The cost of Ego, disrespect, and the failure of teachers and students.

[Deleted member 39746]

*I think the confusion is probably due to how TMA systems are often portrayed. Different schools will train the same system but follow different theories and concepts. and that's often lost on people who don't train in a TMA.
Those who train in a TMA understand this because it often comes up in regular school conversations about how Sifu A trains and teaches like this and Sifu B trains and teaches differently. Then you go to Vietnam and it's a totally different approach but it's the same System or Family. Many people don't realize that Curriculum = Teacher Preference.

**There are also common fight actions that one may take that is so common that it doesn't below to any system and as such is not recognized as part of the system, but an option that can be done within the system. TMA schools trying to stay in the dark doesn't help clarify things. It just leaves people open to make their own assumptions about what they are seeing.

*this is not helped by using a ill defined system, and switching between a generic system and say wing chun.

I tried to cover my bases in that some systems have a hard end, others its a soft not really true end, so at the ending of it, it more or less blurrs out as opposed to stops. Like in your example, if a 3rd degree black belt leaves and starts his own school with his own prefrences of the style, thats a soft end. If he leaves witht he exact same curriclem, its a hard. Obviously not that abolsutist or clear, but examples.



**That is also the issue here, that i thought for sake of agrument was removed, there are finite principles and techniques that work, and many in the same area draw on each other sprinciples and technqies. Its a easier exmaple to go "boxing doesnt kick, so anything with kicking isnt boxing" as opposed to this hip throw is in 6 diffrent systems, so each of these systems are the same.


For sake of argument i thought we were going with the more boxing esque example, than the "this technique is in 6 seperate systems"

i dont actually know whats in wing chun, hence the avoidance of specfically citing it, nor is it really relivent to anything i wrote, for sake of argument this isnt in wing chun even if it is. And there are like 6 WC linges that all claim pure legitimacy? Let alone the small chains. (not really relivent either, as you can insert any style in here and that was the full intent of the argument, or at least most)

I do know how ever, it does not contain everything and focues on a specfic area of combat.

 

[drop bear]

I do know how ever, it does not contain everything and focues on a specfic area of combat.

The problem is there are two questions which break this theory. And religion gets this treatment a bit as well.

According to who?

Why does that person have ownership over what is and isn't wing chun?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Stuff happens sometimes, but I'll bet you'll never let a student fight without a mouthpiece again.

Now that I think about it, he may have forgotten it that day and he thought he could get away without wearing it and didn't want to give up the opportunity so he gave up the tooth ha ha ha. I've seen him wear one before during sparring class so he wasn't on my list of "check mouths" before sparring. He should have told, maybe the school had a extra one new in pack that he could by. Or maybe they knew of a place close buy where he could have quickly picked one up.. Or just let it be one of those days where you just miss out on sparring. It sucks but no where near as bad as chipping a tooth.

One of those Youth Mistakes that he probably won't make ever again. If he becomes a Martial Arts teacher, He would be the one that "rides everyone's back " about a mouthpiece. ha ha ha.

As for my approach. I'll probably just buy a few extras to have on hand in case someone forgets to bring theirs so they don't miss out. I just won't tell anyone that I have them.

As for me not letting people spar without a mouth piece. That was always the rule of the school. You can't spar without a mouth piece and that was long before I became an an instructor. It's a safety issue and a liability for the school to have students spar without the appropriate sparring equipment. I think he was just young and dumb and full of more dumb lol. But I'm sure he learned why we say wear a mouth piece.

 

[JowGaWolf]

There is a theory going around that it is that case with gloves. And because martial artists love a good story. A lot have people have turned it into a fact.

I am sceptical. But then I know some bare knuckle guys.

It is a very convenient way of explaining why you can't box without saying you are garbage at boxing.

So dudes like this guy.

And you go like. "Hey bro. The now have bare knuckle championships as a mainstream competition. You should be like totally in your wheelhouse right now"

And they be like "................"

Gloves only affect certain TMA punches. The best example I can give is downward punches. Downward punches using gloves is no problem. Downward punches without gloves off hurts big time because the exposed knuckles can now dig into muscle tissue. But other than that, padded knuckle should be landing with force to where it doesn't matter much if the knuckles are padded.

