[QUOTE=stonecrusher69;763347]When the word stucture is used its very generic word,but in the context of WCK to me I think of the concept of the iron (bone) bar rap in cotton (muscle skin)= structure.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. So you think of WCK structure using a tai ji metaphor? I’m reminded of the words of Moy Yat . . . something about how most WCK books are really about tai ji. 
Eventhough internal styles like Tai Ji use this concept I don’t think it’s exclusive to just that art.many master talk about this.Sifu Augustine Fong Talks about this many times.The whole SLT form is done slow to develope structure or the Yin Dai GongY.ou must develope structure in the form first before you can really use in in fighting.You can’t really learn structure from sparring I think beause you’ll be so worried about being hit and to tense to relax which is the key to structure.
Stone crusher
I have been doing wing chun regularly since 1976… and structure of the parts and the whole was emphasized in my evolution from day one. That is just a fact..
not an opinion… but others are entitled to theirs… and I dont care to get into debates with TN, KF or anyone else.
Stances and sructures vary from art to art and activity to activity depending on the functions they want to emphasize and will also vary from training development to their usage in specific situations.,
Forums create their own stories. his-stories…
joy chaudhuri
Terence writes:
I said “body structure” is the new buzzword, and that it wasn’t widely (hardly at all) talked about until about ten years ago when Robert began emphasizing it first on the WCML.
Of note, Robert’s discussion of structure came contemporarily to Mike Sigman’s popularization of peng and groundpath as the basis for IMA. Sigman’s crusade on rec.m-a and the neijia list played a big role shaping people’s perceptions of the basics of CMA, and he was, by far, the most controversial and vocal advocate of this form of re-examination of basics at the time.
Andrew
[QUOTE=AndrewS;763421]Of note, Robert’s discussion of structure came contemporarily to Mike Sigman’s popularization of peng and groundpath as the basis for IMA. Sigman’s crusade on rec.m-a and the neijia list played a big role shaping people’s perceptions of the basics of CMA, and he was, by far, the most controversial and vocal advocate of this form of re-examination of basics at the time.
Andrew[/QUOTE]
Very true. And I recall a number of discussions between Sigman and Robert on the neijia list, including a few that got heated.
[QUOTE=stonecrusher69;763399]Eventhough internal styles like Tai Ji use this concept I don’t think it’s exclusive to just that art.many master talk about this.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, many people in various arts do borrow tai ji’s metaphors.
Sifu Augustine Fong Talks about this many times.
Exhibit A.
The whole SLT form is done slow to develope structure or the Yin Dai Gong.
Some lineages do the form differently, some with dynamic tension and some at top speed. Some like to waltz, others to cha cha. It’s all just dancing.
Y.ou must develope structure in the form first before you can really use in in fighting.You can’t really learn structure from sparring I think beause you’ll be so worried about being hit and to tense to relax which is the key to structure.
I guess this is why all the TMAs that have form practice produce such top-notch fighters – oh, I’m sorry, it seems to be the other way round: that the martial arts without forms and form practice seem to produce the good fighters. Hmmm.
[QUOTE=AndrewS;763421]
Of note, Robert’s discussion of structure came contemporarily to Mike Sigman’s popularization of peng and groundpath as the basis for IMA. Sigman’s crusade on rec.m-a and the neijia list played a big role shaping people’s perceptions of the basics of CMA, and he was, by far, the most controversial and vocal advocate of this form of re-examination of basics at the time.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;763431]Very true. And I recall a number of discussions between Sigman and Robert on the neijia list, including a few that got heated. ;)[/QUOTE]
Yeah. It started to become a bit of a bad joke after a while. One you don’t really laugh over.
This is how the buzzword works:
I think Robert used the term structure because Mike did and it fit what he wanted to say. However it degraded into an art bashing argument. WC essentially being not “good enough” or whatever.
Later Robert came out with his structure tests which to me seemed a bit derivative of Mike’s structure tests. A WC variation of sorts. I don’t mean that in a bad way at all. The tests seemed OK.
What irked me somewhat was the attitude that failing the test meant you sucked or you don’t really know WC or your lineage is crap. That elitist attitude kind of paralleled Mike’s neijia attitude. People would place a lot of weight on whether they could pass the tests. And it seemed like they were selling something by creating the “value” and then offering the knowledge. It seems to be somewhat against the altruistic nature of internet mailing lists even though it was a fairly soft sell. Plus these tests were a way to stick the boot into people and accuse them of being unskilled if they didn’t know of them.
After I pondered it a while and learnt more chen taiji and WC, I felt that it was skewing the “perceptions of the basics” a bit because of how much the test idea was pushed.
e.g. If you want to do any real push hands, you need to learn how to wrestle essentially. If you don’t, you’re in for a serious butt raping. It’s a style of wrestling and there’s a lot of different basic skills involved. A teacher teaches you these skills.
