Saam Mo Kiu: (highjacked) [Archive] - Southern Shaolin Global Kung Fu Discussion Board

Chango

12-08-2004, 09:30 AM

Hello Terence,
I think it can be simply put even though something exist does not mean that you are aware! Both of your questions can be answered through understanding these concepts.

<snip>Why does one, or you individually, need SMK to "understand all things" in the first place? Lots of people seem to learn all kinds of things, and have in the past learned all kinds of things, without it.

Agreed people have learned many things in the past, present and will in the future. However this concept allows for clearity. This being said we have a platform from which to set a standard in our approach to all things. Maybe you do not feel the need for this concept. However for me once I was able to apply this concept I personally feel that nothing escapes it. However I don't think one has to be aware of it to be working with in atleast the first two bridges. I also find this a valuable tool to realize where I truely stand on a subject. This frame of mind eliminates the ego and desires to be "here" or "there" "this" or "that" You just "are". Once realized it is easy to except and move on grow.

<snip> Similarly, is the concept of HCSS really that unique? Isn't that how we learn most things?

At first look you are absolutly correct in this and your other statements. Yes this is the proper learning progression. However this concept goes deep and beggs the student to look closer at the words of the teacher. Look into one's own relationship with that instructor and the system. Really identifying the esscence or flavor of what the teacher is offering. But it does not stop there it must be moved on to the direct experience of the student. The perception and understanding of the experience can be guided by the awarness offered by the words of the teacher. And vise versa understanding of the words and gravity of what is being shared or passed down can be guided by the experience. One without the other is incomplete. This concept returns back into itself over and over. This is a valuable tool in finding clearity! I hope this helps you see why these concepts are valuable.

Chango

Cang Long

12-08-2004, 11:31 AM

GM Gee once said that “Saam Mo Kiu is a philosophy to understand all things.”

What do you think that means?
SMK is the path to enlightenment, enlightenment is Weng Kiu, weng kiu of what? All that is real in a moment that encompasses Time Space and Energy.
And on that note, does Saam Mo Kiu have anything to do with “Self” or “No-Self”? In other words, does Saam Mo Kiu have anything to do about one’s ego? Enlightenment is a journey in Tao referred to as "the way" in my opinion the way is an understanding of self in reverse of how the Tao is explained which is that Tao is that which has no beginning and no end the Tao was split into two the yang and the yin male and female enveloped in the wu xing constant change. Self discovery or "how to harmonize with our true nature" is to understand that we are indeed one and the same Tao and therefore removing self, ego and all things derived of Tao but only worldy trappings of Tao.Why does one, or you individually, need SMK to "understand all things" in the first place? Lots of people seem to learn all kinds of things, and have in the past learned all kinds of things, without it. Terence,
You have pretty much provided your own answers, people learn things everyday and they are using SMK whether they realize it or not, Fau kiu could be something you learn on your own so you experience something but don't completely understand it like using a machine for the first time without reading the instructions we do this all the time successfully. San Kiu would be that same person now showing the next person how to work that peice of machinery even though they still haven't read the instructions, and Weng Kiu delivered via HCSS is not only reading the directions with a master of the machinery but having them show you every little detail and having to use each and every part and option of that machine in a way that reading the instructions alone could never do so that there is no doubt that you not only learn how to use the machine but learn the intricasies of how and why as well through experience(d) teaching.

HCSS is not unique but it is required of things needing to be experienced when one lacks experience the best way to gain experience is not only by trial and error but trail and error under the guidance of someone that has not only been there done that but now completely understands that. Its like looking for something but first you must experience it before you know what to look for making it a somewhat of a catch 22 you don't know what it is to go out and get the experience you know you need so this is where the value of HCSS becomes apparent. Most people stay fau kiu some delve into san kiu very few are weng kiu and can and are willing to share that level of knowledge in a HCSS setting as difficult as it may be for you and others to believe sparring all day and all night without the proper guidance will at best get you san kiu without the HCSS teaching you will never know what it is you don't know that experience alone can not teach.

t_niehoff

12-08-2004, 12:35 PM

Hey Chango,

Thanks for your response.

You wrote:

I think it can be simply put even though something exist does not mean that you are aware! Both of your questions can be answered through understanding these concepts.

**OK, but isn't that the same thing as unconscious incompetence (that a person isn't even aware they can't do something)?

