Dealing with fractured lineages

[Xue Sheng]

How about 4 things in-depth, and then going off to practice for a year?

Other than replying with; it would depend on what those 4 things are... and then asking...what if you practiced those 4 things for a year, meant your shifu and he said you we're all wrong, or not good enough...go practice for anther year.... what then?

 

[Flying Crane]

How about 4 things in-depth, and then going off to practice for a year?

This depends on a lot of things, including what’s those four things are. But it is nebulous and can be difficult to draw clear boundaries.

When something new is learned, it requires repeated correction before it is consistently correct. Once that happens, then the student can make progress training by himself.

If those corrections are not done, then there is a good chance fundamental mistakes will be unknowingly made, and will be reinforced through uncorrected practice.

Exactly when that point is reached depends on a lot of things, but I am skeptical that it can be reached in one or two intense weekend sessions.

 

[KPM]

Other than replying with; it would depend on what those 4 things are... and then asking...what if you practiced those 4 things for a year, meant your shifu and he said you we're all wrong, or not good enough...go practice for anther year.... what then?

Well, then you go back and practice some more! But if he likes what he sees and agrees to teach the next 4 ....or 6....or......... Is that not how it would work in your "old China" example??

 

[Flying Crane]

If you have a problem with me Michael, then just come right out and say it. I assure you that points you have been beating over and over do not apply to me.

In the end I don’t have a dog in this race. If your situation is a matter for the wing chun community, well that isn’t me. Maybe it’s nobodys business at all.

If I believe someone had inadequate instruction, then I don’t feel they ought to be teaching. In my opinion, brief stints (even if intense) and distance/video training are not adequate.

People will do what they do. But if anyone asks my advice when looking for a teacher, I don’t recommend someone who I suspect may have inadequate training.

 

[KPM]

In the end I don’t have a dog in this race. If your situation is a matter for the wing chun community, well that isn’t me. Maybe it’s nobodys business at all.

If I believe someone had inadequate instruction, then I don’t feel they ought to be teaching. In my opinion, brief stints (even if intense) and distance/video training are not adequate.

People will do what they do. But if anyone asks my advice when looking for a teacher, I don’t recommend someone who I suspect may have inadequate training.

Your opinion means nothing to me. So you can stop beating a dead horse as if you have some kind of axe to grind.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well, then you go back and practice some more! But if he likes what he sees and agrees to teach the next 4 ....or 6....or......... Is that not how it would work in your "traditional Chinese" example??

But just because sifu agrees to teach something new, it doesn’t mean you’re ready to be teaching the earlier stuff. That isn’t an endorsement that you’ve “got it”. It just means that ok, here is some more to work on, because learning is a process.

 

[Flying Crane]

Your opinion means nothing to me. So you can stop beating a dead horse as if you have some kind of axe to grind.

I understand, people don’t always like what I have to say.

That’s ok, I’ve felt the same way about what others have said to me.

It’s a two-way street. I’m not exempt.

 

[KPM]

But just because sifu agrees to teach something new, it doesn’t mean you’re ready to be teaching the earlier stuff. That isn’t an endorsement that you’ve “got it”. It just means that ok, here is some more to work on, because learning is a process.

Of course. No one said otherwise. But if the teacher has sent someone off to practice with the understanding the next step is not taught until the first step has been learned well, then after assessment agrees to teach the next step..... Again, is that not how the "old China" example would work?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well, then you go back and practice some more! But if he likes what he sees and agrees to teach the next 4 ....or 6....or......... Is that not how it would work in your "traditional Chinese" example??

Nope, the old school TCMA way some. not all, trained one thing and if that went well they learned another thing. If they were not regular students. Example: Santi shi...get that right...get taught Piquan.... get it wrong...more Santi shi. going to the next 4 or 6 was not an option. But I am neither supporting or condemning this type of training.