[QUOTE=Edmund;763454]Yeah. It started to become a bit of a bad joke after a while. One you don’t really laugh over.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
This is how the buzzword works:
I think Robert used the term structure because Mike did and it fit what he wanted to say. However it degraded into an art bashing argument. WC essentially being not “good enough” or whatever.
Actually, Robert was already using the term “body structure” and Mike was more into “groundpath” and peng, but they were talking about similar things.
Later Robert came out with his structure tests which to me seemed a bit derivative of Mike’s structure tests. A WC variation of sorts. I don’t mean that in a bad way at all. The tests seemed OK.
Robert already had developed his structure tests at that point, and was using them in his teaching. But you are correct that he hadn’t publicized them at that point. FWIW, those sorts of “tests” are common in many arts and Robert adapted them to WCK.
What irked me somewhat was the attitude that failing the test meant you sucked or you don’t really know WC or your lineage is crap. That elitist attitude kind of paralleled Mike’s neijia attitude. People would place a lot of weight on whether they could pass the tests. And it seemed like they were selling something by creating the “value” and then offering the knowledge. It seems to be somewhat against the altruistic nature of internet mailing lists even though it was a fairly soft sell. Plus these tests were a way to stick the boot into people and accuse them of being unskilled if they didn’t know of them.
The basic nature of the tests is a person’s ability to receive pressure from an opponent (which also occurs when we give pressure) and to not rely on localized (arm/shoulder) muscle in performing actions. How important those things are in actually applying WCK is something to consider.
FWIW, I don’t think that the Hawkins/Robert body structure (focus) is the “best” body structure or the only body structure; my view is that how you use your body will depend on the task you are trying to do.
After I pondered it a while and learnt more chen taiji and WC, I felt that it was skewing the “perceptions of the basics” a bit because of how much the test idea was pushed.
The tests are just teaching devices IMO, a means of giving the trainee feedback on their ability to use their body in a certain way. That’s all.
e.g. If you want to do any real push hands, you need to learn how to wrestle essentially. If you don’t, you’re in for a serious butt raping. It’s a style of wrestling and there’s a lot of different basic skills involved. A teacher teaches you these skills.
As I see it, WCK is a skill that is comprised of a number of basic sub-skills. Those sub-skills can be combined in different ways and to differing degrees (sometimes one skill is emphasized and another absent) to produce differing approaches. Hawkins/Robert emphaizes a certain way of using the body which is central to their approach. Others can differ. In the end, it boils down to what you can do.
t_niehoff Quote:
Who cares? Apparently you.
I said “body structure” is the new buzzword, and that it wasn’t widely (hardly at all) talked about until about ten years ago when Robert began emphasizing it first on the WCML.
** ok, hardly at all, I Thought you said he was the first, which he was not.
As per what vajramusti wrote, the word structure appeared from day one from where he learnt, and it would be the case for many others as well. But if you only heard it 10 years ago when robert chu mentioned it then you should say that you heard it first 10 years ago and not say it first appeared 10 years ago, because your experience is not necessarily everyone else’s experience
Quote:
I also agree that structure has a lot to do with maximising body mechanics however it’s not limited to physically describing the body mechanics - thats only half the story.
What’s the other half in your opinion?
** if robert hasnt’ told you yet then you need to attend class some more
Quote:
Its funny though that this topic is started by someone who doesn’t believe in training traditional forms. When a kungfu guy, especially taichi, wing chun, bagua, xingyi, is training their forms - what do you think they are training?
structure of course!
No, they are wasting their time for the most part (something TCMAs are best at). When boxers box, they are training their structure; when wrestlers grapple, they are training their structure. To train structure you need to be using it.
** just because you think they are wasting their time does not make it so.
I agree with part of what you are saying here that you need to be using it. You don’t seem to understand that you need to know what you should be doing before you do it - that is what the forms are for, to make sure you are doing it properly ie, bodies aligned properly, angles correct, etc.
I know a mma fighter who is on his way to becoming professional, he travelled at least 6 hours in total to attend a one and a half hour class, about 3 hours to class and 3 hours back home. Anyway, he comes to the class that my teacher teaches and he says he prefers the traditional way that these are taught because fighting is what the traditional training was designed for! That is an opinion which is worlds apart from yours. You can tell him that he’s wasting his time if you like.
I was also lurking at the neijia list, and the old wing chun list at the time sigman and robert chu had their ****ing contest. That was enjoyable.
they both tried so hard to reinvent basic concepts and re-explaining it using their descriptions and terms like the groundpath and the teacher tests. two big egos, now they don’t post anymore. but at least they had decent stuff to offer, unlike a current ego right now who likes to repeat the same thing again and again. dump that broken record 
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;763456]
Actually, Robert was already using the term “body structure” and Mike was more into “groundpath” and peng, but they were talking about similar things.
[/QUOTE]
I agree somewhat. I think Mike was more into “groundpath” and “peng”.
