Philosophical question from a newbie

[drop bear]

I have been teaching Wing Chun for 41 years, and I live in the U.S, I have noticed that much has changed in the teaching and practicing for many different reasons. First and most important, which many are not aware of, Americans are considered weak and cannot endure the true training, secondly, Americans have become lawsuit happy. Instructors have have a business has many expenses, and has insure coverage to worry about, so the instructor has to run the business to best make a profit. Look at how people complain about every little thing, sue over every little thing, I hate to say it, but many people would not endure the old training methods. Changes are also from instructors feeling the changes are better, or they cannot do some of the techniques. There is a technique in Wing Chun that is almost lost because many cannot achieve it, so it is not taught. I cannot say the technique because it is only taught to the most advanced students, and I have not had a student to this day that will spend the time and energy to learn it. I do not know how many others out there that know the technique, but hopefully, it is still learned in China.

Yeah. Weirdly less so. I think. If you give people the outcomes then they are willing to do the work.

The tough mudders would be an example of that. So women in the army apparently can't do obstacle courses because of genetics. Meanwhile soccer mums are running through electric shocks for the fun of it.

I think people will surprise your expectations if you let them.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

If it is so difficult to learn, perhaps it is a stupid technique, with a very low probability of being successful and useful.

I bet I could invent a technique all by myself, that would be very very difficult to do and to use, and likely nobody would want to even try to get it to work.

I bet I could, I bet I could.

You probably have already and forgot it long before you were elevated to your lofty position at #2! Bah the toils of the peasants no longer concern the grand Poohbah of the western region, All Hail!

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Some people may feel, "Why should I share valuable information online for free?" The way that I look at this is, willing to share information can benefit everybody.

I’m just joking around.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I have been teaching Wing Chun for 41 years, and I live in the U.S, I have noticed that much has changed in the teaching and practicing for many different reasons. First and most important, which many are not aware of, Americans are considered weak and cannot endure the true training, secondly, Americans have become lawsuit happy. Instructors have have a business has many expenses, and has insure coverage to worry about, so the instructor has to run the business to best make a profit. Look at how people complain about every little thing, sue over every little thing, I hate to say it, but many people would not endure the old training methods. Changes are also from instructors feeling the changes are better, or they cannot do some of the techniques. There is a technique in Wing Chun that is almost lost because many cannot achieve it, so it is not taught. I cannot say the technique because it is only taught to the most advanced students, and I have not had a student to this day that will spend the time and energy to learn it. I do not know how many others out there that know the technique, but hopefully, it is still learned in China.

 

[Flying Crane]

You probably have already and forgot it long before you were elevated to your lofty position at #2! Bah the toils of the peasants no longer concern the grand Poohbah of the western region, All Hail!

I have actually found that a lot of such stupid techniques that would be unlikely as to require a Herculean effort to develop the skill to actually make them functional, are taught rather freely in the martial arts. No effort to shroud them in secrecy at all.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I’m just joking around.

I'm joking too. Hope my joke won't upset anybody.

A: I have a secret.
B: What's your secret?
A: I won't tell you.
B:

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I have actually found that a lot of such stupid techniques that would be unlikely as to require a Herculean effort to develop the skill to actually make them functional, are taught rather freely in the martial arts. No effort to shroud them in secrecy at all.

Actually, if one doesn't hit on the heavy bag, his punch may not be able to knock down his opponent. Does that mean to strike on the heavy bag is a MA secret?

 

[lklawson]

I can understand instructors having liability concerns. Most of thr schools that I've seen, are marketing karate to adults as a way to get fit. I have read several reviews for karate schools by adults who got into karate in order to lose weight.

Back in the '70s, Karate used to be the art where people racked up broken bones, black eyes, and missing teeth.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Does it matter?

I mean it is not about one school it is about a trend. Which most people would have accepted happens without the video.

I would guess it matters to the folks being ridiculed, particularly if the ridicule is misdirected. It matters to me because I want to make sure that I have the right information before I am critical of something.

But I do see your point, and I generally agree that there seem to be a lot of folks claiming to teach skills applicable to modern fighting which aren't.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'd been researching martial arts for a while. I looked at a few different styles and schools. I recently had a tsd lesson. I had a discussion with the instructor later and I would like some feedback from other martial arts practitioners. His answer was, basically, the same as answers I had gotten from other instructors in other disciplines, while I was researching. If the instructor happens ot be on this forum, I mean no disrespect by posting my questions on this forum.

