - but this is a wing chun exception and not the rule).

And using a slightly more up-on-your-toes footwork doesn’t mean that you have to sacrifice rootedness and stability for mobility - for once you’ve “delivered” (or even “as” you’re delivering) enough weaponry (punches/kicks) to get to the close infight range your rooted and stable wing chun instincts and training can and should take over.[/QUOTE]
I see a lot of top MMA/NHB fighters that are no more “mobile” than standard WCK footwork, and in fact perhaps less so–WSL was quite “mobile”..

“Their mobility” comes from the “when” and the “why”, which way and under what conditions they move–they just move–so can we.. It appears to be more of a personal stylistic choice, some very good fighters move less than VT folks some move more but few are moving around any more than needed.. With few exceptions–not bouncy bounce at all–not on their toes at all–not like the ‘dancing boxer’–at all.. WCK footwork can allow one to move left, back, right, forward, and combinations thereof just as fast as X and sometimes faster IMO..

30

wow what a rebutal :rolleyes: Terence doesnt believe so it cant be true :rolleyes: your the one living in fantasy land . ribbet:D
Yung Chuns right : ) a lot of guys x train there…I teach for the fighthouse gym ..VT.

31

“So how do you go about ‘functionalizing’ your WCK from a TWC perspective?
Do you break out techniques from the forms and drill them for application?
Do you ignore the forms and just work the essential ‘tools’ in a sparring format? What are the things that you are finding to work the best and most consistently in realistic sparring? Thanks Victor.” (Keith)

***I break out techniques from the TWC forms all the time. Such as pak sao, lop sao, bil sao, bong sao, garn sao, etc. BECAUSE this is part of what it takes to functionalize WCK, imo.

But the key is to make the static drills/sparring-mobile drills fluid.

For example, as you may know, a very big part of TWC is the concept of looking at elbows and knees in order to read what’s coming at you in time to react with a skillful move - even if what you’re reading is just his forward movement into your space (or very close to coming into your space)…at which point you must attack.

So even though I may have just done some stationary (static) drills against a straight punch with pak as a response (or a cut punch that almost acts like a supercharged pak)…

the fact is the bong sao is another legit response to a straight punch…

or perhaps a bil sao might be used as another response to a straight punch.

But what am I getting at?

The pak attacks the outside of his punching arm…the bil attacks the inside of his punching arm…and the bong sao comes from underneath.

And if I’m watching carefully when the more spontaneous sparring drills are done - then my responses have to be fluid as my partner comes in with straight punches coming from various angles and distances. I might use pak, or bil, or bong, or cut punch, or just attack with a punch of my own.

Now throw in bil or lop against hook or round punches…and you have some very functional drills going. He could be throwing something high or low, round or staight, uppercut or overhand, etc.

So we don’t ignore the forms or chi sao - we use both pieces as part of the overall game plan.
We do forms, chi sao, wooden dummy…AND…we spend a lot of time taking the pieces out of these things and working them.

QUITE A BIT OF TIME.

And we use drilling/sparring with these pieces while wearing headgear and thin gloves in a “live” environment, ie.- if I lose concentration, or whatever…I’m going to get hit in the face with his punch.

And the same with chi sao skills. I may have just come in on his straight punch with a cut punch that bridges his arm - and now he’s reacting with all kinds of movement/force/push/pull/throws a punch with his other hand/tries to grab and clinch me, etc…

and I have to take my chi sao contact reflex skills and make them functional HERE…in the midst of this “live” sparring (or spontaneous close-to-sparring drills)…and take his space away/hit him/mess with his balance/take him off the “line” I want to strike on, angle in on him with a more rooted (but very mobile) footwork, pressure him with a strong forward moving body structure, etc.

But do it from “here”…not from “chi sao” position with chi sao rules.

Just some examples.

Repeat the method with kicks.

And use heavy bags, mitts, shields, etc. all the time. For precision and power striking/kicking from various angles and motions. And lots of stretching, strengthening, conditioning, cardio, etc.

32

“Their (MMA fighters) ‘mobility’ comes from the ‘when’ and the 'why, which way and under what conditions they move–they just move–so can we.. It appears to be more of a personal stylistic choice, some very good fighters move less than VT folks some move more but few are moving around any more than needed.. With few exceptions–not bouncy bounce at all–not on their toes at all–not like the ‘dancing boxer’–at all.. WCK footwork can allow one to move left, back, right, forward, and combinations thereof just as fast as X and sometimes faster IMO..” (Jim/Ying Chun)

***I’M TALKING about when you’re starting from out of range. To get to the close quarters safely and efficiently you need lots of mobility against a quality fighter…and slightly up on the toes at times is a good way of doing it.

