oh i think his cups quite empty if ya know what i mean:D
ribbit …the well is deep, for terence. 
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;979736]My point is that you aren’t interested in hearing evidence. You are just interested in rehashing the same vapid argument over and over unnecessarily. Being a former fighter and a trainer, I know that there is truth to what you are saying. However, a lot of the more esoteric topics on this forum are very useful, especially when it comes to teaching fighters. As you evolve as a fighter and an instructor, you will see that. You lack the perspective to put these things into context so you are far to critical of others.
[/QUOTE]
I think much of the so-called esoteric stuff in BS. My perspective is that there is a lot of BS in WCK (and TCMAs in general). That BS strives and grows because it isn’t continually weeded out.
Now, I can’t argue with evidence and reason, so if someone has good evidence and sound reason, they can present it. If not, then we know it is BS. What’s wrong with that?
In the ring or on the street, building a fighter and I mean fighter! requires a bit more than some Muay Thai-style training and BJJ. Those are good starts, but that ain’t all. You have to provide them with understanding which involves philosophy, history, psychology, sociology, fight strategy, tape and book libraries (as technique resources and strategy development). In addition, a fighter must be prepared for the physical and emotional rigors of fighting which may include philosophy again, meditation, workout regimens, alternative medicine when appropriate.
WCK and/or fighting is no different than any other athletic activity or sport. You don’t need philosphy, meditation, sociology, history, etc. to train WCK. I’m not saying that these things shouldn’t be discussed if you find them interesting. That’s fine. But, they all need to be referenced back to the fighting since that is what we are training to do, right? What I don’t want to hear is dungeons and dragons nonsense.
I am not telling you to agree with everyone, I am simply suggesting that you try to exercise a little more perspective via emptying your cup a bit.
I find the empty cup metaphor to be particularly inane (perhaps because of its pervasiveness). What persuades and convinces me is evidence and reason. You don’t need an “empty cup”, rather what we need are critical thinking skills so that we can evaluate what we do hear.
hmm..if Muhammad Ali taught you, and yet you never saw him fight, would you say he does not have skill?
the same can be said of INSERT YOUR FAVORITE MMA FIGHTER HERE…regardless of his true skill, if you have not seen it, he has no skill.
If I saw Yo-Yo Ma practice but never perform, would i then say he has no skill? regardless, of how good his practice may be?
Would you say John Stockton/Karl Malone of Utah Jazz has no basketball skills because he’s never won a Championship?
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;978317]I hear people often say and so-and-so “has good WCK” or that he/she is “skillful”. The question I always ask (even if it is just to myself) is: what is your basis for saying that?
I think for many people it is that the person in question can perform the classical forms and drills (chi sao, etc.) “well” and that they can talk theory. For me, that simply means one has acquired the classical curriculum of WCK (i.e., they know and are comfortable performing the WCK movements in an unrealistic environment). Sort of like if they can hit the heavy bag and focus mitts with good form – that doesn’t mean they are a good boxer, just that they have the tools.
I submit that to have “good WCK” or to be “skillful” really should mean that the person in question can use their WCK (use the movements they train to do) in fighting. And that your level of skill will correspond to the level of opponent that you can “hang” with (or defeat) using your WCK (those things you train to do). It’s the same with boxers: how good a boxer you are is what you can do in the ring (and against whom). Without seeing a person really box in a ring, and without knowing the quality of their opponent, how can we say whether someone is a good boxer?[/QUOTE]
This is all about application. To be good at something you have to do that something. Does WC skill = Fighting skill? No IMO. Like Sanjoro said, someone could have great skills in chi sau, but that is all, it doesn’t mean they can fight. So the question is does WC training add value to combat effectiveness.
Alot of this comes down to understanding. The guy that is good at chi sau, does he understand what it is there for, or is he just getting good at one thing to satisfy his needs to be good at something. Now if he admits and realises the difference (I am really good at chi sau but this doesn’t mean I can fight) I don’t see anything wrong with that, he is aware.
If he isn’t aware and doesn’t see the difference then there is a problem there, same with one thinking they know the cirriculum of WC, can do the forms and drills perfect and can fight with it, without ever fighting with it, they may succeed against a certain skill level, but once that level increases they may be in for a surprise. Its all about being honestly aware with yourself and your needs and wants, regarding why you are training in a Martial Art.
James
[QUOTE=sihing;979977] Alot of this comes down to understanding. The guy that is good at chi sau, does he understand what it is there for, or is he just getting good at one thing to satisfy his needs to be good at something. Now if he admits and realises the difference (I am really good at chi sau but this doesn’t mean I can fight) I don’t see anything wrong with that, he is aware.
[/QUOTE]
A lot of this comes down to how people train, leading to wrong understanding. For example, if for every hour someone spent training chi sau they spent 2 hours full contact sparring, you wouldn’t have this gap in understanding. But many times WC schools are shrines to elders, lineages, and traditions more than they are places to train to fight.