The necessity of real fight experience in teaching?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

Thats what I mean.

Hi all,

Really good to read the varied posts.

I have to agree with Victor though.

He sums up my point in the first post.

I am looking to be able to do my best if the **** hit the fan for real. Not just to become very good at the ART of wing chun. Therefore I choose to train with a Wing Chun teacher with experience.

I am lucky that my teacher possesses a good balance of skill, ability to teach and experience.

Still leaves the conundrum, that if you are proficient enough in the system, should you teach without ever having any experience in the world of real combat, or should I say prohibiting an attempted assault.

As this is a quality I look for in a martial arts teacher. I feel I would probably refrain from teaching, if I did not possess this quality.

W

22

My advice to anyone unsure of how effective Wing Chun can be is to spar. rules that might have been set in stone soon vanish when faced with an opponent who can move in balance, present fake attacks, attacks all gates and has good timing.
For instance the common mistake of trying to chain punch an opponent to submission as soon as they touch you is complete rubbish if your opponent is presenting a trap for you, a hole if you like that takes advantage of your reflexive reactions. good footwork and taking angles gets you out of this sort of mess.
you might want to first try chi sau whilst moving about your opponent trying to take his or her balance instead of being in a fixed position that some families adopt. then take it a stage further and very slowly attack using much more hip and shoulder work for throws, punches, kicks and locks. if you do this one step at a time you soon learn how exposed you are after making an attack, check you angle, can you be knee struck in the family jewels, can you be swept of you feet or side kicked etc? develop and strategy and then you can speed it up bit by bit.
good luck.

23

William, Ultimate,
Respectfully submitted:
Do either of you plan on going on to be “Sifu” (if you are allready I mean no disrespect)? And if so, hypethetically let’s say neither of you have had that much experience, using W.C. in street fights. So how do you plan on going about getting the experience to truly test the reality of your Kung Fu? And are you willing to put your life on the line in a fight, to gain the really hard core experience, et al, multiple armed opponents, singular armed opponent, and so forth? And if your not willing to seek that out and experience it, then your neither one going to make a very good Sifu, in YOUR own words, you won’t be able to teach effectively without the expereince. Your only going to wait for life’s battles to come to you? Thats taking a crap shoot no? Unless you secretly plan on hanging out in the wrong places, the wrong neighborhoods and so forth, hoping someone will start some shiite with ya? Then in that case your back to my first thought of actually instigating something. So how do you plan on gaining YOUR experience so you can be the best Sifu possible?
I will state that for the most part I see your point and agree somewhat in theory, but, I do not feel that the lack of actual street combat experience makes a Sifu less qualified to teach W.C. :rolleyes:
Kindest Regards,
BF Lesley

24

Militray as an example

Hello,

No matter what is said some here will retain their viewpoint irregardless. While I would agree that real life experience is helpful I am not sure it should ever be the defining quality.

Lets compare two different perspectives as regards real actual combat.

The US Military does drills and trains and yet seem to do okay when actually engaged in battle. Although todays discipline in the military or lack of it is shocking to me personaly. I could not even fathom refusing an order from my superior. Yet, still they do fine once engaged in battle, even without direct combat experience.

The Russian Military, when there was a Russia :), actually tested and used live fire and chemical agents on their people during excercises. As a matter of fact they also subjected civilians to nuclear testing in order to observe the effects. Did their use of real checmical agents and such, in which a good portion of their people actually DIED during excerices make them a better fighting force? Did their subjection to nuclear fallout give them a better understanding of such things than their American counterparts?

As a matter of fact, someone who has been in actual military combat is not always an ideal instructor, although many tout this experience as some sort of qualification. The needs of actual combat are quite different than those of self defense. Techniques geared for soldiers do not apply to the needs of civilians.

Now if we are talking about the AVERAGE person and their needs for self protection then IMHO, the ideal instructor would not only have the knowledge and skills of his/her chosen art, but they would have the ability to pass that knowledge onto others. They would also, idealy, have some knowledge of first aide and the legal implications of using their art on the street.

Lets be honest, most NORMAL people will be quite happy to never need to use their art in the first place. And, given todays criminal element, there is little one can train for as regards real fights. After all, most reall street encounters will be surprise attacks and often involve weapons and multiple opponents. So all the arguing about this and that don’t really stack up to reality. I myself would be cautious of training with someone who pointed to their “real life” encounters as some sort of validity of their method or approach. I would wonder if I was training with some sort of psycho who seeks violence as a means of proving themselves. I would wonder if such a person had a low self image and perhaps would require me to seek out confrontation as well.