Watch the better strikers in UFC/PRIDE and you’ll see it. (St. Pierre, Hughes, Fedor, Liddell, Vanderlai Silva, etc.)

33

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;822854]
Watch the better strikers in UFC/PRIDE and you’ll see it. (St. Pierre, Hughes, Fedor, Liddell, Vanderlai Silva, etc.)[/QUOTE]

Vic… Anderson Silva Bro !!!

IMO hes one of the best strikers…

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6186194356952883169&q=anderson+silva+nog&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I find him fancinating to watch… Although in this clip theres not much bridging from long to close range…

:cool:
DREW

34

Good call! Yeah, Anderson’s another one with lots of striking skills.

35

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;822874]Good call! Yeah, Anderson’s another one with lots of striking skills.[/QUOTE]

When it comes to striking, elbows are one of my VT’s greatest assets - check Silva in this Clip…not your average KO :rolleyes:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2772621508647602529&q=ANDERSON+SILVA+ELBOW&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

DREW

36

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;822854]
Watch the better strikers in UFC/PRIDE and you’ll see it. (St. Pierre, Hughes, Fedor, Liddell, Vanderlai Silva, etc.)[/QUOTE]
Liddell is one I’m thinking of, just watched him fighting on a couple of vids and I do not see him doing this at all.. Moving yes, he loves to move laterally, but not in the way I read your suggestions at all–no bouncy bounce, no toes, no dancing boxer, especially when he means business.. Most of his dancing happens before the fight starts IMO.

Let’s see all the vids of the top fighters doing this..

Here’s a clip of UFC 57.. What kind of movement do we see from two of the best and why?

http://www.mediafire.com/?5xrb0ggnh2s

Aside from a feeling out period or a delaying action the best movement IMO is minimal movement, better to make them miss by an inch rather than a mile..

In any case if folks want to move more I don’t see the system stopping them..

37

I think we’re debating trifles here, Jim.

When I say slightly up on your toes at times - I don’t mean to do a Muhammad Ali or a Sugar Ray Leonard dance.

38

As much as I think realistic drills, conditioning, grappling, sparring etc are beneficial, teaching a skill like WC so that it’s functional for the student requires:
A. It’s addressed and explained at a level they understand.
B. It’s challenging them to improve beyond their current level.

A: If you don’t make the art simple to understand, nothing will sink in. By talking in weird ways, it makes students lose their focus. Any technique/idea you teach should be at a level where it’s easy to “get”. If it’s not easy, then that technique is too advanced and the student isn’t ready for it. A lot of realistic drills are way too hard for beginners. But maybe once they’ve learnt something simpler first, they can appreciate the more difficult drill.

B: Whatever you’re training has to be challenging to you for you to improve. If you just do whatever you already are good at you aren’t going to get much better. Same with any student. They have to do something challenging to get better. If they’re in their comfort zone they can just coast. There’s all sorts of different areas outside people’s comfort zones. Even in a particular topic like say grappling: You may think you’re decent but there’s always more challenging levels of ability. Unless you push yourself or someone pushes you to improve, you probably won’t.

Until you make the art more learnable and accessible, you haven’t made it more functional, just more complicated.

39

Forms and unrealistic drills can’t by their very nature develop functional/realistic skills/tools. They can at most be used as learning/teaching devices, although in my view, the disadvantages of using them as learning/teaching devices outweighs their usefulness.

—I agree that forms and drills are learning/teaching devices. But I see them as very important for that reason. They teach structure and act as a sort of “dictionary” of movement. And I also agree that you have to go beyond those forms and drills to develop realistic skills. But what are the disadvantages of this that you think outweighs their usefulness?

You see, if you practice tan sao in forms and unrealistic drills, like chi sao, and don’t use regularly and consistently in sparring, you will never develop it into a realistic skill. That only comes by using your tan sao regularly and consistently in sparring.

—Again I agree. But don’t you need to train that tan sao in forms and drills as a “foundational” way of learning good structure? Even a boxer works on his various punches solo. He learns to throw a good jab by isolating it and working on it. He doesn’t ONLY throw a jab when sparring. He works his jab solo, on the heavy bag, with a cooperative opponent, and then in sparring.

