After a hiatus from teaching, I’m getting things rolling again, and had, for the first time in a while, a person with no exposure to Wing Chun by to train last night.
In the course of about an hour and a half we went from:
the basic stance (character two), with physical examples of the use of adduction to :
basic utilization of the torso to put force in the ground from the stance to:
the turn with stance testing to:
stepping forward with the structure/ground line developed at first, projecting the structure to the arms to:
the groove for moving the arms using the ground in front of the body (i.e. the punch) to:
maintaining the locked in structure in the arms to allow one to shift and punch (tan dar) to:
the first two sets of form, each piece based on the mechanics shown before to:
finish with a light ‘live’ drill using the stance to shut down a double neck tie (plum).
I figure next time we’ll review, and start on moving the structure explosively (punching), and work some basic footwork with some live work on knee splits and low kicks, as well as basic mount escapes.
Good class. I like how you started the new student out with the basic stance. IMO, its the most important thing in Wing Chun and should be taught first.
In our kwoon our “Introductory” lesson consists of the introduction of the Neutral Stance(basic stance) and how this is the foundation for the other stances to which there are four total (left side neutral, right side neutral, front stance, and neutral stance). From there I go onto the basic punch and give 4 or 5 reasons why it is very efficient and effective. Then onto the Man/Wu sao structure, and then one technique, usually the Bil Sao and side step front kick combination, which can be applied to almost anything coming towards the head or upper gate. Usually I start them off using it against the straight punch, slowly showing the advantages it can give you if applied correctly with good structure in form and timing, then showing how it applies to a wrist/elbow/shoulder grab, rear hook, round kick, etc, reinforcing the concept of simiplicity prevelant throughout the art… After that I usually demonstrate a little Mok Jong for them and show them the weapons of WC then inform them of our pricing plans and answer all their questions. We have a good sign up rate using this method and it demonstrates to the people with no MA background, and also those with MA experience, how effective WC is and of course what the school has to offer them. This process usually lasts 45 minutes or so but two days ago I had one that lasted 1 1/2 hrs, too much detail on my part sometimes, but I tend to get into it and enjoy this part of the whole experience.
Unless you have an Olympic caliber athlete in front of you, I suspect your hiatus has allowed the feeling of ‘not having enough time so I’ll cram in as much as possible’ to boil over.
How about taking one or two live drills (perhaps those you mentioned) and figuring out how to make them interesting enough and enjoyable to last, say, three weeks of classes or so? In the long run, both you and your student might be better off this way if you are attempting to shorten the learning cycle (in my opinion). Of course, your mileage may vary.
I believe teaching is a skill in itself not only re -affirming what one’s already learnt but learning how to communicate and deal with different people with different paces of learning. Good stuff
Did you get a chance to look at that routine? If so dont worry about putting it up here dont want to get away from the point of this thread.
I actually made a serious effort to rein myself in, in an attempt to avoid that phenomenon. I think what I’m going to do is build in another stance-based live drill each session, slowly integrating, while doing very hands-on refinement of mechanics. The thing I want to stress is going from a pure mechanics cooperative drill, to a simple live application drill, to a piece of form, so that each piece of form is taught after getting the body feel you would have in actual application, using the form to consolidate what is learned, rather than just going for choreography.
Russ,
I’ll check it out.
Kevin,
I’ve been meaning to e-mail you about that. I’ll try to send something out tonight.
It will vary depending on the new student’s learning habilities but it usually follows that model:
YGKYM and Chor ma
2)The basic punch from the stance
3)Pak sau with an explaination of the center line theory and triangle
4)Basic Tor Ma stepping/combined with Punching
5)Dan Chi Sau overview with explainations about Fok Sau and sticking
That’s usually enough for one day. I advise them to practice at home everyday and to contact me anytimes if they have any problem with the material.
BTW,I like to teach as fast as the students are capable of learning but I can go as slow as needed if necessary!..
I’ve made a point of minimizing arm work for the first few months of training since I started teaching a decade ago. I’ve found this approach, while not commercial, tends to hammer the important stuff early, and make for good lasting quality in those who’ve gone through it.
I understand what you say Andrew. I personaly do my best to ingrain the foundations in new students and have them to understand what they are doing.I Will let them play with their class mates sooner but I am on their back the second their YGKYM is not up to my tastes.So far,many of my students have a very good rooting developped but some are more lazy.I tend to respect their own individual learning pace.
Originally posted by old jong
[B]It will vary depending on the new student’s learning habilities but it usually follows that model:
YGKYM and Chor ma
2)The basic punch from the stance
3)Pak sau with an explaination of the center line theory and triangle
4)Basic Tor Ma stepping/combined with Punching
5)Dan Chi Sau overview with explainations about Fok Sau and sticking
That’s usually enough for one day. I advise them to practice at home everyday and to contact me anytimes if they have any problem with the material.
BTW,I like to teach as fast as the students are capable of learning but I can go as slow as needed if necessary!.. [/B]
You got it right, that’s pretty much what I do, anything more or other that that, will be too much. real slow is the way.