This can go on today, only shorter periods. I was told to practice a specific kick, just 1 kick with right and left legs, for 2 weeks by my Sanda shifu (police version)...after 2 weeks he wanted to see it...told me it was horrible, beyond his showing me the kick again...the lesson was over....and he would see me in 2 more weeks. Got it right in 2 weeks and we went over one more aspect of training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This depends on a lot of things, including what’s those four things are. But it is nebulous and can be difficult to draw clear boundaries.

When something new is learned, it requires repeated correction before it is consistently correct. Once that happens, then the student can make progress training by himself.

If those corrections are not done, then there is a good chance fundamental mistakes will be unknowingly made, and will be reinforced through uncorrected practice.

Exactly when that point is reached depends on a lot of things, but I am skeptical that it can be reached in one or two intense weekend sessions.

I will add a comment here. IMO that early contact is more important when discussing forms than applications. Why? Application can't be practiced (not really) without a partner. If that includes even lightly resisted practice, there will be feedback to help get the technique more "right" (and another mind to figure out why it's not working right, when it isn't). Even if they don't get it technically "right", they are at least doing something that is close and is working, so there's useful learning going on. With forms (even 2-man forms), there's not that kind of feedback, so errors can still "work", but create problems in the long run, when transitioning to application.

This is why BJJ has been more able to use this model than arts that have forms. Especially since arts that have forms usually start from the form and progress to application, so if you mess up learning the form, you'll have problems with application.

 

[Flying Crane]

I will add a comment here. IMO that early contact is more important when discussing forms than applications. Why? Application can't be practiced (not really) without a partner. If that includes even lightly resisted practice, there will be feedback to help get the technique more "right" (and another mind to figure out why it's not working right, when it isn't). Even if they don't get it technically "right", they are at least doing something that is close and is working, so there's useful learning going on. With forms (even 2-man forms), there's not that kind of feedback, so errors can still "work", but create problems in the long run, when transitioning to application.

This is why BJJ has been more able to use this model than arts that have forms. Especially since arts that have forms usually start from the form and progress to application, so if you mess up learning the form, you'll have problems with application.

I can agree with this.

It is possible to practice the movements of the application in the air on an imaginary enemy, but it takes imagination that not everyone has and it is definitely not the same as working with a partner. That is another drawback of distance learning with few actual meetings. That application also requires repetition.

Also, within the movement pattern of the application, one can work on hard strikes to a heavy bag or work the application on a dummy of some sort. Again, definitely not the same as working on a partner but creativity can help in coming up with possibilities.

It often is not difficult to muscle a technique into getting it to work. But that often is not “good” technique and is not what the end goal is. Once again, a drawback of distance training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can agree with this.

It is possible to practice the movements of the application in the air on an imaginary enemy, but it takes imagination that not everyone has and it is definitely not the same as working with a partner. That is another drawback of distance learning with few actual meetings. That application also requires repetition.

Also, within the movement pattern of the application, one can work on hard strikes to a heavy bag or work the application on a dummy of some sort. Again, definitely not the same as working on a partner but creativity can help in coming up with possibilities.

It often is not difficult to muscle a technique into getting it to work. But that often is not “good” technique and is not what the end goal is. Once again, a drawback of distance training.

I can agree with all of that. On the last point, it's my experience that many students (even working with a competent instructor) go through a "muscling it" phase - some on every single technique. So, if they spend a lot of time learning to muscle it, they probably have some of the basic mechanics right (so it's useful, if not as useful as if done with good technique), and can be taught to not muscle it. For some techniques, the muscling version is just as legitimate, as an option when the other person is technically good but not as strong.

 

[anerlich]

I will add a comment here. IMO that early contact is more important when discussing forms than applications. Why? Application can't be practiced (not really) without a partner. If that includes even lightly resisted practice, there will be feedback to help get the technique more "right" (and another mind to figure out why it's not working right, when it isn't). Even if they don't get it technically "right", they are at least doing something that is close and is working, so there's useful learning going on. With forms (even 2-man forms), there's not that kind of feedback, so errors can still "work", but create problems in the long run, when transitioning to application.

