Profound respect for Si Kwok Lam and Yip Chun, re: Yuen Kay San

[k gledhill]

that you tube clip is some preliminary pole training exercises....almost the feet should be pointing forwards not out, but it is quite difficult to do this , the right extending/striking arm is the support off body striking/holding the pole.
The left is striking across the body/holding the pole butt end. Striking with body momentum with the pole.
Utilizing both arms pole striking after this drill , ensures each arm 'max's' out when done together while striking with the pole.
When you place the butt end near your armpit and then reach out to hold the pole with the right hand its the same idea, measuring the extension of each is equal, or you lose one arms maximum potential force.
Add the two arms each maxing out, plus the mass of the pole behind the tip, and body weight in motion with leg energy propelling the tip into you and you have a bad day

We use the same ideas fighting, go figure.

good workout to use a heavy pole. You learn to incorporate the hips into all actions, accuracy, ballistic displacement of opponents pole, keeping elbows in and low ....

the weighted jacket is just for the legs...we dont use them.

The arm actions in the clip arent exactly as we do them .

Here is how we do it :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho0Tl...eature=related

there are basic pole actions in SLT. some try to make these 'applications' because they dont know 'da pol.

[Pacman]

so essentially you are saying that the teacher just teaches you the forms/movements and it is up to you to figure out the application.

so anyone that learns the forms can be a teacher.

in that case no wonder there are so many weekend masters!

yes you learn through experience, but your teacher helps shape you through that experience. you notice that boxing coaches dont teach them jab cross etc and then tell them to learn on their own.

When you learn to box, everyone learns the SAME movement/actions, the same fundamentals, e.g., the jab, cross, hook, slipping, etc. But you don't "learn to box", to put these things together for yourself, and develop into a fighter, except by and through boxing (sparring in the ring). It's not through your boxing teacher but through your sparring partners that you "learn to box". It's the same with BJJ, and the same with WCK.



Yes, it is. Fighting and its methods, whether boxing, wrestling, BJJ, or WCK, is an INDIVIDUAL endeavor. When you see people box, do you see the same movements -- jabs, crosses, hooks, slipping, etc.? Yes, because you see the same fundamentals in action. Boxing is boxing. And that's why we can look at any individual in a fight and see whether or not they are using boxing -- just by looking at their movement: are they using boxing movements (boxing fundamentals)?

Similarly, WCK is WCK. Every *legitimate* branch/lineage has the same fundamentals (YJKYM, jik chung choi, tan sao, fook sao, bong sao, etc.). However, how an individual uses/puts together those fundamentals and/or how various groups emphasize those fundamentals can and will vary.



Results are the only true influence. When you box (spar) you find what works best for you, and you put together your own game using the fundamentals.



I didn't learn it with the weighted jacket either (which makes no sense IMO).



I'm not talking about "a similar movement" -- I'm talking about the same fundamental skills.



Love your movies.

[t_niehoff]

so essentially you are saying that the teacher just teaches you the forms/movements and it is up to you to figure out the application.

so anyone that learns the forms can be a teacher.

in that case no wonder there are so many weekend masters!

yes you learn through experience, but your teacher helps shape you through that experience. you notice that boxing coaches dont teach them jab cross etc and then tell them to learn on their own.

The forms, the drills, etc. are not application. Application is fighting: that is when you are applying your WCK. Follow me so far?

Your instructor, for example, can teach you the bong sao/lop da movement, he can show you a drill to practice it (lop sao or rolling bong, for instance) but that doesn't teach you the application, i.e., when, where, even how to use it in fighting. This is why every WCK practitioner can show you the movement, can do it in drills, but only very, very, very few can pull it off consistently in fighting. To develop the skill of being able to use it in fighting YOU have to work it out for yourself -- and that means practicing fighting (sparring) and trying to work it out.

Your teacher doesn't shape you. The WORK you put in -- the sparring -- is what shapes you. The best a coach can do is, assuming he's done that work himself, is help you work some things out, to give you pointers, etc.

There are no "masters" in WCK. There are only a lot of low level people who call themselves "master." Wouldn't you expect a "master" in a stand-up art (like WCK) should be able to consistently beat low to mid level fighters in other stand-up arts? Well, where are these "masters"?

