'Things I should have learned about WC in a year but didnt.'

[Troll Virus]

From playing rugby I learned quite a few things, contact collisions, avoidance, angled attacks and having to stop a meat head twice your size trying to run through you when you cannot run away!

Former Scrum Half (#09) myself.
Wrote this on another forum a while back;

What other sport includes Grappling, Striking and Multiple attackers moving at full speed on unreliable terrain, and with opponents of unlimited size and malevolence?

There's grappling, there's clinchwork, there's sprinting for your life, teamwork, peripheral awareness.
You'll get hit hard, without body armour.
You'll try and deal with multiple attackers.
There are no rounds, no mats, no cages.
Once you've fish hooked, kidney punched, testicle squeezed, cleat raked, rib knee'd, head butted, hand offed, nipple bitten and generally battled your way through around 80 minutes of pumped adrenalin and CV work, you get to stand at the bar and down a few ales with the guys who just tried to kill you.

Getting back to MA in Rugby;
Guys/Gals who are into their MMA should go practice against Rugby players.
If you want to practice your 'shoot', then tackling a Rugby player running at you full tilt on a muddy pitch, is the best test you will find. period.

Small joint manipulation is something not many Rugby players know about.
Same goes for pressure points and general nasty MA things, but Rugby players have their own tricks, and MA people could learn a few things in a scrum, ruck or maul.

Usually the average MA practitioner will train 1-2 times a week, for 1-2 hours at a time, as an instructor I must be aware of the time limitations for development that this sets and organise the training to cover not just the Wing Chun skills that I had been taught by Sifu, but also to include the extra-curricular awareness that I deem important, however to include them within the Wing Chun forms and syllabus rather than additional outside practice.

Hey, don't forget we're talking about 'one year' in Wing Chun here.
You're making it sound like it might only have been a couple of months in total.

It's like the old trick using a new banknote, saying that the volunteer can have the note if they can catch it.

What it demonstrates is basic reaction time, and the difference between fast nerves and slow ones.

Reflex speed as opposed to thnking speed.

My example was slightly different.
Related to previous examples of programming, and sub-conscious action;
One example illustrated the delay in processing 'visual' information, compared to pure sensitivity.

[Troll Virus]

I Sure the style may not be designed for competition, but if it can stand up against an olympic TKD fighter

LOL.
I'd take that challenge myself.
Wouldn't even have to train for it.

Or wait, hang on a minute, I wouldn't have to waggle my legs in the air unneccessarily would I?
Is it mandatory to hold my hands below waist height?

[Troll Virus]

Which is absurd. I can't think of much that's simpler or more basic than throwing a good hard punch. Once I was shown how to throw a punch it took me about 10 minutes of hitting a bag to realize that I could hit harder by using my legs and hips. After a couple of weeks the motion felt comfortable and natural to me, and it was obvious from the way the bag moved when I hit it that I was hitting A LOT harder than I used to.

There's a world of difference between realising you can hit hard, to actually being able to do it when nature calls.

[Troll Virus]

I agree.

It doesn't take years to learn to hit hard.

There's hard and there's hard!.
Anyone can go into a gym and have some eedjit who know fook all about fighting show them how to make a bag swing.

Showing someone how to knock teeth out under pressure isn't a 'five minute job'.

If you think it is, get your teeth insured now.

[Tom Yum]

LOL.
I'd take that challenge myself.Wouldn't even have to train for it.Or wait, hang on a minute, I wouldn't have to waggle my legs in the air unneccessarily would I?

I thought we agreed this is not a dating site...jk.

Seriously, where are the full-contact wingchun fighters?

[Tom Yum]

Showing someone how to knock teeth out under pressure isn't a 'five minute job'. If you think it is, get your teeth insured now.

Of course not; it takes time to learn but not years.

[Troll Virus]

Of course not; it takes time to learn but not years.

Your arse!

[Sagacious Lu]

There's a world of difference between realising you can hit hard, to actually being able to do it when nature calls.

If you're having a problem performing when nature calls than what you need is a good laxative, not kung fu lessons

[Tom Yum]

Your arse!

No, yours.

[Troll Virus]

If you're having a problem performing when nature calls than what you need is a good laxative, not kung fu lessons

LOL.