This is why BJJ has been more able to use this model than arts that have forms. Especially since arts that have forms usually start from the form and progress to application, so if you mess up learning the form, you'll have problems with application.

On point.

Two of my BJJ instructors were quite open about the fact that they'd do things like take a private lesson from their coach in the afternoon, and then teach what they'd been taught in their own evening class. Both have produced excellent black belts of their own and successful competitors.

Eddie Bravo is on record as saying that when he teaches a class he includes everything he has learned about the material up until about an hour before.

I would venture that most physical skills can be taught this way. Not many physical skills get more complex than BJJ. Despite the protestations to the contrary by many, I fail to see why TCMA skills are qualitatively different in this regard.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

On point.

Two of my BJJ instructors were quite open about the fact that they'd do things like take a private lesson from their coach in the afternoon, and then teach what they'd been taught in their own evening class. Both have produced excellent black belts of their own and successful competitors.

Eddie Bravo is on record as saying that when he teaches a class he includes everything he has learned about the material up until about an hour before.

I would venture that most physical skills can be taught this way. Not many physical skills get more complex than BJJ. Despite the protestations to the contrary by many, I fail to see why TCMA skills are qualitatively different in this regard.

I do this on a regular basis. If I visit another NGA school (or even another style) my students know what I teach at the next class will be at least influenced by something I saw, felt, or was taught there.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

On point.

Two of my BJJ instructors were quite open about the fact that they'd do things like take a private lesson from their coach in the afternoon, and then teach what they'd been taught in their own evening class. Both have produced excellent black belts of their own and successful competitors.

Eddie Bravo is on record as saying that when he teaches a class he includes everything he has learned about the material up until about an hour before.

I would venture that most physical skills can be taught this way. Not many physical skills get more complex than BJJ. Despite the protestations to the contrary by many, I fail to see why TCMA skills are qualitatively different in this regard.

Follow up: This is only a good idea once you reach a certain point in your own skill development (and your development as an instructor). Where that point is varies by individual.

 

[KPM]

I will add a comment here. IMO that early contact is more important when discussing forms than applications. Why? Application can't be practiced (not really) without a partner. .

Which is why Pin Sun was great for this kind of set up. As I've already explained on the other thread.....just 4 San Sik taught thoroughly....with the two man version to drill the application with a partner and the dummy version for extra practice...trained exclusively for an entire year. Part of the "distance learning" program was the requirement to have a training partner for exactly this reason. Now why people want to continue to belittle and devalue this is beyond me. But I can assure everyone that this was not a case of "quickly learned."

 

[geezer]

Which is why Pin Sun was great for this kind of set up. As I've already explained on the other thread.....just 4 San Sik taught thoroughly....with the two man version to drill the application with a partner and the dummy version for extra practice...trained exclusively for an entire year. Part of the "distance learning" program was the requirement to have a training partner for exactly this reason. Now why people want to continue to belittle and devalue this is beyond me. But I can assure everyone that this was not a case of "quickly learned."

In spite of the oft repeated maxim that WC must be trained by direct training under a qualified sifu (I've said it myself), there are aspects of "distance learning" that can achieve results IMO. Maybe it's not the ideal, but I can see how it could work in a mixed curriculum of video, paired practice, and regularly spaced visits to meet with your instructor for hands-on correction. Perhaps this would be a good topic for discussion on another thread, eh?

 

[KPM]

Perhaps this would be a good topic for discussion on another thread, eh?

Just so Michael can continue to repeat that he doesn't think that this kind of learning works and essentially says it couldn't have possibly worked for me? No thanks.

 

[Eric_H]

I have a problem with people pretending to have had more training and knowledge or higher credentials than they actually do. But if they are straight forward about what their actual training and experience is, then IMO they can do whatever they want and people can judge them accordingly.

That's the rub though - in my OP I denoted that they claim a rank/knowledge level that they never achieved. That's when things get ugly.

If everyone told the truth, I don't think there'd be any issues. There's nothing wrong with saying "I did X for a while and Y for a while and now I teach Z which is part X and part Y"