I'm a a relatively older individual. After watching some youtube videos, I began to wonder if other adults, who started their training later in life, were able to actually perform all ofthe moves, necessary to prorgress to higher levels of proficiency. I was told that some moves can be modified and that others may be omitted entirely. These responses are what prompted my post.
From my limited knowledge, Eastern and Western cultures are, obviously, very different. Karate is an Eastern art, for the most part. It's my understanding that Karate teaches physical AND mental discipline. It is also my understanding, that Eastern culture, in general, sets higher expectations for performance than Western, or, at least, sets higher standards than American society.
If someone truly believes in the art that he/she is practicing, how is it possible to put a Western spin on an Eastern art and just modify or omit moves, to remain beholden not only, to the inclusive mindset that we embrace in this country, but also to the complacency about mediocrity, that characterizes our society? Or, am I misinterpreting?
Or, is it only necessary to focus on the individual, and ensuring that each person reaches his/her potential, within the constraints of his/her own abilities If that is the case, then the belt system would seem to be meaningless. If you are required to perform certain moves at a certain level of proficiency but you make allowances for each individual's potential for achieving those levels, then it would seem that awarding belts is a subjective process.
I didn't grow up receiving trophies just for participating. Not everybody can play tennis. That's why there's pickleball. Should olderor impaired people, who can't lift their legs above their heads, be relegated to hapkido or tai chi?
I'd like some feedback from those who are more knowledgable and who have actually been practicing and/or teaching for a while.

I've been teaching for about 25 years (including my student teaching), so not the most experienced instructor on here, but not a newbie, either. I've been advocating adapting techniques for true limitations that entire time. I had a training partner/student who started at 61. He had flexibility issues in his shoulders and hips that were never going to go away (though they could improve). For the shoulders, I taught him how to work the principles differently, to adjust for what he couldn't do exactly as the classical forms teach it. He still had to be able to do the classical forms of all techniques (with allowances for his limitation) and demonstrate understanding of them, but in actual development, the focus was on what would work well for him (so, little time spent on those he wouldn't be using much). With the kicks, there was one he would never get right, because his hip wouldn't go into position. For development purposes (shugyo - the struggle), he still had to train that kick as best he could. Had he trained as a senior student under me (he trained at that point under the chief instructor), I'd have required he teach that kick to new students, to demonstrate he could (since it's a required part of the standard curriculum, and he'd need to be able to teach it later).

I've never had a student who required more than that. Because of our falls, folks with more limitations generally aren't interested. If someone came to me with a more significant limitation, I'd probably have to develop a curriculum specific to them, and figure out a new ranking system for them, if they were interested in rank.

So, to your overall point: yes. There's some of both. Wherever possible, I prefer to keep to my standard curriculum. The struggle inherent in developing the skills required in that curriculum is part of the point. But where the limitations are real (it's not just difficult, but apparently impossible, for them to do some part of the curriculum), other challenges should be presented, and they can be given other areas to focus on. As long as the development is real, I'd let them progress in rank as they meet equivalent requirements.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Having spent a lot of time around tennis courts, I can definitively say that, not everybody can play tennis. Many people cannot serve, even a modified serve and get the ball "in." It is POSSIBLE to play around a backhand, sometimes, but for the most part, having a backhand, even a bad one, is essential. This is another skill that many people simply cannot learn. Some people don't have the stamina to play tennis. Getting the ball over the net now and then isn't tennis.

I'd challenge the idea that "many people cannot learn" a backhand. It's not a terribly complex skill. Would some people struggle with it? Sure. Would some be unable to learn it? Sure. But "many" seems an overstatement.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It does seem that American society, at least, is, if not holding people to rhe same standards, definitely becoming a lot more forgiving and less demanding. I'm not an educator. However, I do know thst if you screwed up in college, as a freshman and flunked out, then you flunked out. Now, in many schools, you can essentially, take a mulligan. Yes, it does give the colleges twice as much tuition money but the mentality is just not the same as it used to be.
Maybe the same IS true in Eastern cultures today. I don't know. Is modifying techniques universally accepted?

I don't know that letting someone try again after flunking is the same as lowering standards. If the same standards are being used to determine grades, and the same graduation requirements exist, then people are just being allowed to fail and learn from it (or not, as they choose).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

can hit harder and more precious than younger students

I don't know what word autocorrect replaced with "precious", but I really want to find something I can refer to as a "precious hit" as praise.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have actually noticed that many instructors are not as fit as I'd have expected. In fact, I've seen quite a few who are overweight, yet their social media pages tout the benefits of karate for weight loss. It is ironic.