There is something that should be said abut teachinfg Wing Chun
I firmly believe that Wing Chun should be taught very slow!..They used to do that in the old days;having students standing in YGKYM for months,slowly extending their fook and bringing back their wu.But…Who would tolerate this today?..Today,students want it all fast! They will disappear from your schools like puffs of smokes if you would dare to teach them the old way.This is why JKD was invented IMO!..
So,we have to adjust and provides with more material in less times at the risk of having them developp a superficial Wing Chun.
There are very few real disciples of the art anymore!.. We have to deal with custommers now!..
Originally posted by Ali Hamad Rahim
[B]You got it right, that’s pretty much what I do, anything more or other that that, will be too much. real slow is the way.
Generally speaking, my first lessons are strictly posture and stances/footwork, with a little introduction into the chung kuen. and the first section of SLT. But I inform them that without the foundation of the posture/stucture and stances, none of the rest will work.
Once that is grasped for the most part, then we move more into the mechanics of the hands…punches, palms, single and double arm movements, drills, CK, more drills, chi sau, sparring, etc…etc..etc..
I do similar things to AndrewS - but I do it in reverse.
First lesson starts with learning the first section of SLT (but no more than about 10-15 minutes)…then three very basic stances and basic stepping (completely neutral stance - neutral side (body) stance - front stance…followed by a basic half-step forward from the front stance)…the vertical punch…with some multiple roll (chain) punching…and a basic front kick that comes out of the neutral side stance.
But all the while explaining (especially during the initial SLT) some of the principles of the system (ie.- the centerline, the six gates, the principle of always wanting to use two hands at the same time, etc.)…
then I show some pak sao…then a little pak da (from the neutral stance)…then an actual application of pak da against someone throwing a (very slow) straight punch from a distance - and the new student has to respond with some basic footwork as they step forward from the neutral side stance and counter with pak da.
So it’s kind of the reverse of Andrew’s approach - but at the end of the day (class)…perhaps it’s a similar result:
they’ve learned how to use at least one technique in a somewhat realistic setting.
I think the interesting thing I’ve stumbled across is reverse engineering the form, working mechanics and application first, in order to show context.
I don’t buy into teaching slowly or quickly- neither to me is a useful idea. The teaching model I’m looking for is a combination of methods- giving people room to learn on their own in safe application environments of live drilling, ramping contact and variability up and down, while also teaching extremely thoroughly, point by point, constantly building on and reviewing prior material (a learning pattern intrinsic to the system and one of the truly outstanding points of Wing Chun).
Anyway, I’m curious what this guy’s form is going to look like when he’s through it in a few month. While how a form looks is of little merit, it will be interesting to see the difference between him and someone taught from the choreographed standpoint.
The way my sifu taught me was also somewhat in ‘reverse’. I wasn’t taught any traditional wing chun for some time. We looked strictly at applications - the structure of a fight, the strategies and tactics of fighting - including looking at various other martial arts and their approaches. I was then introduced to why we do things the wing chun way - what we do that is different to say boxers or judoka, and ‘natural’ reactions. After nearly a year of pseudo-wing chun JKD\MMA type training I understood how and why traditional wing chun works, and the importance of all the things traditionalists talk about.
I was also given standing and sitting qigong on day #1.
A different approach - and one that leaves you a year or so behind in terms of a traditional syllabus, but priceless.
On teaching speed - I agree fast\slow doesnt make much sense. I was taught with no secrets or techniques held back, shown techniques from biu jee very early on if it came up, but the progression through dan-chi, slt, ck, and all the multitude of chi sao drills, poon sao, on to gor sao etc was very slow indeed. This was out of my choice.
that seems to be a useful approach to hook people in- give them some application and experience fast in order to give them context, so that they can understand the good stuff about Wing Chun.
Did you find yourself unlearning a lot of mechanics after that year or did your teacher actively guide you away from things that grossly contradicted what you were headed to (and if so, how)?
In my first lesson from Patrick Chow, we stood in the SLT pigeon toe stance and just did the slow part of the Tan sau/Fook sau cycle over and over again for an hour straight. He said this represented 1/4 of the Wing Chun system. All the students except me were Chinese and so they accepted this and I followed along. In the first year only the first third of the form was covered along with single sticking hands, turning, stepping with the punch, double punching to develop power, Pak sau and Lap sau.
In my first lesson from Dr. G.K. Khoe in the Wang Kiu lineage I learned the SLT, the CK and part of the BJ, single sticking hands, rolling hands, Pak sau and Lap sau drills, stepping and turning and various drills. The class was 4 to 5 hours long. I missed the first three months and so just had to jump in the middle of where they were at. There were only ten students. The teacher was trying to give a crash course to cover the entire system in 7 months because he was only in Vancouver for a year and then had to go back to Holland to return two years later. After that he turned the curriculum into a three year program.
In the first lesson I usually play with the student, demonstrate to them the form and explain the key ideas. Then I show them how to stand and punch and to defend against that. When they leave they understand the importance of being rooted and also to be mobile, the importance of the centerline theory, the idea of relaxation, the idea of economy of motion, the straight line concept, the concept of simultaneous attack and defense and the whole feel of it in action. I show the student how his natural fighting actions can be improved in little details everywhere. So after that they can evaluate and compare against anything else they know and decide to take up this art or go somewhere else.