But you are correct a lot of kung fu people make up the excuse, Then when you see them spar with the gloves off the strikes are similar to what their opponent is throwing. I've done Jow Ga with gloves off, with mma gloves, and with boxing gloves. I still threw Jow Ga. I had to be focused with how I formed my fist in boxing gloves, but I was still able to do so. The only thing that I didn't like is that the boxing gloves take up too much space. Techniques where I could tread my punch were useless because of the size of the gloves, but even that wasn't a game stopper.

 

[JowGaWolf]

.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I dont understand how this is a rebuttal to any points i made, and i dont really understand the refrence or the greater point here. It looks like more of a strawman as im having a hard time finding where it attached to.

I do take issue with the science anaology though, as thats not very good. A better refrence is "if you are in a physics class, you dont learn biology" . Or to textbook it, a physics textbook is about physics not biology.


Now i will highlight the second part and reply to that with hopes it makes my point clear to clear up any poteional confustion and straw manning.




*I only disagree with your choice of words here. A combat system would teach you what ever is in its currcilem and you would apply it to come to a combat solution when needed.

Now, the second half** of this is where a contradiction comes up.

"That often means creative application and even doing things that are not part of the codified/formalized curriculum. That in no way means you are outside the system or are no longer using your training."

I have rewritten the above to better illistrate my point and remove what i view as a strawman.

"That often means creative application and even doing things that are not part of the System. That in no way means you are outside the system"

As you can see, i changed "codified/formalized curriculum" to "system" as i belive we agreed or i stated i support that as the definition of system. And i removed "or are no longer using your training.", as i view this as a strawman. I never said you wouldnt be using your training if you weere trained in something and used it.


In short, those words are a contradiction, you have stated you can go beyond your system and still be using your system as that makes no sense in a limited system. Unless you mean a unlimited which i did not think you meant and dont support in this context. I have no evidence that Wing chun is a unlimited system, it has a specfic area of combat it explores and stays in. Among other reasons i find that point silly.



Addendum:

There was abolutely no need for that statement, i did not place any blame on anyone for any mis understandings. I accepted you could have mis read something or i could have mis worded something that lead to confusion.

As i do belive there is a legitimate misunderstanding here. I dont really see how this leads off each other, other than some word and definiton issues which indicates potetionally some mis understanding.



That would be the quote, thats diffrent in tone to the above quote.

The codified curriculum doesn’t necessarily define the system, at all. The system teaches an approach. Anything that fits the principles of that approach can be considered part of the system by the practitioner. I could easily name a dozen techniques I use and consider within NGA that are definitely not part of the codified curriculum.

 

[MadMartigan]

The cost of Ego, disrespect, and the failure of teachers and students.​

The teacher let his ego become wounded and missed the opportunity to teach the student. His fighting didn't look like Wing Chun at all, just angry physical violence. There was no Gung Fu ( excellence ) displayed.

Then this:

7-Year-Old Taiwanese Boy Taken Off Life Support After Suf...

A seven-year-old boy in Taiwan was taken off life support...

www.complex.com

This is what an instructor's ego can cost.

I believe anytime an instructor becomes violent against a student, no matter whether there was disrespect, it is completely and only the instructor's failure.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The cost of Ego, disrespect, and the failure of teachers and students.​

Then this:

7-Year-Old Taiwanese Boy Taken Off Life Support After Suf...

A seven-year-old boy in Taiwan was taken off life support...

www.complex.com

This is what an instructor's ego can cost.

I believe anytime an instructor becomes violent against a student, no matter whether there was disrespect, it is completely and only the instructor's failure.

The WC vs JKD might be a different thing. The JKD guy wasn't a student, nor a child being punished. This would be more along the lines of Alpha Male issues

 

[isshinryuronin]

The codified curriculum doesn’t necessarily define the system, at all. The system teaches an approach

Very well said. Not only does the curriculum not define the system, it doesn't limit it either. It should be just considered the main framework. School teachers follow a set curriculum, but often stray from, or add to it, to answer a question or further illustrate some relevant idea with greater depth. (Though nowadays, this is discouraged so as not to conflict with the dogmatic approach of the powers that be.)

