I’ve spent thousands of hours with my standup instructors, but I really don’t know how much time they spent with their instructors.
I’ve also spent a total of about 3300 hours with my three BJJ instructors, but I do know that they each have spent thousands upon thousands of hours with each of their instructors.
Hmmm… maybe that’s why my BJJ game is better than my standup game.
Terence wrote:
In my view, how many thousands of hours one spent with their instructor(s) isn’t very significant
—I agree with this in spirit. Just logging hours is no guarantee. Spending 100 direct contact hours receiving personal instruction is much different that 100 hours where you are part of a class with 20 other students present. Quantity does not necessarily ensure quality. I have also found that some of my biggest steps forward in understanding and ability have taken place during my own practice sessions when Sifu is not around where I have taken his instruction and finally been able to “make it my own.” KPM
I don’t care how much time my sigung spent with my sifu – all I care about is whether my sifu can help me produce results. Again, it all comes down to results.
—And besides, in most traditional CMA circles, it would be considered very rude to starting asking your instructor all kinds of questions about how many actual hours he spent with his instructor. 
BTW, it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) take a long time to develop good skill in WCK (put it into your head and hands);
—Again, I agree with this in spirit. Terence will consider this theoretical nonsense, but WCK was developed to be a more streamlined version of CMA and to be a vehicle to produce good fighters in a shorter amount of time. It shouldn’t take 10 years plus to learn the system and do that. In many cases there has been too much “elaboration” on the system and too much stretching out of the curriculum to keep paying students coming back for more. Compared to other CMA’s, IMHO WCK is more simple and straightforward. We should try to keep it that way.
KPM
Keith
Some scary scary stuff on this thread… glad i’m nothing to do with any sort of big commercial wing chun organisation.
As knifefighter said, 2 hours 3 times a week = 300 hours a year. My guess is that should be how much an average ‘serious’ student in any martial art should go be training, and that’s nothing for the obsessive trainer! 5 years training should be the bare minimum before teaching. That’s 1500 hours. That should be for your average ‘black belt’ first or second dan instructor in an mass-production art like judo or karate. Not exactly the same thing an experienced wing chun sifu with decades of experience.
Terence is way off the mark IMO - wing chun is not a simple art. It has to be taught hands on with as much student-teacher contact time as possible. This is one of the reasons why wing chun will never be a production line martial art, and why commercial wing chun will always suck. It’s also why wing chun cannot be trained using sparring practice as the primary learning vehicle - but lets not go down that track.
One big problem is this quantitative approach, measuring the number of ‘hours’ of training with a sifu.
Crimsonking sez:
Very true.!
"Some scary scary stuff on this thread… glad i’m nothing to do with any sort of big commercial wing chun organisation.
As knifefighter said, 2 hours 3 times a week = 300 hours a year. My guess is that should be how much an average ‘serious’ student in any martial art should go be training, and that’s nothing for the obsessive trainer! 5 years training should be the bare minimum before teaching. That’s 1500 hours. That should be for your average ‘black belt’ first or second dan instructor in an mass-production art like judo or karate. Not exactly the same thing an experienced wing chun sifu with decades of experience."
(crimsonking)
GIVEN THE NATURE of his previous posts…I have to assume I’m one of the people crimsonking is talking about here. The numbers I listed were hours that I’ve spent ALONE with my Wing Chun instructors (or maybe with one or two other students present)…so when I include all of the time spent in a big class or seminar atmosphere with my instructors - then the number of hours I listed multiplies many time over.
OK, here goes . . .
My view is that WCK has become “overly complex” because of a number of reasons but essentially it boils down to not fighting (not doing WCK). When you do, you begin to cut through the mess and get down to the fundamentals.
As some of you know, my teaching and training method is to focus on producing results. One way I do that is by “eliminating the inessentials”, that is not spending time on things that a trainee won’t use (that just takes time away from his working on the things he will need). So I just focus on those things that are part of that particular individual’s “game”. This comes from giving him the fundamentals and letting him fight so I can see his “game”, how it develops, what he needs to do to make it better, etc. FWIW, this is how they train boxers and muay thai boxers, etc. I didn’t reinvent the wheel.
Many take exception to my view that an instructor doesn’t (and shouldn’t) need to spend “loads” of time with a trainee. In part, my view is based on my distinction between teaching someone and training someone (learning vs. developing skill). I was referring to the teaching aspect (it doesn’t take much time). With regard to training, my view is that a good instructor makes their student independent from them as quickly as possible (not a good way for a commercial school to run 
). I always say that a person is responsible for his own training. So part of what I try to do is give my students the ability to train themselves, so that they don’t need me looking over their shoulder all the time. In other words, they become “self-correcting.” Certainly I train them, and I train with them, but they also train together, train alone, etc.
I’ve come to my views based on my experience, training myself, and others, and using my and their results (increased fighting performance using their WCK tools) as a guide. I’ve also “stolen” the training methodology of other skilled fighters. In other words, my views are informed by results, not what I’ve been told or want to believe – theory. If someone else is doing something different and getting results, that’s cool and I respect them. It all comes down to results. Two good boxers/coaches can disagree on some things but they are both getting results.
I agree wholeheartedly that one needs to spend lots of time training.
“But what I’ve found from experience (vs. what I’ve been told or want to beleive) is that when WCK practitioners really fight (and not demo or do chi sao or whatever) especially against good opposition what they do becomes very simple because IT HAS TO BE to work. And I’d bet money that if we taped and watched all those “WCK is complex” guys actually fight good people (or if they tape themselves and watch), we’d see exactly what I’m talking about; they’d be relying on relatively few things over and over and over.” (Terence)
BUT WHAT it seems you fail to understand, Terence…is that what might look simple and direct - and what might look like just a relatively few things being repeated over and over…are in fact things that utilize numerous variations and improvizations on a theme…and there are at least a dozen different themes.