<snip>Why does one, or you individually, need SMK to "understand all things" in the first place? Lots of people seem to learn all kinds of things, and have in the past learned all kinds of things, without it.

Agreed people have learned many things in the past, present and will in the future. However this concept allows for clearity. This being said we have a platform from which to set a standard in our approach to all things. Maybe you do not feel the need for this concept.

**I'm not saying that, only that this concept is universal. HFY may label it SMK, while others have different labels.

However for me once I was able to apply this concept I personally feel that nothing escapes it. However I don't think one has to be aware of it to be working with in atleast the first two bridges. I also find this a valuable tool to realize where I truely stand on a subject. This frame of mind eliminates the ego and desires to be "here" or "there" "this" or "that" You just "are". Once realized it is easy to except and move on grow.

**As I said, the couldn't the same be said for the unconscious incompetence-unconscious competence paradigm too. And I'm not trying to belittle this -- I too think it is important -- I'm just trying to see how the HFY perspective (SMK, for example) is different, if at all, from how others look at things.

<snip> Similarly, is the concept of HCSS really that unique? Isn't that how we learn most things?

At first look you are absolutly correct in this and your other statements. Yes this is the proper learning progression. However this concept goes deep and beggs the student to look closer at the words of the teacher. Look into one's own relationship with that instructor and the system. Really identifying the esscence or flavor of what the teacher is offering. But it does not stop there it must be moved on to the direct experience of the student. The perception and understanding of the experience can be guided by the awarness offered by the words of the teacher. And vise versa understanding of the words and gravity of what is being shared or passed down can be guided by the experience. One without the other is incomplete. This concept returns back into itself over and over. This is a valuable tool in finding clearity! I hope this helps you see why these concepts are valuable.

**I can accept all of that, and I think it wise to always examine things, including the information imparted by our instructors, deeply and in view of our own experience. So do you think that two persons can properly have two different interpretations or views of the same teaching and have different individual experiences with that teaching so that it leads both studetns to have differing but correct views for them?

t_niehoff

12-08-2004, 12:47 PM

Thanks for your response, Tony.

canglong wrote:

Terence,
You have pretty much provided your own answers, people learn things everyday and they are using SMK whether they realize it or not,

**OK, that makes sense -- it only seems that principles of learning are going to be universal. HFY calls that principle SMK, others call it by a different name.

Fau kiu could be something you learn on your own so you experience something but don't completely understand it like using a machine for the first time without reading the instructions we do this all the time successfully. San Kiu would be that same person now showing the next person how to work that peice of machinery even though they still haven't read the instructions, and Weng Kiu delivered via HCSS is not only reading the directions with a master of the machinery but having them show you every little detail and having to use each and every part and option of that machine in a way that reading the instructions alone could never do so that there is no doubt that you not only learn how to use the machine but learn the intricasies of how and why as well through experience(d) teaching.

**Yes, this seems very much like the unconscious incompetence (I'm not aware of what I lack), conscious incompetence (now I recognize that I lack it), conscious competence (now I can do it but it is still something I need to focus on), and unconscious competence (I can now do it without even being aware I'm doing it) paradigm.

HCSS is not unique but it is required of things needing to be experienced when one lacks experience the best way to gain experience is not only by trial and error but trail and error under the guidance of someone that has not only been there done that but now completely understands that.

**OK, that makes sense too -- being "led" through the experience of discovery is more efficient. Fighter trainers do that all the time.

Its like looking for something but first you must experience it before you know what to look for making it a somewhat of a catch 22 you don't know what it is to go out and get the experience you know you need so this is where the value of HCSS becomes apparent. Most people stay fau kiu some delve into san kiu very few are weng kiu and can and are willing to share that level of knowledge in a HCSS setting as difficult as it may be for you and others to believe sparring all day and all night without the proper guidance will at best get you san kiu without the HCSS teaching you will never know what it is you don't know that experience alone can not teach.

**As I said, I can see what you are talking about. One question, however: don't you agree that there is also a significant process of discovery and development that doesn't involve one being guided?