Good one.

[tjwingchun]

This lofty business of lessons learned over the years is great and all, but you're dodging the real question. You said:...but up against seasoned streetfighters or martial artists a beginner with less than 2-3 years tend not to have the knowledge of body mechanics to generate power from the floor and put full bodyweight behind a strike to make it decisive.

Dodge a question? ME? I don't think so, lol.

Not being funny, but when you have been teaching professionally for over twenty years AND each lesson you teach is a personal development program (for up to 30+ people) AND you want each student to take something new away from the lesson AND you are aware of each students personal skills and learning curves AND you have students who still train with you since you started (who have a brain!) AND you have studied learning patterns AND you have a vision of educating rather than dictating AND you are frustrated by the crap Wing Chun that surrounds you and stains you with association, then you will live in my world, where I get questioned all the time by students and that is what I ask them to do, where I get tested, which I expect, where I expect to have to justify everything that I teach with reason, straightforward technique and principle, where you are never satisfied with being able to do it yourself until you can get others to achieve what you can do, where each day you find it difficult to carry on, until you get to the next lesson and a student with potential asks a question that you answer and they thank you for learning something new and you walk away feeling that you have least made a difference and it is not just a business!

OK rant over lets address the question/problem!

I tend to get students to think of the forms as an alphabet, once the sequence of letters have been learned, they can begin to understand how to put them into words and then sentences, and then when they have confidence they can , via chi sau, learn how to correspond with others, ultimately so they can win any argument they come across, the better educated, the more likely to be able to answer an unusual question.

Getting close to my point now so stay focused.

As a teacher you have to be aware of the stages of growth each student goes through and the level of individual ability/potential they bring with them. This is one of the reasons that I admire Wing Chun so much, not that it is MY style, I am not that arrogant to think that, it makes up a lot of who I am, or is it that it just suits me?

Wing Chun has an inherent developmental strategy that exists in the forms, from understanding new concepts/principles/movements with an isolated limb that you have most control over and think you are good at! The arm/hand in Siu Lim Tao, then understanding how you build co-ordination of the whole body, Chum Kiu and finally how you use the different ways you can use the body in fighting, Biu Gee. The dummy gives realisation about movement and reactive energies, the pole and knives provides extra training for strength and focusing your energies.

Which is absurd. I can't think of much that's simpler or more basic than throwing a good hard punch. Once I was shown how to throw a punch it took me about 10 minutes of hitting a bag to realize that I could hit harder by using my legs and hips. After a couple of weeks the motion felt comfortable and natural to me, and it was obvious from the way the bag moved when I hit it that I was hitting A LOT harder than I used to. It didn't take 2-3 years, it was more like 2-3 weeks. So I repeat the question I asked on page 2:

Think of my example of the alphabet, A,B,C---X,Y,Z

You think that L,M,N are the essential parts that you have learned to give you a heavy punch, you could be right in your assumption.

However if you take a break and return to training just L,M,N you would be lacking the background knowledge from A,B,C.. etc. and if you decide to teach just L,M,N, then your student would be lacking the background stages that were essential in letting you progress to L,M,N,.. and inhibit them progressing to X,Y,Z.

In the same way you do not teach algebra before a child has learned to count, you don't fill a students mind with advanced, (though they might be perceived as simple) concepts before they are ready. The fact that there are many concepts and principles attached to techniques in the forms require them to be dealt with in order, not through some wish to hold a student back but to maintain the structure and teaching programme of the forms, in the same way the alphabet is fixed when the e's and s's are the most used but don't come first, everybody is an individual who learns at different rates and has different abilities in understanding various aspects of Wing Chun, the necessity to have a four year training regime is because there is so much to learn in the system, and to have a study plan laid out that covers anybody learning from scratch is invaluable. How to adapt that plan to the individual student and their particular abilities and needs is up to the individual instructor and their knowledge and understanding of that specific student.

Using the punching analysis you use, I can understand your view that once shown how to use your legs and hips you can develop a heavier punch, but there are aspects that you still have to learn for yourself, the co-ordination and timing that gets you closer to the "perfect punch" takes forever, the search for "perfection" keeps us striving forward, not accepting what is a 'better punch' but wanting what is a 'devastation punch'.