To use my system as an example - We have kihon, which are the codified basic blocks, kicks and punches, as well as a few other strikes. Downward elbows, single knuckle punches, high thrusting and spinning kicks and many other techniques are not included. Nor do these moves occur in any of our kata. But nowhere is it written that these moves are forbidden. It's just that they're not considered to be necessary to the system's approach.

The curriculum is the tool box, the WHAT. The system is HOW to best apply those tools within that system's concept or approach to combat.

In my system's approach, these tools are to be used in close quarters (so long distance moves are not in the tool box,) applied to cause the most damage, every move considered offensive, special kicks targeting low targets, grabbing (another CQC tactic) snapping punches to return to guard (among other reasons,) high mobility stances, and simultaneous defense and offense.

It is these things that give identity to the system, not the curriculum. In other words, "The codified curriculum does not...define the system...," - It's more like the system defines the curriculum.

 

[Flying Crane]

*this is not helped by using a ill defined system, and switching between a generic system and say wing chun.
.

What is a “generic system” in martial arts? It doesn’t exist. See, you make statements like this am that tell me how much you don’t grasp what you are talking about.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

The codified curriculum doesn’t necessarily define the system, at all. The system teaches an approach. Anything that fits the principles of that approach can be considered part of the system by the practitioner. I could easily name a dozen techniques I use and consider within NGA that are definitely not part of the codified curriculum.

Principles was not mentioned as part of the definiton here, it was "body of techniques". I agreed to that definiton being acceptable for this argument to be called a "system". Actually, something along the lines of a "codified/formalised currcilem of a body of techniques" is a system.

Using principles has a lot more caviates involved in it. Principles are more finite and universal, how you punch is pretty much universally the same, we are all humans and generate power the same, how you go about it is diffrent. That would mean, say Wing chun and Krav maga are considered the same system because they both use the same princples (when apt), i dont agree with that. Thats why i didnt use principle.


I dont nesssisarily disagree with your point, it just seems outside scope of argument. The above can also depend on how you define principle.

To better highlight my point:
"I use and consider within NGA that are definitely not part of the codified curriculum."

Then its not NGA, removing say you as head, say you died and left behind the curriclem and they didnt change it. The techniques wouldnt be taught in NGA, nor would you go into NGA to learn them if you wanted to. By all means you can go to the other systems, learn them and use them, but it wont be NGA until its included in the codified currcilem. Now obviously, this is the blurred line as many techniques are in many systems. But its still a line.

Also, not really pertaining to the argument, if you consider them part of NGA, why haven you not codified them into NGA? No one should be taught them in NGA if they arent in the currculem.


Addendum: I have a good idea to explain what i mean by thinking of system as athe conversion of a principle into technique for the context. But ona more macro scale. If we use it for boxing it would go, principles used in the rules of boxing being applied to techniques for use in boxing. The valdity of the system of boxing is clared to how similar something is to boxing.

this is early days and i may post a addendum when i have thought about it more, as thinking about it now has made me confused. And i ahve spent way too much time writing this.

 

[Flying Crane]

I dont understand how this is a rebuttal to any points i made, and i dont really understand the refrence or the greater point here. It looks like more of a strawman as im having a hard time finding where it attached to.

I do take issue with the science anaology though, as thats not very good. A better refrence is "if you are in a physics class, you dont learn biology" . Or to textbook it, a physics textbook is about physics not biology.

You would be mistaken. My textbook analogy is spot on. When you learn a discipline, memorizing the textbook is not the point. The point is understanding what the textbook teaches you, and creatively using those lesson where you need. When a physicist is faced with a problem, he doesn’t search the textbook for an identical example that he can simply cut-and-past. He may review the textbook for principles and lessons, but he still needs to come up with the solution to his problem.

Martial training is the same. The system and the codified curriculum gives lessons and examples. But they are not the totality of the skills. You do with it as you need, and I reiterate, that does NOT mean you are no longer using your training in the system, if your solution is not identical to something from the codified curriculum.

This again tells me that you don’t understand this stuff. Learning a martial system is not about regurgitating answers that your teacher gave you. It is about using your understanding to do what needs to be done, whatever that means.