JamesHFYofAZ

12-08-2004, 02:45 PM

Terence,
Aren't there other paradigms of that sort which deal with the same idea -- for example, unconscious incompetance, conscious incompetance, conscious competance, unconscious competence?
In response to this that you keep mentioning, IMO you talk along the line of self-discovery. This being a habitual building pattern of self, every one does this. SMK goes beyond self-awareness, awareness of others, but full awareness of the true reality of TS&E.
**Yes, this seems very much like the unconscious incompetence (I'm not aware of what I lack), conscious incompetence (now I recognize that I lack it), conscious competence (now I can do it but it is still something I need to focus on), and unconscious competence (I can now do it without even being aware I'm doing it) paradigm.
Again, IMO this is more of SK thinking, you bring self through an awareness to dismiss it from thought, never getting to see WK knowledge. To me you refer to more of building body karma in self. SMK is a way to discover all things, there are plenty of fraises that fall under SMK, such as " wake up and smell the coffee", "take time to stop and smell the roses", "live in the moment", "or living the now". I see you trying to compare, I would say have to say that its long path because your defeating the purpose of understanding/ going through SMK.
**As I said, I can see what you are talking about. One question, however: don't you agree that there is also a significant process of discovery and development that doesn't involve one being guided?
Yes, discovery of self is a big step, some people take a lifetime just on this alone. Self-discovery of others, self-discovery of a lot of things, but most knowledge is passed down from one generation to the next. They hand you a tool and you use it, then they corrects you, then you continuously correct your self (FK), then you are corrected again but this time through both the body and mind. You are given more knowledge and a clearer understanding (SK), after all that discovery " I don't need to think about it", You are given knowledge once again, this is when the journey for WK starts, but we all exist within SMK somewhere!?

Cang Long

12-08-2004, 03:37 PM

**As I said, I can see what you are talking about. One question, however: don't you agree that there is also a significant process of discovery and development that doesn't involve one being guided? Terence,
Thanks for the question so I think we should thank Savi for the thread it is a good topic. Your statement is a prime example of fau kiu awareness, to me it is best explained by using the example that we learn english or our native tongue as a child growing up but when we go to school we then learn our native language because what we learned at home on our own was not weng kiu nor could it ever be. So yes Fau kiu is a major part of the learning process and as I suggested earlier it works for more than not as long as we realize it is what it is it is incumbent upon us to either learn (the subject) to weng kiu or just run with what we have understanding we have much more to learn.

t_niehoff

12-08-2004, 03:52 PM

Thanks for chiming in, James.

You wrote:

In response to this that you keep mentioning, IMO you talk along the line of self-discovery. This being a habitual building pattern of self, every one does this. SMK goes beyond self-awareness, awareness of others, but full awareness of the true reality of TS&E.

**Well it seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but SMK is basically the HFY term for what is accepted today as learning theory. And that this learning theory applies to self, to others, to nature, to whatever. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "full awareness of the true reality of TS&E" -- could you elaborate. And how does one test whether one has "full" awareness (as opposed to partial) of the "true" (as opposed to false) reality?

Again, IMO this is more of SK thinking, you bring self through an awareness to dismiss it from thought, never getting to see WK knowledge. To me you refer to more of building body karma in self. SMK is a way to discover all things, there are plenty of fraises that fall under SMK, such as " wake up and smell the coffee", "take time to stop and smell the roses", "live in the moment", "or living the now". I see you trying to compare, I would say have to say that its long path because your defeating the purpose of understanding/ going through SMK.

**Do you accept that different people can have different terms for the same idea or concept? What I'm trying to do is determine whether or not SMK is the same idea/concept, perhaps expressed differently, as modern learning theory or not? Am I wandering with that inquiry?

Yes, discovery of self is a big step, some people take a lifetime just on this alone. Self-discovery of others, self-discovery of a lot of things, but most knowledge is passed down from one generation to the next. They hand you a tool and you use it, then they corrects you, then you continuously correct your self (FK), then you are corrected again but this time through both the body and mind. You are given more knowledge and a clearer understanding (SK), after all that discovery " I don't need to think about it", You are given knowledge once again, this is when the journey for WK starts, but we all exist within SMK somewhere!?

**We could also say that "we all exist within the stages of learning theory" too, couldn't we? And while I agree that much knowledge is passed down from one generation to the next, doesn't knowledge continue to grow with each generation (person)? Can someone pass down all their knowledge? Is that possible?

Cang Long

12-08-2004, 04:22 PM

**OK, that makes sense -- it only seems that principles of learning are going to be universal. HFY calls that principle SMK, others call it by a different name. Saam mo kiu is unique to Ch'an Buddhist Warrior Monks of Shaolin and one way of keeping with the heritage of shaolin is to pass this exact terminology along.