And in order to really “GET” all of that down…to the point that a student has truly become a good fighter - well that takes many hours of both training and teaching by the instructor.
Victor,
I do understand that – and yes, it does take loads of training time to develop skill (I said these things were simple, not easy!). As I often say, if it were easy, everyone would be doing it.
Our disagreement seems to stem from our views on exactly what an instructor does. I don’t “spoon feed” my students or try to make them dependent on me (and I’m not saying you do) but try to help them learn to “eat” on their own; teach them to fish rather than give them a fish, as the saying goes. Sure it takes some time to get them to that point – a few years of solid, regular training. But after that, they’re out of the nest.
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
GIVEN THE NATURE of his previous posts…I have to assume I’m one of the people crimsonking is talking about here. The numbers I listed were hours that I’ve spent ALONE with my Wing Chun instructors (or maybe with one or two other students present)…so when I include all of the time spent in a big class or seminar atmosphere with my instructors - then the number of hours I listed multiplies many time over.
Hey Vic, you’re getting paranoid. I didn’t mention any names, or call anyone a seminar sifu.
Originally posted by t_niehoff
teach them to fish rather than give them a fish
Nice soundbite, but every good martial arts instructor should do that regardless.
“Our disagreement seems to stem from our views on exactly what an instructor does. I don’t ‘spoon feed’ my students or try to make them dependent on me (and I’m not saying you do) but try to help them learn to ‘eat’ on their own; teach them to fish rather than give them a fish, as the saying goes. Sure it takes some time to get them to that point – a few years of solid, regular training. But after that, they’re out of the nest.” (Terence)
PERHAPS our disagreement has to do with what you mean by “a few years”…
It’s got to take at least 5 years, imo.
(And those 5 years would have to be in a small class training structure).
Terence,
TN : what I’ve found from experience (vs. what I’ve been told or want to beleive) is that when WCK practitioners really fight (and not demo or do chi sao or whatever) especially against good opposition what they do becomes very simple because IT HAS TO BE to work. And I’d bet money that if we taped and watched all those “WCK is complex” guys actually fight good people (or if they tape themselves and watch), we’d see exactly what I’m talking about; they’d be relying on relatively few things over and over and over.
CK : You are mostly correct, however, previous discussions suggest we have differing views about what wing chun can and can’t train one for, but moving on…
TN : The reason boxing, muay thai, etc. are all great (standing up) fighitng methods is because they are simple, with relatively few strategic, tactical, and technical elements. It can’t be complicated when you fight or you can’t make it work. The complications just “get in the way”. In fact, IMO there is an inverse relationship between how complicated a method is and it’s effectiveness (the more you complicate things, the less chance they will work). This is why, for example, the more complex the theory you have, the less effective you’ll be.
CK : The issue is not the complexity of the theory, but the practice. I’ll agree fundamental Wing Chun theory is pretty simple. Perhaps the complexity arises because of the vast implications of those simple fundamental concepts and principles?
TN : Many take exception to my view that an instructor doesn’t (and shouldn’t) need to spend “loads” of time with a trainee. In part, my view is based on my distinction between teaching someone and training someone (learning vs. developing skill). I was referring to the teaching aspect (it doesn’t take much time).
CK : Learning eaching and training\developing are really part of the same thing - embodied learning. If you think that teaching is the verbal or intellectual part of it - that explains your view. IMO the real teaching\learning is non-verbal (ie hands-on). We’re all familiar with the problems inherent in trying to communicate wing chun verbally.
TN : With regard to training, my view is that a good instructor makes their student independent from them as quickly as possible (not a good way for a commercial school to run ). I always say that a person is responsible for his own training. So part of what I try to do is give my students the ability to train themselves, so that they don’t need me looking over their shoulder all the time. In other words, they become “self-correcting.” Certainly I train them, and I train with them, but they also train together, train alone, etc.
CK : Not really the issue. Everyone is responsible for their own training, and learning to become self-correcting is an obvious and important part of that.
TN : 4) I agree wholeheartedly that one needs to spend lots of time training.
CK : Very good.
CK wrote:
Learning eaching and training\developing are really part of the same thing - embodied learning. If you think that teaching is the verbal or intellectual part of it - that explains your view. IMO the real teaching\learning is non-verbal (ie hands-on). We’re all familiar with the problems inherent in trying to communicate wing chun verbally.
**Let me use an example (nonWCK) to clarify my meaning – a BJJ instructor can teach you the elbow-escape (one of the core escapes), and go into the details, etc. in a relatively short period of time. And you can drill it and get corrections on your mechanics, etc. That is all part of what I consider “learning”. To develop skill using it requires loads of rolling/sparring (which for the most part won’t be with instructor) as well as continued drilling. That is what I call “developing”.
Originally posted by t_niehoff
Our disagreement seems to stem from our views on exactly what an instructor does. I don’t “spoon feed” my students or try to make them dependent on me (and I’m not saying you do) but try to help them learn to “eat” on their own; teach them to fish rather than give them a fish, as the saying goes. Sure it takes some time to get them to that point – a few years of solid, regular training. But after that, they’re out of the nest.
Nice quote… ODDLY FAMILIAR HOWEVER!
Anyways, what takes more time??? Giving a student a fish?? Or teaching them how to fish??? Your logic doe not compute.
It must serve your argument better to NOT tell us how much time you spend training with your instructor.
– a few years of solid, regular training. But after that, they’re out of the nest.
Some details about the training involved concerning those “few years” would be helpful in understanding your ideology of training as it pertains to instructor qualifications.