In my view, the forms and traditional drills is not WCK – that is “the curriculum”. Just as a math textbook is not math. WCK is the activity, it is fighting using WCK’s approach/tools. You can do the forms and traditional drills forever and you’re not “doing WCK” (just like hitting the heavy bag and skipping rope is not boxing). Skill in WCK comes from “doing WCK”, and the more you “do” it, just like with any skill, the better you get. You learn and develop boxing skills by boxing, you learn and develop grappling skills by grappling, and you learn and develop WCK by fighting.

—Again, I agree. But what I’m not seeing is why you feel that the “curriculum” or “textbook” is so unimportant. You have to start somewhere. You have to have a good foundation in basic skill before you can build good “functional” skill. No one does higher math without first developing a good understanding in basic math. The reason we have math textbooks is because it is the rare individual who has a “natural” grasp of mathematics without any foundational learning.

BJJ is a ground fighting method, right? How do you practice and develop BJJ? By doing it, by grappling on the ground.

—OK. As in the past I admit that my experience in BJJ is limited. But in my limited experience what I was taught was the basic positions, how to transition between them, how to apply various submissions, and some basic escapes for these submissions. It was all basic foundational training. This was all done is a “rote” fashion to learn the basic movements and start to understand how they work. No one was just thrown on the mat and told “go for it!” How is this any different than learning the forms and basic drills of WCK?

Boxing is a free-movement, stand-up fighting (with punches) method, right? How do you practice and develop boxing? By doing it, by boxing (punching) in stand-up, free movement fighting.

—But don’t they start by learning the basic movements first? Again, a boxer isn’t just thrown in the ring and told to fight without first learning what good technique is supposed to be.

Where do BJJ and boxing practitioners get their tools – they don’t have forms/linked sets?

–No. But they have a “curriculum.” They work through the various elements of BJJ in a non-threatening environment so that the student learns the basics before they are expected to use those basics against a fully resisting opponent. At least that’s how my BJJ teacher did it. They train with cooperative opponents (drills) before they try to apply it on resisting opponents. They train various techniques like the “shrimp” movement and standing from a grounded position without an opponent (form).

I’ll tell you how to begin “the work” – get some training partners, start in contact, and fight.

—That’s good advice.

You already know the WCK tools, bong, tan, fook, etc.

—Ah! But I know those tools from doing the “curriculum.” How do I teach them to someone else without showing them that “curriculum.” You seem to think that the curriculum is unimportant and can be thrown out. That is where I find my disagreement with what you have been saying.

Keep doing contact sparring. Keep critically examining what is working, why it is working, etc. and what isn’t working, why it isn’t working, etc. Then you will be on the road toward making your WCK functional.

—Again. Good advice. :slight_smile:

40

[QUOTE=KPM;823033]—I agree that forms and drills are learning/teaching devices. But I see them as very important for that reason. They teach structure and act as a sort of “dictionary” of movement. And I also agree that you have to go beyond those forms and drills to develop realistic skills. But what are the disadvantages of this that you think outweighs their usefulness?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but the problem is while the forms and drills teach the movements, they don’t teach how to use the movements in fighting. So what you have is a disconnect between learning, practice, and fighting. Not only that, but you can’t really learn how perform open skill movements with modelactions, since the movement is never going to be the model. It is just a poor way to learn.

—Again I agree. But don’t you need to train that tan sao in forms and drills as a “foundational” way of learning good structure? Even a boxer works on his various punches solo. He learns to throw a good jab by isolating it and working on it. He doesn’t ONLY throw a jab when sparring. He works his jab solo, on the heavy bag, with a cooperative opponent, and then in sparring.

But doing the movement in an unrealistic drill is counter-productive since you are learning/practicing to do the movement one way and then needed to perform the movement another way in fighting. You want that 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence.

Again, I agree. But what I’m not seeing is why you feel that the “curriculum” or “textbook” is so unimportant. You have to start somewhere. You have to have a good foundation in basic skill before you can build good “functional” skill. No one does higher math without first developing a good understanding in basic math. The reason we have math textbooks is because it is the rare individual who has a “natural” grasp of mathematics without any foundational learning.