Cang Long

12-08-2004, 11:35 PM

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "full awareness of the true reality of TS&E" -- could you elaborate. And how does one test whether one has "full" awareness (as opposed to partial) of the "true" (as opposed to false) reality? Time space and energy all terms used to define reality when discussing kung fu that reality is mainly considered an indepth knowledge and ability to demonstrate any given skill properly. People that can mimic motions or apply techniques without a proper understanding (San Kiu) are in a state of illusion or false reality, I think that is what James was getting at if not I am sure he will explain.

As for testing full awarenes this is SMK in action Hung Fa Yi practitioners are taught skill sets and with each skill set there is a skills challange. A student taught a skill for the first time might have the illusion that he has the skill (fau kiu)until failing the challenge test then back to practice the skill until the student can pass the skills challange the focus becomes clearer after failing a skill challange a practitioner can focus on portions of a skill becoming (San kiu) There is no need to spar with a particular skill if the student can not pass the skills challange first. Full awareness is the ability to apply a particular skill in any situation test, sparring, competiton or actual combat.

dmilner321

12-09-2004, 01:19 AM

Terence,

From my perspective in what I have learned of HFY, to explain SMK and HCSS to a non HFY practitioner, I would simply state that it is a scientific learning method in the system to help achieve results most efficiently.

As a learning method, can you draw similarities to other learning methods such as the learning theory you referred to? Yes. Is it the same thing with different Shaw brothers movie terminology? If that's the answer you're seeking, that's what you'll find. To me, no. What's different to me? Details, and hence results. HFY is a unique system based upon principles and concepts, not just techniques. An integral part of that are the methods used to ensure the principles and concepts are learned, understood, and tested.

I'm not so sure that you can pick up the detail in SMK and HCSS from discussing it on a forum, any more than you can increase your fighting ability by posting about it on a forum, as I believe you're fond of pointing out. You can note some similarities. Those that have experienced it have similar language about it, just as you notice about the difference in attitude and language between fighters and non-fighters.

Although this is highly debated by your friends, HFY is a culmination of Chan buddhist teaching methods and a whole lot of blended martial experience around a time before gunpowder usage when people survived or not due to their hand combat and short weapon skills. If you take an objective look at what is in the HFY book MKF of science, mechanics and principles, there's enough there to peak curiosity. What's recorded there is certainly not complete. But the science emerged out of a time where elements were conducive.

That's it - no more or less.

Rgds,

t_niehoff

12-09-2004, 08:24 AM

canglong wrote:

Saam mo kiu is unique to Ch'an Buddhist Warrior Monks of Shaolin and one way of keeping with the heritage of shaolin is to pass this exact terminology along.

**Sure, I understand that SMK is unique terminology specific to HFY and its heritage.

Time space and energy all terms used to define reality when discussing kung fu that reality is mainly considered an indepth knowledge and ability to demonstrate any given skill properly. People that can mimic motions or apply techniques without a proper understanding (San Kiu) are in a state of illusion or false reality, I think that is what James was getting at if not I am sure he will explain.

**Do you agree that skill is relative -- that you may be more skillful than me, while someone else may be more skillful than you? So our ability to apply a technique depends upon not only our skill but also upon the skill of our opponent (you may be able to make the technique work against me but not against someone else who is more skillful than you). Thus, skill is a subjective and not objective standard. Moreover, this demonstrates that skill is more than having a "proper understanding" but involves performance (which, of course, has many individual limitations). In light of all this, how can we speak of reality other than our own individual performance level?

As for testing full awarenes this is SMK in action Hung Fa Yi practitioners are taught skill sets and with each skill set there is a skills challange. A student taught a skill for the first time might have the illusion that he has the skill (fau kiu)until failing the challenge test then back to practice the skill until the student can pass the skills challange the focus becomes clearer after failing a skill challange a practitioner can focus on portions of a skill becoming (San kiu) There is no need to spar with a particular skill if the student can not pass the skills challange first. Full awareness is the ability to apply a particular skill in any situation test, sparring, competiton or actual combat.