[LoneTiger108]

There are no "masters" in WCK. There are only a lot of low level people who call themselves "master." Wouldn't you expect a "master" in a stand-up art (like WCK) should be able to consistently beat low to mid level fighters in other stand-up arts? Well, where are these "masters"?

This all depends on what you consider a 'Master' to be.

Now if you think a Master has to 'compete' to prove himself to his students then you have the totally wrong idea of what a Master is imho.

[t_niehoff]

This all depends on what you consider a 'Master' to be.

Now if you think a Master has to 'compete' to prove himself to his students then you have the totally wrong idea of what a Master is imho.

I guess it depends on your definition of "master". Anyone can call themselves "master" or use whatever definition they want, e.g., head of an organization, head of a cult, head of a school, etc.

For me and I think most people, the term"master" implies that one is very highly skilled, and in terms of a fighting art, that means being, or having been, a very highly skilled fighter. I don't think anyone would expect a "master" to have low levels of fighting skill, and not be able to handle themselves *using their method* (to do what they teach) readily. Being a "master" in a fighting art isn't about what you *know* (your "intellectual knowledge") but about what you can do (perform).

It's not that I think a person needs to "compete" to develop high levels of fighting skill or prove they have skill -- there are BJJ BBs, for instance, that really don't compete. But they can and do prove their skills all the time by sparring, including against people who do compete. After all, you can't see real skill -- fighting skill -- except in fighting.

So if you think so-and-so is a "master", then my question is "how do you know?" Have you seen them fight? Have you seen them successfully use what they teach against skilled fighters?

A lead pipe truth is that if a person is not already doing it, he won't be able to do it. Is your "master" already fighting and beating skilled people? Yes or no. If not, he won't be able to. Is he already fighting and beating low level fighters (let's say white belt MMA fighters)? Yes or no. If not, then he won't be able to.

[chusauli]

Mastery is simple - it is when you are able to perform with unconscious competence.

Many times a "master" is the guy who sets up the curriculum for your system - he knows all the details of your curriculum from A - Z. Or he is the "figurehead of the school".

[Pacman]

The forms, the drills, etc. are not application. Application is fighting: that is when you are applying your WCK. Follow me so far?

yes of course. as usual you are repeating what others just said and acting like its your original, differing opinion.

Your instructor, for example, can teach you the bong sao/lop da movement, he can show you a drill to practice it (lop sao or rolling bong, for instance) but that doesn't teach you the application, i.e., when, where, even how to use it in fighting.

yes these drills dont teach you the application, but it is something that someone can show you.

Your teacher doesn't shape you. The WORK you put in -- the sparring -- is what shapes you. The best a coach can do is, assuming he's done that work himself, is help you work some things out, to give you pointers, etc.

yes i agree, that is the process. giving you pointers, etc. is how he shapes you and gives you insight on when, where, how to use things. the quality of his advice is at the heart of how good he is at teaching.

like i said, if all a teacher does is show you the forms and drills, then anyone can be a teacher.

[chusauli]

Confucius said, "Among three men who are walking together, I am certain to find my teacher, a good one in order to emulate him, and a bad one in order [recognize in him what in myself I must] correct."

[Wayfaring]

Thomas Bayes, a famous British mathmetician, said

"Three mathematicians walk into a bar. You'd think the second one would have ducked."

[LoneTiger108]

Mastery is simple - it is when you are able to perform with unconscious competence.

I have to totally disagree with you on this one, because if this WAS the case, anyone who 'feels' like they have learnt all the forms and can perform them by heart is a Master? I don't think so

That makes me a Master too

I believe a Master to be, not only a figurehead of a school, but someone who actually takes responsibility for his students to the point that he becomes a 'father figure' too, a mentor. From my little knowledge of past Chinese Martial Arts history, students were housed and fed by their Masters and even put to work in a trade that was suitable. This also is very similar to my own experience.

A Master also implies that there are servants, and I can totally relate to that as that was how I felt sometimes while serving under mine

[t_niehoff]

I believe a Master to be, not only a figurehead of a school, but someone who actually takes responsibility for his students to the point that he becomes a 'father figure' too, a mentor. From my little knowledge of past Chinese Martial Arts history, students were housed and fed by their Masters and even put to work in a trade that was suitable. This also is very similar to my own experience.