The other thing is that no one knows how they will react to a given situation until they are in it, period. No matter how much you’ve trained you really can’t say how you’ll react until the sh** hits the fan. And just because your instructor was in 1 million death matches and only lost once :wink: is no guarantee that you will be able to apply “their skills” as your own no matter how much training you have under them.

25

You may be right . . . that many victims take course . . . I am only saying that in taking course in first place they are taking extra step in preparation and awareness . . . defending themselves is now in forefront of mind . . . being if forefront they will behave accordingly. . . not take chances since are more aware of chances they are taking . . . sort of like person who takes voluntary firearm safety class . . . this shows they have firearm safeety on mind . . . while class will give good info to them . . . most important is that first step of making firearm safety a priority . . . so it would not be surprising that they have less firearm accidents.

I would opt for the person who could most help me to improve. My needs and what is most helpful may change over time. One’s “fencing” may even prosper thanks to someone or something unrelated to fencing on the surface.

I am saying that those not interested in fighting do not need to be concerned with their teacher’s experience in that area . . . just because some teacher has fighting experience does not mean he can not also deal with other aspects of wc . . . or that one person can have more than one wc instructor . . . I am agreeing with you one hundred percent the goal is to find instructor that can help us improve . . . that is what we are talking about . . . if my goal in wc is to be very good fighter . . . and please understand I am not saying this should be true for all . . . then I want instructor that can help me improve in that area . . . and all I am saying is some one can not help me improve in an area that they do not have skill or ability in that area . . . for me this is common sense . . . how can some one teach or coach me in area they do not know?

That’s an interesting comment. Would you mind expounding on it?

Regards,

  • Kathy Jo

I am saying that concept is not primary . . . if we look at any martial art including wc . . . technique is primary . . . our skill is in how well we can perform our techniques . . . concepts and attributes are there to help us perform our technique . . . concept is idea to help us make techniques work . . . attributes are qualites that go into making techniques work . . . attributes and concepts are useful only in how they can help us make our techniques work . . . so in heirarchy of things going into skill technique is above concept or attribute . . . this is why I say technique is primary and concept secondary. Does this make sense to you?

Thanks,

Ghost

26

I see your point

This is proving an interesting discussion.

Dave, you make some good points. After reading your post it makes me think that, as you say, in this day and age the main reason to practice Wing Chun is for fun, as that one time in the street may never happen. And to spend your life training for something that may never happen does perhaps seem like a waste of time. But to spend your life training in something you love is perhaps one of the best things you can do.

I guess it is a question of what you use it for. I think as a function of the many replies my opinion is changing.

Perhaps one of the best things Wing Chun will give is confidence. Their may be very little chance of experiencing real life street violence, but I guess every one has experienced, psychological/dominance issues from others (bullying, threats, big guys walking round like they own the place) and having reached a high level in Wing Chun will give the confidence to feel unthreatened by others, thus giving you a chance to live a life where fear or lack of self confidence is less apparent.

W

27

Hello Ghost,

Perhaps we should define what you mean by Fighting or Good Fighter. Are you referring to someone good in the ring or on the street? If you are referring to the street then I would question your motives. Do you want to engage in real fights? If so then perhaps your true motivation should be re-examined.

If you are referring to the ring then I would agree that to be a good ring fighter you should train with someone with experience in that arena.

The academic world is full of people who can teach who do not necessarily have the actual experience in their subject but who prodice excellent students. How many physics teachers are able to produce excellent physicists without having direct experience working in that field?

28

What is good basketball player . . . do we need to ask such a question . . . is it some one great on playground . . . or someone good in stadium court . . . it is someone that have basketbal skills . . . I am thinking that level of these skills is what makes basketball player good . . . they must adapt game for streetball . . . which can have lots more fouls . . . lol . . . or for college ball . . . a good boxer can box in ring or can use it in street . . . just need to adapt game . . . or to go back to fencing example . . . a good fencer is judged by how well he can handle sword and deal with foe’s sword. Look . . . if I take fencing . . . I do not want to go out and slay people . . . I am not blood thirsty . . . but I may want to really fence . . . if not then this is not issue . . . but if I want to actually be able to fence well . . . and in old days I may need those skills if challenged too . . . yes piste is not back alley . . . then I need fencing abilities . . . sword handling ability will serve me in either case . . . so what I am getting at is I am thinking that skill or ability is what fighter is after . . . academic pursuit is not the same as physical pursuit . . . can you name one great coach in sport that has not played sport at decent level? You see this is my point?