**OK, so you learn a certain tool or skill, train in until you can pass the "skill challenge" which indicates a certain level of proficiency with that tool or skill, and then you try to put that tool or skill into a fighting environment. SO how does this show a "full awareness of the true reality of TS&E"? If I can beat someone in fighting does that show that I have a "full awareness of the true reality of TS&E" too? Or does it just show that I have a higher level of individual performance?

------------

**Dave, thanks for responding to my post!

dmilner321 wrote:

From my perspective in what I have learned of HFY, to explain SMK and HCSS to a non HFY practitioner, I would simply state that it is a scientific learning method in the system to help achieve results most efficiently.

As a learning method, can you draw similarities to other learning methods such as the learning theory you referred to? Yes. Is it the same thing with different Shaw brothers movie terminology? If that's the answer you're seeking, that's what you'll find. To me, no. What's different to me? Details, and hence results. HFY is a unique system based upon principles and concepts, not just techniques. An integral part of that are the methods used to ensure the principles and concepts are learned, understood, and tested.

**I can accept that HFY is a "unique system" (as are many martial arts) and the SMK and HCSS are both integral to it, but why does that mean that SMK and HCSS, which seem to pertain to how a person learns or is taught, are unique? What I'm getting at is that the principles of learning theory, for example, are universal and true whether we understand them or accept them, and those principles can be expressed/explained differently using different terminology. People seem to have used these principles throughout history even without consciously recognizing them; and many today do seem to recognize them (though not in HFY terminology).

**I don't understand the relationship you draw between "details" and results. Can you explain that further? And can't a person learn something, and learn it very well without knowing a lick of learning theory?

I'm not so sure that you can pick up the detail in SMK and HCSS from discussing it on a forum, any more than you can increase your fighting ability by posting about it on a forum, as I believe you're fond of pointing out. You can note some similarities. Those that have experienced it have similar language about it, just as you notice about the difference in attitude and language between fighters and non-fighters.

**I can accept that it is much easier to experience something than describe it via the internet.

Although this is highly debated by your friends,

**If this is a dig on Hendrik -- then, yes, Hendrik is my friend. But I don't agree with many of Hendrik's views or opinions (if you read KFO, you'll see some of them hashed out). Just as I don't agree with many of Robert's views or opinions. This is what mature adults can do, they can disagree strongly about "important" things and still be friends. I respect Hendrik's views because I know his background, and IMO he's worth listening to and I take his views into consideration in drawing my own conclusions. But I don't accept what he says because he says it -- I look at >everything< from a critical perspective.

HFY is a culmination of Chan buddhist teaching methods and a whole lot of blended martial experience around a time before gunpowder usage when people survived or not due to their hand combat and short weapon skills. If you take an objective look at what is in the HFY book MKF of science, mechanics and principles, there's enough there to peak curiosity. What's recorded there is certainly not complete. But the science emerged out of a time where elements were conducive.

That's it - no more or less.

**I'm not here to argue history with you; certainly that is your perspective and I can respect that (just as I can respect Hendrik's). And I appreciate the time you took to try and explain these concepts further.

dmilner321

12-09-2004, 10:38 AM

**I can accept that HFY is a "unique system" (as are many martial arts) and the SMK and HCSS are both integral to it, but why does that mean that SMK and HCSS, which seem to pertain to how a person learns or is taught, are unique? What I'm getting at is that the principles of learning theory, for example, are universal and true whether we understand them or accept them, and those principles can be expressed/explained differently using different terminology. People seem to have used these principles throughout history even without consciously recognizing them; and many today do seem to recognize them (though not in HFY terminology).

xxx Unique teaching methods don't begin and end with HFY. The Suzuki method for violin is one. The Moe Norman "Natural Golf" approach to the golf swing is another. It's pretty universally accepted that these are different methods, not the same thing expressed differently, unless you want to view everything at the 15,000 ft level. If you do, don't play golf or the violin :)

**I don't understand the relationship you draw between "details" and results. Can you explain that further?

xxx The details of the learning method help produce results more quickly. It's an interactive teaching / learning method that requires hands on interaction and really doesn't work too well over the internet without the hands on interaction.

And can't a person learn something, and learn it very well without knowing a lick of learning theory?

xxx Yes. People can learn w/o knowing a learning method. Learning methods exist to help them progress more quickly and efficiently than without.