Are boxers the 'best punchers' in their career's after one year or four? (or in your case 2-3 weeks!) I don't know, it depends where you start judging them from, as a kid, youth, or when they start adult competition. The more you practice, the better you get, the better you know yourself, the better you are at 'self-development'.

If I only had the PUNCH to teach, then I could concentrate on just that and I could add Chum Kiu, Biu Gee, Dummy, Knife and Pole form knowledge to Siu Lim Tao understanding in the first few weeks/months, but I have a complete system to teach and although you think my methods absurd, I have had students use their punch effectively within weeks/months without the need to give them more to think about than Siu Lim Tao.

The "quick fix" types that Troll Virus refers to also appear in boxing, they did in the 50's which is why Jack Dempsey wrote his book 'Championship Fighting', though he called them "Fancy Dan's", a good student gets better, faster, the secret is to keep them progressing and their knowledge accelerating as they go further on with practice.

[Troll Virus]

Hey TJ, I for one, am not holding you personally responsible for the perception of WC in the wider market.
You've focussed on what it is that, you, yourself do, which is the sensible way to go.

I dunno, maybe this thread titles kind of unfortunate.
It's that time frame thing of 'a year'.

I remember getting a reaction a while ago, by saying that you could learn all you needed to know about MA in 12 months.
You could get all the data in that time if you applied yourself, but being able to apply the data is something else again.

Largely these discussions break down, because a lot of the abstracts have to be seen and felt to be understood.

Had a conversation with a guy a few years ago who was very Anti-WC.
Now I don't have a problem with anyone being overly Pro or Anti anything, as long as their opinion is based on experience, so I told him I wouldn't bother talking to him about it until he went and trained with a known guy who was local to him.
He went on a night the chief Instructor wasn't there, and he turned up late, so wasn't allowed to participate.
He then proceeded to lecture on about how awful the class was.
One he didn't participate in.

Now just like what you talk about what WC is to you, I do the same.
I think about what it is, rather than what it isn't, and that can clearly be different things to different people.
Everyone has different requirements.
I know what my limitations and expectations are in a fight, and it's a long time since I expected a string of classes to change my base ability.

WC has a broad range of principles and abstracts that I've found myself drawing on from time to time, which is great for me.
I didn't waste my time.
I can understand though, why those looking for Tekken Fighting Combos would be dissapointed in WC.

You mentioned a teaching analogy earlier.
Here's one of mine;

I used to talk to students about 'dot to dot' Kung Fu.
You get those dot-to-dot picture books, where you draw a line from 1 to 13, to 24, to 2 etc eventually getting a crude picture of Leo the Lion.
If you drew Leo the Lion free hand, his mane wouldn't be all spikey, you'd have curves etc.
First you get a childs drawing, and then you work on getting from point to point without the corners.

If all you need to do, is learn just enough to go scrawl on walls, then WC probably isn't for you.

Anyways, one of my concerns was how different the perspectives were.
TB, TJ & TV are all discussing the same WC organisation.
Where TJ and TV differ from TB is that we've both trained with the head of that organisation.
TB apparently had a bad experience with a sub instructor or two.
What I'd urge everyone else to do, is take on a seminar with Sam Kwok, or perhaps even Trevor here.
I think you'll get a much better idea from that, than from the discourse offered on the diverse Anti-WC threads here and elsewhere.

[Juicefree]

In reply to tjwingchun.

What a load of TWONK !!

Algebra, a,b,c ..l,m,n !! What are you talking about ! I can guess that this is the 'classical mumbo jumbo' Bruce Lee criticised !

From what starts as a perceptive and enlightened view of many 'Classical' martial arts you seem to lose the plot. If you can't explain striking without resorting to very tenuous analogies then it could be because you don't understand yourself ?

Equally if you (or the other poster) believe you can strike (punch) effectively after 2-3 weeks then you show even more lack of understanding !

Take my post the right way. I get the impression you may very well know exactly what you are talking about. However drop the analogies and please tell us all why you do do all those 'seemingly' meaningless stances and strikes if they have no practical application in either the street, or even (dare I suggest it) the ring !

[Troll Virus]

In reply to tjwingchun.

What a load of TWONK !!