Some of this is just priorities and time. If they teach part-time (true even of some school owners) and have a full-time day job plus a family, there's only so much time they can put into fitness beyond that. And some folks, as they age into their 50's, find it really difficult to keep weight off, even if they eat reasonably and train a lot. Heck, I've seen some triathletes who carried about 20 lbs more than they'd like to, in spite of their training.

And that's without considering what else might be happening, health-wise. If they have some old injuries that keep them from most kinds of heavy exercise, that really limits what they can do to control weight. I'm blessed that, even when I got pretty sedentary for a couple of years, my metabolism still kept me pretty slim. Others aren't that fortunate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I understand what you're saying. I can over think things, that's for sure. The only reason that I had ever heard about Hapkido is that one of the schools that I contacted, told me that it's what is generally offered to ilder students. I had also spoken to a tkd instructor who said that he incorporates some hapkido into his training.

I find that odd. Hapkido (in all the variations I've seen of it) has quite a bit of falling. Learning to fall well has been the biggest obstacle for folks who started training with me after about their late 30's.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I do agree and that was part of what I trying to say, diplomatically. I guess my real qu3stion is, are schools selling out in order to attract and retain students or is modification of technique and allowing for people's individual limitations/restrictions legitimate and acceptable?

There likely are examples of both. Sometimes in the same school.

 

[_Simon_]

I have been teaching Wing Chun for 41 years, and I live in the U.S, I have noticed that much has changed in the teaching and practicing for many different reasons. First and most important, which many are not aware of, Americans are considered weak and cannot endure the true training, secondly, Americans have become lawsuit happy. Instructors have have a business has many expenses, and has insure coverage to worry about, so the instructor has to run the business to best make a profit. Look at how people complain about every little thing, sue over every little thing, I hate to say it, but many people would not endure the old training methods. Changes are also from instructors feeling the changes are better, or they cannot do some of the techniques. There is a technique in Wing Chun that is almost lost because many cannot achieve it, so it is not taught. I cannot say the technique because it is only taught to the most advanced students, and I have not had a student to this day that will spend the time and energy to learn it. I do not know how many others out there that know the technique, but hopefully, it is still learned in China.

I know... the technique...

But YOU say it first just so it is the one I'm thinking of!

 

[Herenorthere]

Some of this is just priorities and time. If they teach part-time (true even of some school owners) and have a full-time day job plus a family, there's only so much time they can put into fitness beyond that. And some folks, as they age into their 50's, find it really difficult to keep weight off, even if they eat reasonably and train a lot. Heck, I've seen some triathletes who carried about 20 lbs more than they'd like to, in spite of their training.

And that's without considering what else might be happening, health-wise. If they have some old injuries that keep them from most kinds of heavy exercise, that really limits what they can do to control weight. I'm blessed that, even when I got pretty sedentary for a couple of years, my metabolism still kept me pretty slim. Others aren't that fortunate.

Granted, some people have slow metabolism and other issues affecting weight. I realize age is also a factor. However, when a lot instructors under the age of 50 are noticeably overweight, that's a n issue.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am going to try to post a link to a YouTube video, in which an older gentleman is taking a black belt test with a group of significantly younger people.
I commend him for his efforts, for getting out there with the younger kids and and for sticking with MA. However, in this case, I do have to ask whether the techniques that he was demonstrating, in a modified way, are worthy of not only, a black belt but of having any practical useful value to him, if he had to use them. He was, granted allowances for not having to do push-ups, sotups, jump kicks., and tumbles. OK,
I am NOT professing to be an expert but it seemed as though, he was, more or less, just throwing his legs out and not really kicking. He also appeared to be off balance, often. Again, I am NOT an instructor, nor do I claim to know as much as a n instructor. How could someone go thst far, with what looks like, such poor technique? Is this much of a "modification" acceptable?
For myself, I don't know whether I, personally, would continue, if I had that much difficulty performing a lot of moves.
If the video won't post, it's on YouTube under tang soo do black belt test, Texas.

That question begs the question of what a BB means. And the answer is, it depends. Any given rank means only what it means within the group that awarded it. In my primary art, it's a pretty high bar: it's an instructor rank, by definition (student instructing is required to reach BB). In other systems, it's just a recognition of basic competency in fundamental techniques.

I don't consider one of those more valid than the other.