**If this is a dig on Hendrik ...

xxx No digs on people. I'm acknowledging that among your friends, there exists a different viewpoint on historical facts as presented in MKF as well as some animosity towards the HFY viewpoint being published. I'm not saying you can't be objective. Friendships can get in the way of that, though. The irony of it is the system itself is one of the greatest historical artifacts. This is not a highly debated topic to those who have experienced it, even with backgrounds in other lineages. To some however, it's revolutionary and threatening.

Anyway, your interest level in history is probably pretty low.

Rgds,

Cang Long

12-09-2004, 01:01 PM

**Do you agree that skill is relative -- that you may be more skillful than me, while someone else may be more skillful than you? Terence,
Before answering that we may need more clarification because it sounds like you are referring to attributes and I am referring to ones' ability to acquire knowledge of and execute specific body motions (techniques).SO how does this show a "full awareness of the true reality of TS&E"? Each and every technique of wing chun consist of 3 parts Timing, space and energy if your opponent is fau kiu you may be able to execute a technique without proper use of all 3 parts, but in order to apply a technique correctly against someone that is weng kiu the technique itself must be performed at a weng kiu level. Applying your skill and knowledge at the right time in the right space with proper energy (weng kiu level) is how wing chun allows us to move beyond preference of technique and thus demonstrate an individuals complete awareness of reality (TS&E) via wing chun's concepts at that particular moment.

Side note:
in case you were wondering yes there is a corollation between Weng Kiu and Weng Chun.

t_niehoff

12-09-2004, 01:10 PM

Dave wrote:

xxx Unique teaching methods don't begin and end with HFY. The Suzuki method for violin is one. The Moe Norman "Natural Golf" approach to the golf swing is another. It's pretty universally accepted that these are different methods, not the same thing expressed differently, unless you want to view everything at the 15,000 ft level. If you do, don't play golf or the violin

**I agree that there are often different kinds of teaching methods for the same subject (like the violin or golf as you indicated; fwiw, that's my take on the WCK lineages too -- different teaching methods for the same subject) as well as variations within those methods. And while I agree they obviously are different approaches, it seems to me that they still make use of universal human learning principles, only that the application of those principles are different.

xxx The details of the learning method help produce results more quickly. It's an interactive teaching / learning method that requires hands on interaction and really doesn't work too well over the internet without the hands on interaction.

**I can accept that too. In fact, I can't think of any genuine fighting method that doesn't involve interactive teaching, hands-on interaction, actually fighting as part of the training, etc. As far as a specific learning method producing results more quickly, that is something that can be tested, isn't it?

xxx Yes. People can learn w/o knowing a learning method. Learning methods exist to help them progress more quickly and efficiently than without.

**Good, we're in agreement again. So do you think that advances in learning theory or advances in our understanding of the physical/biological processes involved in training - advances that have occurred since WCK was "developed"- should be taken into account in our training today? As our knowledge increases, shouldn't these things be adopted into our training methods?

xxx No digs on people. I'm acknowledging that among your friends, there exists a different viewpoint on historical facts as presented in MKF as well as some animosity towards the HFY viewpoint being published. I'm not saying you can't be objective. Friendships can get in the way of that, though. The irony of it is the system itself is one of the greatest historical artifacts. This is not a highly debated topic to those who have experienced it, even with backgrounds in other lineages. To some however, it's revolutionary and threatening.

Anyway, your interest level in history is probably pretty low.

**You're correct that my interest in WCK history is more curiousity-based than anything else -- I don't really care if baseball was invented by Abner Doubleday or not; it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game or how I play the game. My only beef with most of the "research" that I read is that it is fluff. Moreover, I have serious doubts about a lot of it, from many different sources. I think that anything that can't be independently examined and verified -- like lineage claims, for a simple example -- can't reliably be accepted as "true." I agree with you that "the system" itself is one of many factors in historical analysis. I also agree with you that some may find anything that challenges their views to be "revolutionary and threatening". With regard to HFY's historical claims, I just want to make it clear that I don't find them threatening at all. In fact, if someone were to find "the WCK scrolls" and they proved HFY's historical claims, it would have no personal relevance to me or what I do. I'm not practicing WCK to preserve any lineage but to better develop my fighting skill. And I don't think "older" or "original" is per se better -- the evidence, looking at every other fighting art, is that older is typically worse! Methods grow and evolve over time. You can disagree, of course, and many do. I only offer my view to explain why I don't feel "threatened".

t_niehoff

12-09-2004, 01:34 PM

Tony wrote:

Before answering that we may need more clarification because it sounds like you are referring to attributes and I am referring to ones' ability to acquire knowledge of and execute specific body motions (techniques).