Don’t totally recall if Robert was already using the term “body structure”. It didn’t seem like it to me but it was a long time ago.
To me though, the themes were interchangable. It created a similar scenario just on a different mailing list.
Regardless of who came first, everything I’m talking about applies to both buzzwords.
The tests are just teaching devices IMO, a means of giving the trainee feedback on their ability to use their body in a certain way. That’s all.
I think they became more than that.
The buzzwords grew into something a little less about teaching and more about either sticking it someone or recruiting someone by setting a test and then offering to teach them how to pass it.
As I see it, WCK is a skill that is comprised of a number of basic sub-skills. Those sub-skills can be combined in different ways and to differing degrees (sometimes one skill is emphasized and another absent) to produce differing approaches. Hawkins/Robert emphaizes a certain way of using the body which is central to their approach. Others can differ. In the end, it boils down to what you can do.
Agreed.
But as I was saying, they’ve assigned a value to a sub-skill (as you call it). I then decide how much training effort, money, time etc. I’m going to commit to that.
You have given it a lower value by using the term “sub-skill”. Others have assigned a higher value by emphasizing words like “basic” or saying it’s been around for a long time hence it’s important.
[QUOTE=jooerduo;763464]I was also lurking at the neijia list, and the old wing chun list at the time sigman and robert chu had their ****ing contest. That was enjoyable.
they both tried so hard to reinvent basic concepts and re-explaining it using their descriptions and terms like the groundpath and the teacher tests. two big egos, now they don’t post anymore. but at least they had decent stuff to offer, unlike a current ego right now who likes to repeat the same thing again and again. dump that broken record :D[/QUOTE]
Well what’s the justification for having big egos though?
It’s seldom a tolerable character trait! 
And thinking about it now, no offence to either person but they weren’t really that well known as big experts in WC or Taiji. I don’t think Mike Sigman even taught taiji but he had “Teacher Tests”, his own little magazine, students etc.
At the time I thought “great! I can figure out who’s a good teacher.” But seeing what range of skills a good teacher has compared to what the tests tested, makes me realize the tests didn’t mean that much.
A lot of the neijia list was set on the idea that he was an authority figure. Nowdays you have some form of access to some very famous Chen’s taiji teachers.
[QUOTE=Edmund;763474]Well what’s the justification for having big egos though?
It’s seldom a tolerable character trait!
[/QUOTE]
I think Mike and Robert were more like oil and water, two personalities that just didn’t mix well.
And thinking about it now, no offence to either person but they weren’t really that well known as big experts in WC or Taiji. I don’t think Mike Sigman even taught taiji but he had “Teacher Tests”, his own little magazine, students etc.
I don’t know what being “known” has to do with either having skill or being able to teach well.
At the time I thought “great! I can figure out who’s a good teacher.” But seeing what range of skills a good teacher has compared to what the tests tested, makes me realize the tests didn’t mean that much.
I think that the idea behind Mike’s “Teacher Tests” was a correct one – that a martial art is a skill (comprised of sub-skills), and that only someone that knows (can actually do it) a skill can teach it. So his test focused on what he felt was a critical, all-important sub-skill of tai ji (peng/groundpath). It follows that if some teacher can’t really do that skill (pass the test), he can’t teach it to you. What this fails to take into account is that those sub-skills can be combined in different ways and to differing degrees (sometimes one skill is emphasized and another absent) to produce differing approaches, so someone may have a valid (functional) approach that doesn’t emphasize that particular subskill.
A lot of the neijia list was set on the idea that he was an authority figure. Nowdays you have some form of access to some very famous Chen’s taiji teachers.
It is we who make people into authority figures (like you in referencing “famous Chen teachers”).
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;763508]
I think that the idea behind Mike’s “Teacher Tests” was a correct one – that a martial art is a skill (comprised of sub-skills), and that only someone that knows (can actually do it) a skill can teach it. So his test focused on what he felt was a critical, all-important sub-skill of tai ji (peng/groundpath). It follows that if some teacher can’t really do that skill (pass the test), he can’t teach it to you. What this fails to take into account is that those sub-skills can be combined in different ways and to differing degrees (sometimes one skill is emphasized and another absent) to produce differing approaches, so someone may have a valid (functional) approach that doesn’t emphasize that particular subskill.
[/QUOTE]
By choosing that skill as the all important one in the teacher test you’ve assigned a lot of value to it.
Then hypothetically you offer to teach it.
You also put down those who don’t tow your line and share your values.
e.g. Robert was a victim of this on the neijia list.
It is we who make people into authority figures (like you in referencing “famous Chen teachers”).
Not in this case. People present themselves as authority figures and we have to weigh up which person’s knowledge is greater.
It is we who make people into authority figures (like you in referencing “famous Chen teachers”).
Not the norm - usually one has to want to be an “authority figure” pretty bad, and actively promote oneself, to be seen as one.