It's not rocket science

[zuti car]

We can frequently read on this forum that people who stayed with Yip Man longer learnt more than others and have "deeper" understanding of the art . Often we can hear about "deeper" aspects of the art , some styles are deliberately trying to make their "theory" as complicated as possible using either modern physics , chemistry , biology or archaic Chinese terminology . I know people who sent decades learning and they are still on beginner's level. My question is , how Wing Chun is really "deep" , what in it requires "deeper" understanding ? I have studied chemistry for 3 years ( had to quit for some reasons ) .Later I got back to university and finished economics . If I compare wing chun to economics , wing chun cannot fulfill a content for one exam . to compare it with chemistry is funny . Now , we use science to explain and understand the world , we can use science to describe wing chun , but using science to describe something doesn't make that something a science . I personally see wing chun as a manual trade , a skill that can be achieved through constant training and of course there are some things to be learnt\understood on intellectual level but that is far from something complicated, "deep" and hard to understand. In my country basic university courses last from 4 to 6 years . Manual trade's schools have 3 and 4 years programs (this is high school level of education ).I personally do not find any martial art intellectually challenging , there is nothing "deep" in there, especially if we compare MA with real science ... Now , my question is , how much time is really needed to learn and understand a complete curriculum of some wing chun style ( i am not talking about the skill , only about knowledge)?

 

[drop bear]

Depends what you do.

Fighting is as complicated as the other guy. So I punch you in the head you fall over fighting is simple.

If you counter then I have to become more complex. If I become more complex then so do you. And so on.

It is separate to just solid technique.

 

[Vajramusti]

You have explained your understanding of wing chum. Some things in wing chun can be effective in a short time--- others can take much longer. Ip man spent about 7 or eight years in his core learning, Ho Kam Ming about 8 years.
Ditto for Augustine Fong.
Internal aspects of CMA take time-look at the training times involved for CXW, CXX and his son.
More external arts take less time.
A Chemistry PhD from a good university or universities will take about 11 years- not counting post doc work.
Good winw takes time.

 

[geezer]

I personally do not find any martial art intellectually challenging , there is nothing "deep" in there, especially if we compare MA with real science ... Now , my question is , how much time is really needed to learn and understand a complete curriculum of some wing chun style ( i am not talking about the skill , only about knowledge)?

Zuti, this is a good example of how different backgrounds will color our perspectives. My university training began in the Social Sciences, specifically Anthropology. After earning my BA I became interested in fine arts. I apprenticed with known artists, put together a portfolio and returned to the University to earn an MFA ...a degree that may not exist in some countries. I eventually came to earn a living as an art teacher, mainly teaching ceramics. Something that once was a humble trade, but that has depth beyond what most people unschooled in the arts would recognize.

At any rate, I find many significant parallels between the martial arts and the fine-arts "crafts". A true craftsman has to think like a scientist and essentially employ the scientific method to develop his skills. Yet his skills are not "replicable" the way a scientific experiment is. There are too many unquantifiable variables. The skill and intuitions of a master (be he an artist, craftsman, or martial artist) can never be precisely transferred or duplicated.

 

[zuti car]

. The skill and intuitions of a master (be he an artist, craftsman, or martial artist) can never be precisely transferred or duplicated.

With this I agree completely . On the other hand , this is a matter of experience and training , not some "deep" knowledge , hard to understand .

 

[geezer]

With this I agree completely . On the other hand , this is a matter of experience and training , not some "deep" knowledge , hard to understand .

The intuitive genius of an artist may be qualitatively different from that of the scientist but no less "deep".

 

[dlcox]

Good discussion gents. I find myself in agreement with several points, but also ponder others. On a basic level is it all not just fundamental mechanics that are simply explored & refined to an elevated level? Our foundation is always present but our experiences and preferences dictate how we evolve that foundation, sometimes into something entirely new. To me its this gray area of development and transition that is complex, not necessarily the building of the foundation. I can see both arguments but there are areas of the discussion not so easily dismissed.

 

[zuti car]

The intuitive genius of an artist may be qualitatively different from that of the scientist but no less "deep".

My goodfarher is a painter, and an excellent one. I admire his work and I do understand he has something I don't. His skill is beyond my capability to describe it and yes it is deep and it is some kind of knowledge. But he cannot teach me to paint like him , so it is not a real knowledge , it is something personal , something only he possesses. Real knowledge can be passed on , no matter how deep or complicated it may be. Sorry about the icon I don't know how it ended up here and I cannot remove it

 

[dlcox]

T

My goodfarher is a painter, and an excellent one. I admire his work and I do understand he has something I don't. His skill is beyond my capability to describe it and yes it is deep and it is some kind of knowledge. But he cannot teach me to paint like him , so it is not a real knowledge , it is something personal , something only he possesses. Real knowledge can be passed on , no matter how deep or complicated it may be

True, knowledge can be passed on, refinement of that knowledge cannot always be. I think sometimes people, especially Yong Chun people, spend too much time trying to emphasize, express and pass on this refinement as opposed to the fundamental from which the refinement was derived. It's like teaching someone to sculpt by focusing on fine details instead of basic shapes of form. It is very difficult to learn, comprehend & retain by learning the most complex aspects first. We first learn A, B, C not paragraphs for a reason.

