Problems with "traditional arts" part 2

[drop bear]

Doesn't that change the drill into sparring?

Sparring is a drill.

 

[wckf92]

The issue is efficiency. If the system you train is less efficient then you have to be better at it to overcome someone working less hard.

And that is entirely within the system.

And wing chun can be a great example. So if you did chun striking but did not include head movement. You then have to address every single punch coming at you, deal with it and fire something back.

And that is legitimately hard work at speed.

If you used head movement then eve statistically less strikes will land. And so you will have a better time avoiding shots.

Fair points.
Not to get into the weeds but I suppose it would depend on whether a particular flavor of WC taught head movement as part of the system. hahaha

 

[wckf92]

Sparring is a drill.

Exactly.
Everything is a drill until it's go time!

 

[Danny T]

Add pummeling and takedowns.

Chi sao is pummeling. The problem is with those who don't go beyond just pummeling.
Chi sao as pummeling has different layers first is to learn the moves and the intertwining of the arms (poon sao), just going through the motions and sticking with each other. Then there is the addition of pressure and moving about (luk sao), working for positional control. And finally there is the free action of getting positional control and doing something with it; with wrestling it would be a shoot, drag or duck under and take the back/takedown; with wc to punch, to trap the legs and sweep or takedown. Unfortunately for many in wc (from what I've seen) they stay in the chi sao mode never actually sparring or fighting with it. How good would one be as a wrestler if only doing pummeling and takedown drills. These are but a part of the whole of training. Sad that many wc practitioners stop with chi sao.

 

[dvcochran]

I'll go a step further, Anarax. While this can be useful information, I'm not sure how important it is. I'll use my primary art as an example. Because I know NGA has roots in Daito-ryu, most likely taught by Kitaro Yoshida, I know it has near-direct links to Ueshiba's Aikido, more direct links to all the current lines of Daito-ryu, and some pretty thin indirect links (through Kitaro) to Yanagi-ryu. That's useful information, but I'm not sure it's that important. I've talked with students who, though they had to know that at some point to pass their yellow belt (first colored belt) test in the NGAA, have long since forgotten it or confused it. Why? Because it doesn't really matter to their training. It matters for those of us investigating to look for where principles came from (usually, because we either don't really "get" a technique, or because we're looking for a better way than what we know), but to the average student, it's just trivia. A clear case is the fact that we are almost sure Kitaro is the source of the Daito-ryu base of NGA, but we can't be sure. A knowledgeable instructor in another art tried to help us with researching that, but the Daito-ryu records are somewhat fragmented and might not even be complete at this point. His final response to us was (paraphrased), "I wouldn't worry about it. It doesn't really matter whether Morita trained under Kitaro, or he invented NGA entirely on his own from a bunch of made-up techniques. It's the effectiveness of the art that matters. Go train."

This is why it bugs me when I see so much emphasis on lineage. It doesn't seem important enough to really deserve the air time it gets. My "lineage" in NGA is interesting, but I've only ever used it to help folks understand what to expect (some known differences between the two men who were once the ranking active NGAA instructors). If someone were to claim to have learned their NGA from Bryce Lee (who left the NGAA and probably stopped calling it NGA some 20+ years ago), that wouldn't really tell me anything useful.

Agreed. I can easily trace our lineage through Seoung Eui Shin back to Hwang Ki. But in reality most of the positioning of Korean styles were heavily politically related. So what good does it do to explain the Kwan's to a white belt? The current climate of your Dojang and it's instructors are what your students will remember.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think it has to... I mean, you can have "drills" that introduce and train these aspects before moving on to more dynamic activities like sparring, etc.

That's true. If you just progress to takedowns and such, and immediately reset to restart chi sao, it doesn't really turn into sparring yet. Maybe an interesting progression point between the two.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The issue is efficiency. If the system you train is less efficient then you have to be better at it to overcome someone working less hard.

And that is entirely within the system.

And wing chun can be a great example. So if you did chun striking but did not include head movement. You then have to address every single punch coming at you, deal with it and fire something back.

And that is legitimately hard work at speed.

If you used head movement then eve statistically less strikes will land. And so you will have a better time avoiding shots.

And this is a realistic commentary on a lot of JMA, as I've seen them, as well. Most of my training didn't address head movement and level changes nearly enough, leading to exactly the issue you point out.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sparring is a drill.

I agree that sparring can fit within the common usage of "drill". My question was whether making that change to that particular drill changes it to sparring. As someone else commented, it doesn't have to.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Fair points.
Not to get into the weeds but I suppose it would depend on whether a particular flavor of WC taught head movement as part of the system. hahaha

And then we get into the question of whether head movement - if added to what a WC instructor teaches - is part of WC, or an add-on. Does it become "WC with head movement added" or "that WC that includes head movement"? I think the distinction is entirely semantics, but becomes the basis of a lot of debate and acrimony within some circles of TMA.