You’re missing my point. Of course there will be a currcilumin any MA. But inTMAs that curriculum is separated from application, so you learn and practice moving one way and then when fighting will need to move another. So yes, you need to learn the movements, however, you should learn it in the context of how you will really use it in fighting, then drill it just like you will use it in fighitng, then use it in fighting just as you’ve learned it and drilled it. Now you from day 1 developing a habit of use that will be constantly reinforced.

I admit that my experience in BJJ is limited. But in my limited experience what I was taught was the basic positions, how to transition between them, how to apply various submissions, and some basic escapes for these submissions. It was all basic foundational training. This was all done is a “rote” fashion to learn the basic movements and start to understand how they work. No one was just thrown on the mat and told “go for it!” How is this any different than learning the forms and basic drills of WCK?

OK, because how you learned those things in BJJ were within the context of how you would really do them in fighitng, so what you learned corresponded to what you drilled which correspondedto what you will do in sparring/fighting. You didn’t learn linked forms of movements (not knowing how they were used), and you didn’t practice drills like chi sao where you use the tools in waysthat won’t work in reality. I’m not saying just throw people on the mat and tell them to “go for it.” I’m saying that WCK should be taught like boxing, judo, BJJ, sambo, MT, etc.

And, this is critical, you were taught those things in BJJ not because of some theory or some idea of how they believe you should do things, they are teaching you from experience, from seeing those things actually work in fighting – so they are starting with the fight (we know this and that works) and teaching from that standpoint. That is not done in WCK.

But don’t they start by learning the basic movements first? Again, a boxer isn’t just thrown in the ring and told to fight without first learning what good technique is supposed to be.

Where have I ever suggested that? I do think it important for beginners to begin with sparring just so they get used to that environment and to really see that they are going to need to fit their tools into that environment. But, I think teaching WCK should be structured just as learning BJJ, boxing, etc. You don’t need forms to do that (and they are counter-productive), you don’t need lots of unrealistic drill practiceto do that.

No. But they have a “curriculum.” They work through the various elements of BJJ in a non-threatening environment so that the student learns the basics before they are expected to use those basics against a fully resisting opponent. At least that’s how my BJJ teacher did it. They train with cooperative opponents (drills) before they try to apply it on resisting opponents. They train various techniques like the “shrimp” movement and standing from a grounded position without an opponent (form).

Yes, and all those things are taught within a context of proven ways to use them in fighting. Most of what is taught in WCK – how to use the tools – is utter nonsense. And the reason it is utter nonsense is that the teachers, including the masters and grandmasters, are working from theory not from experience. So you get people who can’t really use the tools of WCK teaching others via forms (which don’t show how to use the tools and which focus on the wrong things) and unrealistic drills where you practice moving in ways that don’t correspond to fighting. Where will that take you? You’ll be on the bus to fantasy-land.

I’ll tell you how to begin “the work” – get some training partners, start in contact, and fight.

—That’s good advice.

You already know the WCK tools, bong, tan, fook, etc.

—Ah! But I know those tools from doing the “curriculum.” How do I teach them to someone else without showing them that “curriculum.” You seem to think that the curriculum is unimportant and can be thrown out. That is where I find my disagreement with what you have been saying.

You teach them from experience.

Look, of course all MAs have curriculums. I’m not saying the curriculum is unimportant --just the opposite: I’m saying it is critical. Consider this. Let’s say you learn something in WCK, call it 1a. OK? Now, you then take it and practice it, 1b. With me so far. Now, don’t you agree that you’d want 1a=1b? So that you learn it as you will pratice it? With an open skill, and all martial arts are open skills, a model movement, some fixed representation, can neverreally be how you willperform it, since by its very nature, the movement will need to be dynamic and adaptive. With me? It’s likelearning a forehand in tennis via a fixed form. Yourforehand will neer look like that in pradtice since it will nedd to be dynamic and adaptive, aligning to the ball, how you are moving, etc. A fixed form can’t properly represent (or teach) a dynamic action. As the WCK tools are dynamic, adaptive actions (and not shapes), theycan’t be adequately taught via fixed forms. Then you get 1a not equal to 1b.

Then put in sparring/fighting, 1c. If you practice 1b, that is what you are habituating. But if 1b is not equal to 1c, then you are practcing one way and trying to fight another. That is poor training.

So, I’m saying let’s do what all functional arts do,have 1a=1b=1c. But-- and here is the critical BUT – to do that, you need to begin with 1c. You need to start with the fight, with what works,and we know it works from experience. Otherwise, you are starting with fantasy, with what you believe should work, etc.