Now i will highlight the second part and reply to that with hopes it makes my point clear to clear up any poteional confustion and straw manning.




*I only disagree with your choice of words here. A combat system would teach you what ever is in its currcilem and you would apply it to come to a combat solution when needed.

Now, the second half** of this is where a contradiction comes up.

"That often means creative application and even doing things that are not part of the codified/formalized curriculum. That in no way means you are outside the system or are no longer using your training."

I have rewritten the above to better illistrate my point and remove what i view as a strawman.

"That often means creative application and even doing things that are not part of the System. That in no way means you are outside the system"

As you can see, i changed "codified/formalized curriculum" to "system" as i belive we agreed or i stated i support that as the definition of system. And i removed "or are no longer using your training.", as i view this as a strawman. I never said you wouldnt be using your training if you weere trained in something and used it.


In short, those words are a contradiction, you have stated you can go beyond your system and still be using your system as that makes no sense in a limited system. Unless you mean a unlimited which i did not think you meant and dont support in this context. I have no evidence that Wing chun is a unlimited system, it has a specfic area of combat it explores and stays in. Among other reasons i find that point silly.

Again, showing that you do not understand this. The system is not the list of codified curriculum. The codified curriculum is examples and suggestions, and a platform for training. Those CAN be directly useful and can be applied as such. But they are NOT mandatory as solutions. You just don’t have an understanding of what the system is. The rest of what you have written is just nonsense.

Addendum:

There was abolutely no need for that statement, i did not place any blame on anyone for any mis understandings. I accepted you could have mis read something or i could have mis worded something that lead to confusion.

As i do belive there is a legitimate misunderstanding here. I dont really see how this leads off each other, other than some word and definiton issues which indicates potetionally some mis understanding.



That would be the quote, thats diffrent in tone to the above quote.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

What is a “generic system” in martial arts? It doesn’t exist. See, you make statements like this am that tell me how much you don’t grasp what you are talking about.

I never said there are "generic systems", generic to mean not specfic. In other words drawing from martial arts as a whole as opposed to a specfic system for argumentation purposes.

Also, if i used a specfic system like say wing chun i would just "i dont know anything about wing chun so cant comment on it" despite the fact im not commenting on it and whats done in it just using it for argumentation purposes. In other words, would get strawmaned.

generic​

adjective

1. 
   shared by, including or typical of a whole group of things; not specific
   • ‘Vine fruit’ is the generic term for currants and raisins.

 

[Flying Crane]

I never said there are "generic systems", generic to mean not specfic. In other words drawing from martial arts as a whole as opposed to a specfic system for argumentation purposes.

Also, if i used a specfic system like say wing chun i would just "i dont know anything about wing chun so cant comment on it" despite the fact im not commenting on it and whats done in it just using it for argumentation purposes. In other words, would get strawmaned.

generic​

adjective

1. 
   shared by, including or typical of a whole group of things; not specific
   • ‘Vine fruit’ is the generic term for currants and raisins.

Of course I know what the definition of generic is, I don’t need you to explain that to me. But you made a distinction between a generic system and a specific one such as wing Chun. There is no generic martial system. You are comparing two specific systems or none at all. There is no generic system. There is no generic punch, for example. There is only a punch done according to the principles underlying a specific system. That can be similar or even identical between certain systems, or can be quite different.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

ou would be mistaken. My textbook analogy is spot on. When you learn a discipline, memorizing the textbook is not the point. The point is understanding what the textbook teaches you, and creatively using those lesson where you need. When a physicist is faced with a problem, he doesn’t search the textbook for an identical example that he can simply cut-and-past. He may review the textbook for principles and lessons, but he still needs to come up with the solution to his problem.

Im not arguing over a specfic anaology but to be clear cut. You are telling me a physics textbook will contain biology and teach you biology. That is what i am interpriting you are telling me.


Im dropping this, there is clearly a mis understanding at some point here. and this is just going to go on repeat as its centred around a fundemental disagreement in defintion or mis understanding in it.

 

[Flying Crane]

Im not arguing over a specfic anaology but to be clear cut. You are telling me a physics textbook will contain biology and teach you biology. That is what i am interpriting you are telling me.