 

[Danny T]

And then we get into the question of whether head movement - if added to what a WC instructor teaches - is part of WC, or an add-on. Does it become "WC with head movement added" or "that WC that includes head movement"? I think the distinction is entirely semantics, but becomes the basis of a lot of debate and acrimony within some circles of TMA.

1. most martial arts that are considered traditional were designed to defend against thugs and opportunists type criminals and not against other trained fighters.
2. most practitioners of said tma never fight in a self defense situation.
3. competitive fighting mindset is different than self defense mindset.
4. most sparring is stand your ground fighting and not get the hell out self defense.
5. head movement can be an excellent action when you are in a stand your ground 'I'm not going anywhere' situation. Not so much in a direct attack or direct counter-attack and go situation. Getting out of an attackers chosen ambush zone is imperative for surviving an assault by a criminal even more so if they are armed. Standing in front of your attacker, slipping, bobbing and weaving is not a very good plan.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

1. most martial arts that are considered traditional were designed to defend against thugs and opportunists type criminals and not against other trained fighters.
2. most practitioners of said tma never fight in a self defense situation.
3. competitive fighting mindset is different than self defense mindset.
4. most sparring is stand your ground fighting and not get the hell out self defense.
5. head movement can be an excellent action when you are in a stand your ground 'I'm not going anywhere' situation. Not so much in a direct attack or direct counter-attack and go situation. Getting out of an attackers chosen ambush zone is imperative for surviving an assault by a criminal even more so if they are armed. Standing in front of your attacker, slipping, bobbing and weaving is not a very good plan.

There's no reason those two approaches can't intersect. I can get in more easily to control the situation (assuming running isn't a safe option) if I can get past his punches. My chance of getting past those punches goes up if I have some rudimentary head movement and level changing ability. That opens up more striking and grappling options for me, and even buys some time to find a useful opening. Simply exiting his ambush zone isn't usually going to be an immediate option without first gaining some control.

I agree the mindset is different, but useful tools overlap considerably.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Sparring is a drill.

- Drill is your opponent give you that chance and you have to finish it.
- Sparring is your opponent "won't" give you that chance and you still have to finish it.

Drill is like "making love". Sparring is like "raping someone."

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Most of my training didn't address head movement and level changes nearly enough, leading to exactly the issue you point out.

Both head movement and level change can be learned in 2 men forms.

When you throw a

- hook punch,
- crescent kick,

your opponent will dodge under it.

The issue is some MA systems such as WC doesn't have 2 men forms. IMO, it's a good idea to create the 4th WC forms that include all of these.

 

[wckf92]

Both head movement and level change can be learned in 2 men forms. The issue is some MA system such as WC doesn't have 2 men forms.

Yes it does...they are called drills!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Both head movement and level change can be learned in 2 men forms.

When you throw a

- hook punch,
- crescent kick,

your opponent will dodge under it.

The issue is some MA systems such as WC doesn't have 2 men forms. IMO, it's a good idea to create the 4th WC forms that include all of these.

Even in those MA that don't use forms much (NGA traditionally has a bunch of very short 2-man forms sprinkled around, but that's all), they sometimes don't get into any of that in other drills. It's pretty easy to work in, either as a separate exercise, or within existing drills.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yes it does...they are called drills!

Unless you can standardize WC drills, otherwise drills will be different between schools.

In the past 2 months, I just realized that some solo training are missing in my system (such as scoop, tie). I created both drills (short forms) and added into my system. This way, my next generation will have those information in their training.

 

[wckf92]

Unless you can standardize WC drills, otherwise drills will be different between schools.

In the past 2 months, I just realized that some solo training are missing in my system (such as scoop, tie). I created both drills (short forms) and added into my system. This way, my next generation will have those information in their training.

If I can integrate MT "flying knee" into my system, nothing is impossible.

While I somewhat agree that standardized drills across the entire WC community may be useful to a point...the mark of a good instructor is that he/she can create system-compliant drills for an individual student for furthering their understanding of the system. Having said that...I definitely disagree that WC needs a "4th form" (I'm assuming you meant hand form?).

Besides...standardized drills for EVERYONE just sounds boring! hahaha

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the mark of a good instructor is ...

You can't depend on a good king to lead a country. If you have good constitution, any average president can lead that country.

IMO, if a MA system is designed well, any average instructor should be able to pass it down to the next generation.

 

[wckf92]

You can't depend on a good king to lead a country. If you have good constitution, any average president can lead that country.

IMO, if a MA system is designed well, any average instructor should be able to pass it down to the next generation.

I agree...but you changed the topic. IMHO Wing Chun is just fine the way it is. And I imagine there are good folks out there passing it down just as it was/is designed; without adding flying knees to it.

 

[drop bear]

Fair points.
Not to get into the weeds but I suppose it would depend on whether a particular flavor of WC taught head movement as part of the system. hahaha

In this case it isn't because all I was trying to show was system in isolation.

And why it needs to be as efficient as possible to combine with good training and genetics.