Thanks,

Ghost

29

Hello Ghost,

I am not a big sports fan, don’t even watch the Super Bowl, so no I can not name anyone who is a great coach wihtout playing the game. But I would ask you to name 5-10 great athletes who were able to play their game at the elite level and yet were still able to teach others how to do the same.

Seems to me you are focused more on the ring than the street. Given your replies, I doubt that you are seeking to go out and confront others. Many who train with that perspective are living in a fantasy world where they train and go out and slay the dragons of the world.

Is street experience a benefit, yes, but only to an extent. A thorough understanding of the law and legal conequences would be more applicable. Given that each situation is different just because your instructor was able to apply his her skills on the street does not mean you could do the same thing, even in almost the exact situation.

If you want to focus on street defense then you would probably be better off attending shortened programs which focus on specifics rather than train in any traditional art. I think that what you will find is that these course will stress mental aspects even more than physical skills, although the physical skills are still needed.

30

No one view has all the answers

Hello William,

If the replies envoke thought then that is a good thing. No one here has a monopoly on the truth and each person needs to evaluate their own needs and reasons for training.

When I first started Wing Chun I was in the US Army. I found the training to be quite effective. At one point I actually went out and sought confrontations, I was a bit younger and not as wise as I am now :D. However, this was dring a different time and I would not do the same thing today nor would I encourage others to do so.

I think that the average person today trains more for the enjoyment and confidence that if they do need to use the art they will be better prepared to do so. I do not think the average person is going to have either the time nor inclination to train to prepare for ring combat nor wish to seek out people on the street to test their skills. Rather they will train for pleasure and the mental and physical aspects which will give them a better chance of surviving an actual encounter. Studies abound showing that the mental impact of attacks is often far greater and last longer than the physical effects.

Anyones training needs to address the mental consequences and legal implications in addition to the physical. Also, they must be able to apply skills in accordance with thier own body type and physical ability.

If you are lucky enough to find someone with real life experience to train you and is not an abnormal personality type, then by all means take advantage of the opportunity. However don’t make that your overlying concern as to their worthiness to teach. Keep in mind that many of those with real life street fights, such as the late WSL, would not be able to do the same thing in todays legal atmosphere without going to prison. So, is someones real life experience the all determining factor of training? Unless you are seeking out underground cage fights or wondering the streets as some sort of vigilante, is such experience really needed?

31

Self questions

Why do some find calm in chaos?

Why do some freeze in a confrontation, no matter how slight? Even if some are a victim of a miner road rage incident, they are deeply distressed. Why is that so?

Why is it that some can control their emotional state of mind?

In the end, is it possible to find this calmness within a fight, without actual fighting experiences?

Only you can answer that (truthfully)

32

Hello Chisauking,

Seems like a good argument for the “mental” aspects of training. :smiley:

33

“William, Ultimate,
Respectfully submitted:
Do either of you plan on going on to be “Sifu” (if you are already I mean no disrespect)? And if so, hypothetically let’s say neither of you have had that much experience, using W.C. in street fights. So how do you plan on going about getting the experience to truly test the reality of your Kung Fu? And are you willing to put your life on the line in a fight, to gain the really hard core experience, et al, multiple armed opponents, singular armed opponent, and so forth?” (BF Lesley)

***ACTUALLY…I HAD my first streetfight using wing chun in 1978 - three years after I began wing chun…started teaching offically in 1984…and in fact…had another streetfight just five months later (against 2 guys)…and twice more times since then - once in the 90’s and again in October, 2000.

But I didn’t go looking for fights - they came to me.

And in fact I don’t believe anyone should go looking for trouble…hard full contact spontaneous sparring with a number of quality opponents really trying to blast you is enough to qualify as “significant experience” in my book.

And if a real fight or self defense situation comes - learn from it thoroughly and convey that experience in as much detail as you can to your students.

34

Dave sez: Seems like a good argument for the “mental” aspects of training.

Bang on, Dave.

That’s the point I’m getting at – although I like people to think for themselves I don’t word things actually.

IME, the best fighters are calm, cool, collective, and totally ruthless. The question is, how they got to this stage of thinking?

On a personal basis, I think people without actual fighting experiences can still make excellent teachers if they have a deep understanding of the style that they are teaching, and pocess good communication skills…but only on the mechanical aspects of that style.

I don’t think it’s possible to aquire the mental aspect of real combat if one has not experienced it for themselves, so in this respect you can’t teach someone you haven’t felt yourself.

However, without the mental aspect, you have left out a large part of combat. A bit like a colt 45 without the firing mechansim.