Then you are wrong. I am not saying that anywhere.

Im dropping this, there is clearly a mis understanding at some point here. and this is just going to go on repeat as its centred around a fundemental disagreement in defintion or mis understanding in it.

You can drop it if you want. It is clear to me that what you really want is to understand this stuff, but you don’t. I suggest you open your mind and read and contemplate what others here are saying. Stop clinging to an uneducated position and be willing to learn from people here. Stop trying to make declarations about which you do not know.

I try to give you credit when you have a valid point that others are dismissive about. I can recognize when that is happening, and in the past I’ve tried to back you up on things. But in this case, you simply do not have a grasp of what a martial system or method really is. You see it on a superficial level, which can be functional, but falls short of a real understanding. You do not understand this.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

You can drop it if you want. It is clear to me that what you really want is to understand this stuff, but you don’t. I suggest you open your mind and read and contemplate what others here are saying. Stop clinging to an uneducated position and be willing to learn from people here. Stop trying to make declarations about which you do not know.

I try to give you credit when you have a valid point that others are dismissive about. I can recognize when that is happening, and in the past I’ve tried to back you up on things. But in this case, you simply do not have a grasp of what a martial system or method really is. You see it on a superficial level, which can be functional, but falls short of a real understanding. You do not understand this.

That would be your opinion on the matter but as far as mine pertains to the argument at hand and a breif review of the chain of posts, there was a mis understanding that created a strawman.

And the status of "open mind" is willingness to persue evidence, of which i do. Any decleration other wise is completely fradulent.

Addendum: Im pretty sure @drop bear can back me up in that citation of actual evidence is a issue in the greater martial arts community.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

The problem is there are two questions which break this theory. And religion gets this treatment a bit as well.

According to who?

Why does that person have ownership over what is and isn't wing chun?

I am not touching that with a 100 metre stick. that is one rabbit hole i dont want any part of.

No true scotsman is quite a thing.

 

[Flying Crane]

That would be your opinion on the matter but as far as mine pertains to the argument at hand and a breif review of the chain of posts, there was a mis understanding that created a strawman.

And the status of "open mind" is willingness to persue evidence, of which i do. Any decleration other wise is completely fradulent.

Addendum: Im pretty sure @drop bear can back me up in that citation of actual evidence is a issue in the greater martial arts community.

I don’t read his contributions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Very well said. Not only does the curriculum not define the system, it doesn't limit it either. It should be just considered the main framework. School teachers follow a set curriculum, but often stray from, or add to it, to answer a question or further illustrate some relevant idea with greater depth. (Though nowadays, this is discouraged so as not to conflict with the dogmatic approach of the powers that be.)

To use my system as an example - We have kihon, which are the codified basic blocks, kicks and punches, as well as a few other strikes. Downward elbows, single knuckle punches, high thrusting and spinning kicks and many other techniques are not included. Nor do these moves occur in any of our kata. But nowhere is it written that these moves are forbidden. It's just that they're not considered to be necessary to the system's approach.

The curriculum is the tool box, the WHAT. The system is HOW to best apply those tools within that system's concept or approach to combat.

In my system's approach, these tools are to be used in close quarters (so long distance moves are not in the tool box,) applied to cause the most damage, every move considered offensive, special kicks targeting low targets, grabbing (another CQC tactic) snapping punches to return to guard (among other reasons,) high mobility stances, and simultaneous defense and offense.

It is these things that give identity to the system, not the curriculum. In other words, "The codified curriculum does not...define the system...," - It's more like the system defines the curriculum.

Yes. And even a step further, in some cases. For instance, NGA's formal curriculum (as brought to the US and as preserved in the NGAA and most offshoots) doesn't contain a basic hip throw. But Judo is one of our foundation arts, and many of the instructors include a basic hip throw in their teaching. If you look at a few of our techniques (when properly executed), the lack of the hip throw seems odd (we have a Judo-style leg sweep and shoulder throw, among others). But if we accept that the formal curriculum is - as you said - a framework, then it's pretty easy to see that all the principles are covered within the core curriculum. The actual technique is never tested in most places (most instructors focus testing 80% or more on the formal core), but the technique pretty clearly fits.