**I see skill as the marriage of attributes, knowledge, etc., in other words everything involved that permits us to do whatever it is we are trying to do (techniques, for example). So what I mean by 'skill being relative' is that whether a technique works or not doesn't just depend on whether you can physically perform it (certainly a requirement) but that you can perform it successfully against an opponent. That depends also upon the level of skill of the opponent, doesn't it?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO how does this show a "full awareness of the true reality of TS&E"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Each and every technique of wing chun consist of 3 parts Timing, space and energy if your opponent is fau kiu you may be able to execute a technique without proper use of all 3 parts, but in order to apply a technique correctly against someone that is weng kiu the technique itself must be performed at a weng kiu level. Applying your skill and knowledge at the right time in the right space with proper energy (weng kiu level) is how wing chun allows us to move beyond preference of technique and thus demonstrate an individuals complete awareness of reality (TS&E) via wing chun's concepts at that particular moment.

**Let me try to translate this and please tell me if I understand you. You're saying that if someone is lesser skilled (fau kiu), then a person may be able to execute a technique without proper TSE (poorer skill) and pull it off. But if a person has good skill (weng kiu) then to execute a technique successfully against him requires a person have a higher level of awareness of his TSE (skill). Isn't this the same as saying "skill is relative"?

Side note:
in case you were wondering yes there is a corollation between Weng Kiu and Weng Chun.

**Would you mind explaining to me the relevance of that corollation? Thanks for your patience.

Cang Long

12-09-2004, 02:04 PM

So what I mean by 'skill being relative' is that whether a technique works or not doesn't just depend on whether you can physically perform it (certainly a requirement) but that you can perform it successfully against an opponent. Terence,
This is where Saam Mo kiu and Hou Chyun San Sau directly come into play they are the tools that ensure that if all things being equal (that being the ability to learn and apply)everyone acquires the exact same skill every time in 3 steps guided by experience and a master the practitioner is walked through the stages of awareness from fau kiu to san kiu to weng kiu.**Let me try to translate this and please tell me if I understand you. You're saying that if someone is lesser skilled (fau kiu), then a person may be able to execute a technique without proper TSE (poorer skill) and pull it off. But if a person has good skill (weng kiu) then to execute a technique successfully against him requires a person have a higher level of awareness of his TSE (skill). Isn't this the same as saying "skill is relative"? Again we see the same thing differently we know tan sau is effective when applied correctly- you say that is skill I say that is acquired knowledge for me if someone holds their elbow on their shoulder line while performing tan sau it is not for a lack of skill that it is ineffective but a lack of knowledge that HCSS can easily correct.

The term Weng Chun was derived from Weng Kiu and Weng Chun was changed to Wing Chun (pass on orally) when it went underground to hide from the authorities of that time.

t_niehoff

12-09-2004, 02:32 PM

Tony wrote:

This is where Saam Mo kiu and Hou Chyun San Sau directly come into play they are the tools that ensure that if all things being equal (that being the ability to learn and apply)everyone acquires the exact same skill every time in 3 steps guided by experience and a master the practitioner is walked through the stages of awareness from fau kiu to san kiu to weng kiu.

**I can see how what you call SMK and HCSS and what I call "interactive teaching, hands-on interaction, actually fighting as part of the training, etc." are necessary to significantly increase our fighting performance (gain greater skill, or as you say move from FK to WK). It seems we closely agree on many of these things, just that the terminology is different. Where I don't agree is the part of "everyone acquires the exact same skill" -- I don't think this is humanly possible: no two persons can ever have the "exact same skill". Perhaps you mean that they are both skillful or can have a parity of skill (perform at or near the same level)?

Again we see the same thing differently we know tan sau is effective when applied correctly-

**The same could be said of any technique from any method -- a person can hip throw a significantly larger opponent effectively when it is correctly applied too. But more than knowing how to do a hip throw (proper mechanics, etc.) is required to pull one off. Knowledge is a necessary part but just a part.

you say that is skill I say that is acquired knowledge for me if someone holds their elbow on their shoulder line while performing tan sau it is not for a lack of skill that it is ineffective but a lack of knowledge that HCSS can easily correct.