35

Hi Chisuaking,

Herein lies the paradox of claiming reality training. Is ring combat sufficient to prepare one mentally for actual street encounters? It can go a long way and is one of the reasons I actually respect boxers, although I may not sound like it. Boxers are or can be dangerous because they are used to getting hit. Being able to accept blows and absorb them and keep coming back is not so much physical as it is mental. While many people may be able to take a blow physically, the thought of accepting it is what one must overcome. The willingness to accept that you will get hit, possibly injured yet still come back and fight on. This is hard to achieve consistently.

There are plenty of methods to help prepare one, visualization etc. But the bottom line is that no matter your training approach, ring, forms or video :rolleyes: until you actuall are in a real life situation you can’t say how you would really react. You can speculate and hope that your training has prepared you, but no one really knows until the situation arises.

You could be the worlds greatest UFC\Cage champ and yet still not survive on the street. There are plenty of case studies showing people absording punishment which should have killed them and not only surving but killing their attackers. Many of these had no formal training and their physical condition was hardly optimum.

Some of us are just too stupid or stubborn to give up :eek: no matter how much or how little we train.

36

Anyone can fight, Dave. The question is, to what level?

There are many marital aids around, but I would argue nothing feels like the real thing. Sparring, no matter what form, is the emulation of fighting, but nothing, with the exception of fighting, will be more truthful than fighting.

It’s my own believe that if you want to maximise your fighting ability, the mental aspect is essential.

If I had the choice to choose between a fighter or a scholor for a teacher, I would choose both.

The sword, as they say, is mightier with the pen

37

Hello Chisauking,

I would tend to agree with you that nothing duplicates fighting except fighting. I also agree that the mental aspect is vital.

I guess the only thing one can do is prepare as best they can with the resources at hand. Hopefully never have to utilize any of the training for real.

38

Please excuse long post . . . I am just trying to be clear.

I am not focused on sport . . . I am talking about those interested in fighting . . . people like to separate out sport and street . . . as though these are two altogether quite different things . . . like apples and oranges . . . I am saying that they may be two different things but that they both use the same skills and abilities . . . such skill and ability will allow person to do either . . . boxing skill for instance is boxing skill . . . works in ring or street . . . just like wc skill is wc skill . . . or any martial art skill is martial art skill . . . those skills and abilities will be put to use in sport in the ring or on street. . . street or sport will only determine how we use those skills and abilites. . . if we do not have those skills and abilites in first place how to use them will not matter. . . if person can not box they can not use on street for self defense or ring in sport. So if person wants to become good boxer for instance . . . for ring or self defense . . . then they need good boxing trainer . . . one important qualification for trainer is that they have or had some proficiency as boxer . . . so that they can understand game and what is needed . . . I am merely saying that person can not coach or teach physical activity that involves physical skills if person not have proficiency in activity himself . . . sport is such a physical acitivity so I use it as example. I am not saying that ability to do sport well means person can teach it well . . . just that it is a necessary ingredient . . . being able to read does not mean person is good reading teacher . . . but can not teach reading with out it being reader . . . lol. Good coaches or trainers do not need to be champions . . . but they need to have had experience doing sport or activity . . . they are always people that have had some decent level of skill themself . . . evidence is overwhelming is this regard. I hope this helps explain my view better . . . if your view is different that is OK . . . it is good to exchange ideas.

Thanks,

Ghost

39

Because a lot of people in WC are too ****y and arrogant. And those that have only surface exposure to the art don’t see how it could possibly be effective. They want to match strength with strength, etc. etc.

40

quite an interesting thread

Lots of opinions on both sides of this debate, with merits to be had on both sides. One thing that might be taken into consideration is the student of this person who has ALL of this “real” experience. Even if the teacher is possessed of many years of “street” training, with hundreds of documented battles, of which of course, he’s never lost, if the student doesn’t have the mental and physical abilities and capabilities to go where this teacher wants him to, will it be worth having such a teacher in the first place? Also some have already debated the merits of looking for such an “invincible” instructor to learn from, and if that is the main, or worse, the only criteria, that one is sought after, then the reasons of the student looking must be looked at as possibly suspect, as to why it is such a necessity that the teacher be such. I would think that the most important thing a student might ask of his or her instructor is the ability to convey their knowledge and information to the student such that he or she can functionalise it for him or herself. As Dave and others have said already, keep it all in perspective, a bullet renders all ineffective. Sparring and other hard training sessions are good to balance out one’s sessions of refinement when working on forms, or chi sau, or whatever. Like all of the rest of life, if there’s no yin and yang here, then something’s out of whack, and that usually means that the desired result may not be forthcoming.