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.
—Then it sounds like what we need to strive for is to make our drills as realistic as possible.
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.
—Ok. I see what you’re saying. Of all the TCMAs, WCK is the one with the least “flowery” movements and has always seemed to me to be the one with the most focus on application. But I do think times have changed and many have lost sight of the 1-to-1-to-1 correspondence that you are talking about.
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 agree. But it sounds to me like you are saying that the curriculum…the forms and drills…just need to be as realistic as possible…not that they are unimportant or counter-productive.
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.
—I think perhaps we are not defining “forms” in the same way. I agree that what you are talking about does not require the long linked sets (SLT, CK, BG). But I do think that in the process of being “structured”, formal technique has to be taught before it can be applied. This would consist of short series of movements…like a combo in boxing…and is what I was previously referring to as “san sik.” But these are also a type of “form”… as seen and used Ku Lo WCK.
So while you did not like my idea of developing a more functional “san sik” based WCK, it is starting to sound like we are talking about the same thing. How are you going to structure your WCK that does not make use of the classic forms, unless you teach short sequences of techniques…the tools…and then work on application? Hence my previous suggestion…short sequences of technique (san sik), application taught in a two-man cooperative format (drill), further developed in a two-man non-cooperative format (sparring). How do you suggest formating a curriculum for “functional” WCK?
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.
—I follow you. We need to “reverse engineer” our WCK, rather than trust the experience of the guys that developed WCK in this way several generations ago, since times have changed and people don’t fight the same way.
—Good discussion so far. I’m still interested in hearing how you format your WCK curriculum without the use of forms. Thanks!