A Master also implies that there are servants, and I can totally relate to that as that was how I felt sometimes while serving under mine

This is precisely what a "Master" TODAY should not be.

But this echoes back to another thread where I talked about how Benny only sold what people wanted (after all, you can't sell it if no one wants it) -- and how many people want "the fantasy." Well, some people want a "father figure", they are weak-minded and want to belong to a group ("a family"), they want to be told what to do like a servant, etc.

[t_niehoff]

yes of course. as usual you are repeating what others just said and acting like its your original, differing opinion.

I never claimed my views were original (is there anything new under the sun?), and I have repeatedly said that I arrived at my views through my own experience.

yes these drills dont teach you the application, but it is something that someone can show you.

The only "application" that someone can show you is one that they are doing. And I don't think many WCK are doing much, if any, application (fighting). Certainly not against competent fighters. So a lot of the "application" they are teaching is either theoretical (this is how I think it should be done) or stuff that they have only tried against low level people (like their students). Do you think that you can become a good golfer listening to poor golfers tell you how to do it?

yes i agree, that is the process. giving you pointers, etc. is how he shapes you and gives you insight on when, where, how to use things. the quality of his advice is at the heart of how good he is at teaching.

The quality of his advice (on applying WCK) is directly related to his own fighting skill level.

like i said, if all a teacher does is show you the forms and drills, then anyone can be a teacher.

Anyone can teach *what they know*. If you know the forms and drills, then you can teach them. Problems ensue, however, when we try to teach what we don't know. And we don't know it if we can't do it.

Ask your instructor to bring in a low- to mid-level MMA fighter for privates, and ask your instructor to spar with him and show that he can successfully do the things he teaches to do. You'll see that he will be beaten like a red-headed step-child and that he won't be able to make his WCK work. How do I know? Because unless he is already doing it, he won't be able to. But this guy is telling YOU how to do it.

The more you listen to someone who can't do it, the more you are training to fail.

[LoneTiger108]

This is precisely what a "Master" TODAY should not be.

But this echoes back to another thread where I talked about how Benny only sold what people wanted (after all, you can't sell it if no one wants it) -- and how many people want "the fantasy." Well, some people want a "father figure", they are weak-minded and want to belong to a group ("a family"), they want to be told what to do like a servant, etc.

So a "Master" is someone who teaches what students 'want' to learn? That's just someone teaching scraps for money to people who are foolish enough to part with their cash imho. And who is 'Benny' anyway?

And as for the father figure/weak-minded students thing, do you really think anyone who has been through an experience like that actually 'chose' to? There are many fatherless people in the world and you've just offended every single one of them.

[t_niehoff]

So a "Master" is someone who teaches what students 'want' to learn? That's just someone teaching scraps for money to people who are foolish enough to part with their cash imho. And who is 'Benny' anyway?

Where did I say that? You are being dishonest.

I said,

"For me and I think most people, the term"master" implies that one is very highly skilled, and in terms of a fighting art, that means being, or having been, a very highly skilled fighter. I don't think anyone would expect a "master" to have low levels of fighting skill, and not be able to handle themselves *using their method* (to do what they teach) readily. Being a "master" in a fighting art isn't about what you *know* (your "intellectual knowledge") but about what you can do (perform)."

And as for the father figure/weak-minded students thing, do you really think anyone who has been through an experience like that actually 'chose' to? There are many fatherless people in the world and you've just offended every single one of them.

No, I haven't. There are lots of fatherless people in the world who aren't weak-minded (and don't feel the need to join some "family"). And most people who seek a father figure aren't doing so because they were fatherless. In any event, do you also make your golf pro a father figure? If you take ice skating lessons, does your instructor also become a surrogate father for you? If not, then why your martial arts instructor?

[CFT]

Terence, there is a different cultural and historical context as I'm sure you know. Not that it means we need to continue that cultural practice.

I'm pretty sure that for a majority (me included) they have/had a "transactional" relationship with our teachers. But over time the relationship could change to a much closer one. I think the term "master" is too loaded with the master/servant theme.

I wouldn't seek a father figure in my teacher. I don't need one. But I would look for mutual respect in our relationship. I've heard of a lot of exploitative relationships btwn teacher and student.