 

[zuti car]

just fundamental mechanics that are simply explored & refined to an elevated level? .

This is what any MA should be in order to be effective . Ma that follows this simple rule are effective

 

[KPM]

My goodfarher is a painter, and an excellent one. I admire his work and I do understand he has something I don't. His skill is beyond my capability to describe it and yes it is deep and it is some kind of knowledge. But he cannot teach me to paint like him , so it is not a real knowledge , it is something personal , something only he possesses. Real knowledge can be passed on , no matter how deep or complicated it may be. Sorry about the icon I don't know how it ended up here and I cannot remove it

There is a difference between knowledge and understanding. One comes from books, one comes from intuition. One can be taught. The other can't. Now the acquiring of knowledge should lead to understanding of the topic. But that is not always guaranteed! One student may "get it" better than another! As a topic of study Wing Chun may not be that complex. I think the "depth" comes from how well you understand how that knowledge can be used or applied. There can be "layers" of understanding of the same basic piece of knowledge imparted. Some of it may even be on a physical level and not an intellectual level. You teacher may not be able to "teach" it to you at all, simply because he isn't explicitly aware of how it is working. But he may very well be able to "demonstrate it" and therefore "impart it" to the right student. Another student may miss it completely. There is more to learning than book knowledge! ;-)

 

[zuti car]

There is a difference between knowledge and understanding. One comes from books, one comes from intuition. One can be taught. The other can't. Now the acquiring of knowledge should lead to understanding of the topic. But that is not always guaranteed! One student may "get it" better than another! As a topic of study Wing Chun may not be that complex. I think the "depth" comes from how well you understand how that knowledge can be used or applied. There can be "layers" of understanding of the same basic piece of knowledge imparted. Some of it may even be on a physical level and not an intellectual level. You teacher may not be able to "teach" it to you at all, simply because he isn't explicitly aware of how it is working. But he may very well be able to "demonstrate it" and therefore "impart it" to the right student. Another student may miss it completely. There is more to learning than book knowledge! ;-)

Basically , fighter can be train without understanding of what they are doing . They can be train to react properly but they don't have to know why they are doing something in particular way .And they can be great fighters ,

 

[Callen]

Yet another interesting post. Thanks Zuti.

I feel the questioning might lean a little towards personal preferences and tolerance. While "Rocket Science" is indeed a far cry from Wing Chun, over-simplification can also be an issue in discussions. There are many nuances in Wing Chun. Some of which absolutely can and should be dissected and studied at “depth”. It’s up to the practitioner to chose when and where they will multiply their efforts. Somethings in Wing Chun don’t come easily and just going through the paces and movements until you memorize them aren’t enough.

It’s really a question of how far a practitioner wants to go. Some want a deeper understanding because it can actually aid them on their path and long-term development. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to discuss depth of knowledge in Wing Chun and exclude the concept of skill level. At some degree, they will have a mutual relationship.

 

[drop bear]

Basically , fighter can be train without understanding of what they are doing . They can be train to react properly but they don't have to know why they are doing something in particular way .And they can be great fighters ,

But they generally need a coach who does understand those factors.

 

[zuti car]

But they generally need a coach who does understand those factors.

Yes ,usually, more knowledgeable coach = better fighter

 

[mograph]

Yes. Skill may be sufficient for a fighter, but a teacher also needs understanding in order to communicate the skills to the students.

 

[Vajramusti]

Yes. Skill may be sufficient for a fighter, but a teacher also needs understanding in order to communicate the skills to the students.

====

IMO-true/

 

[drop bear]

Yes ,usually, more knowledgeable coach = better fighter

I was having that discussion with a fight coach. And it can be tricky. A fighter can worry about his own skills. Although that can still be a pretty deep set if you move away from just you base line skill set and move into tactically employing them. But a good coach needs to worry about his own skills his fighters skills (which may be legitimately different) and the skills and how to counter them.

 

[drop bear]

So you have this layer of ability. You are fast and a good quick striker. But the other guy is stronger than you and more aggressive.

Imagine it as the paper rock scissors game where three people of equal ability can master the other due to the inherent advantages of that ability.

So now you need another layer of martial arts mastery to contend with these shifts in fighting dynamics.

Using Mohamed Ali was the example. He fought guys who were better physical fighters than himself and beat them. And that becomes a science.

 

[mograph]

Would the extra layer be strategy, sensitivity, ability to improvise and instantly change tactics?