Algebra, a,b,c ..l,m,n !! What are you talking about ! I can guess that this is the 'classical mumbo jumbo' Bruce Lee criticised !

Not how I read it at all.
You've got someone trying to explain in text, things which are easily shown in person.
I fail to see;
A/ Why you need to be so offensive.
B/ Who the TWONK you are to have an opinion.

TJ will no doubt speak for himself, but having looked at your existing posts on here, you certainly seem to think you are t3h c0443ct1mund0
Post an Intro eh?

From what starts as a perceptive and enlightened view of many 'Classical' martial arts you seem to lose the plot. If you can't explain striking without resorting to very tenuous analogies then it could be because you don't understand yourself ?

Listen, why don't you go and think on how you, with all your expertise, could actually add to a discussion instead of subtracting from it.

Equally if you (or the other poster) believe you can strike (punch) effectively after 2-3 weeks then you show even more lack of understanding !

Which other poster?
What the TWONK do you know about it?

Take my post the right way. I get the impression you may very well know exactly what you are talking about. However drop the analogies and please tell us all why you do do all those 'seemingly' meaningless stances and strikes if they have no practical application in either the street, or even (dare I suggest it) the ring !

If you need any help getting your keyboard all the way up your crack, ask your schools auxiliary nurse.
She'll have the gloves and cream from last time TWONK.

TWONKER

[Sagacious Lu]

Dodge a question? ME? I don't think so, lol.

Not being funny, but when you have been teaching professionally for over twenty years blah blah blah blah...

Okay, now that you're done stroking your (apparently fragile) ego we can get on with the discussion

I tend to get students to think of the forms as an alphabet, once the sequence of letters have been learned,

So what? We're not talking about forms we're talking about hitting hard.

Getting close to my point now so stay focused.

That's a relief

Think of my example of the alphabet, A,B,C---X,Y,Z

You think that L,M,N are the essential parts that you have learned to give you a heavy punch, you could be right in your assumption.

However if you take a break and return to training just L,M,N you would be lacking the background knowledge from A,B,C.. etc. and if you decide to teach just L,M,N, then your student would be lacking the background stages that were essential in letting you progress to L,M,N,.. and inhibit them progressing to X,Y,Z.

You lost me here. I don't use letters to strike, I use my fists, knees, elbows, shins etc. It's just not that complicated.

In the same way you do not teach algebra before a child has learned to count, you don't fill a students mind with advanced, (though they might be perceived as simple) concepts before they are ready.

We're not talking about algebra either

Using the punching analysis you use, I can understand your view that once shown how to use your legs and hips you can develop a heavier punch, but there are aspects that you still have to learn for yourself, the co-ordination and timing that gets you closer to the "perfect punch" takes forever, the search for "perfection" keeps us striving forward, not accepting what is a 'better punch' but wanting what is a 'devastation punch'.

Are boxers the 'best punchers' in their career's after one year or four? (or in your case 2-3 weeks!) I don't know, it depends where you start judging them from, as a kid, youth, or when they start adult competition.

Punches don't have to be perfect, they just have to be hard enough and accurate enough to hurt your opponent. Obviously I'm a lot better now than I was after 2-3 weeks; that's because that was a long time ago and I've been training regularly ever since. Obviously the more I train the better I get; I never said I knew it all after 2-3 weeks, I just said I could throw a solid strike- which I could.

I have had students use their punch effectively within weeks/months

You just admited that it doesn't take years to learn how to generate enough power with a basic strike to hurt someone. Thank you. Why couldn't you have just said "You know what Lu, you're right" and skipped all the bullshit?

The "quick fix" types that Troll Virus refers to also appear in boxing.

There are no quick fixes in boxing, just a whole lot of hard work. @ Thai Bri I'm starting to understand why these guys piss you off.

Equally if you (or the other poster) believe you can strike (punch) effectively after 2-3 weeks then you show even more lack of understanding !

I don't see why you'd say this; I was able to win fights using punches long before I had any training at all. I looked sloppy doing it and I wouldn't have been able to beat a trained fighter but I was certainly able to knock the wind out of the guy who was trying to hurt me. It was effective enough that I got to go home with all my teeth. My understanding is that that was whole point of throwing the punch in the first place.