**And if someone has trouble with their hip throw, a good judo instructor can show you how to make it mechanically work best too. This is true of all fighting arts. But what I was talking about is using that throw against a genuine opponent -- this is where we judge skill because that is what we are training for (the objective). And my ability to pull off a hip throw not only depends on my skill, my ability but also on the ability of my opponent; the better they are, the more difficult it is to pull it off against them. In fact, gradings in judo and BJJ depend not only on knowledge (one factor) but ability to perform against persons of whatever skill level one is grading.

The term Weng Chun was derived from Weng Kiu and Weng Chun was changed to Wing Chun (pass on orally) when it went underground to hide from the authorities of that time.

**Ah, yes, I've heard that one before. It's a possibility.

**Thanks for your attempts to explain the HFY perspective to me.

Cang Long

12-09-2004, 02:48 PM

No problem Terence you're welcome.
Thanks for the conversation its always good to get as many view points as possible on any subject. Will you be attending the 05 Wing Chun get together in Cleveland I believe some HFY members may be present for some HCSS if you are up for it;) no two persons can ever have the "exact same skill". Perhaps you mean that they are both skillful or can have a parity of skill (perform at or near the same level)? How about I substitute knowledge or "awareness" for the word skill and with that awareness a person is able to produce the exact same results every time.

t_niehoff

12-10-2004, 07:32 AM

Tony wrote:

No problem Terence you're welcome.

**I appreciate you, and the other guys, taking the time to help me see that these concepts being discussed are really universal but are expressed with a unique HFY terminology (based on its heritage). This isn't meant as a criticism but offered from someone with a nonHFY perspective -- I think oftentimes terminology, particularly when it is terminology specific to our own method, just gets in the way of communication with those outside our method. My own group, for example, has some terminology unique to itself as well, things we have adopted because of our shared experiences, and it allows a "shorthand" communication between us; outsiders would just be confused if we used those terms when speaking with them so we try to put them in terms that will be understood by those we're speaking with.

Thanks for the conversation its always good to get as many view points as possible on any subject.

**Completely agree.

Will you be attending the 05 Wing Chun get together in Cleveland I believe some HFY members may be present for some HCSS if you are up for it

**Perhaps. I've not been impressed (let's say) with any WCK "get togethers" I've been to in the past, and prefer to meet with persons having the same objective (regardless of lineage).

How about I substitute knowledge or "awareness" for the word skill and with that awareness a person is able to produce the exact same results every time.

**If what you're saying is that when one is able to do some technique (for example), that if they properly exectute all the essential details of that technique, then it will always work -- I'll agree. The rub is, of course, that one is not always able to do it or do it properly since one has an opponent actively trying to stop you. And whether you'll be able to pull it off or not depends not only on your "awareness" but the "awareness" of your opponent. Skill, as I said, is relative. This is why the more skillful beat the lesser skilled.

dmilner321

12-10-2004, 07:48 AM

**Good, we're in agreement again. So do you think that advances in learning theory or advances in our understanding of the physical/biological processes involved in training - advances that have occurred since WCK was "developed"- should be taken into account in our training today? As our knowledge increases, shouldn't these things be adopted into our training methods?

xxx Good. So describe to us your learning methods, including the advances in learning theory or advances in the understanding of the physical/biological processes involved in training that have occurred since WCK was developed that you have learned and applied. If you don't mind taking the time as we have.

Rgds,

t_niehoff

12-10-2004, 08:46 AM

Jonathan_AZ

12-10-2004, 02:37 PM

If I may comment on some of this,
Terence, in regards to the conditioning portion, I agree to a point. Conditioning is an 'important' part of any martial training (along with sports training obviously).
But to make it a 'huge' part, then that says to me one is training with the anticipation you will need more endurance for a fight that may last a prolonged period of time, like in a boxing match per se. Maybe because there are rules implied which limits the amount of damage one can give/recieve, or there are limits to the types of attacks you can use and 'off-limit' targets (throat, backside, temple, etc).
In my martial training, I feel it (conditioning traing) is important. But a 'hugher' factor IMO would be addressing mangement and awareness of time, space and energy, so I can end a fight quickly and not have to rely more on my conditioning training untill I can either land a lucky punch, out-stamina my opponent, or possibly lose the fight. And also training proper structures, techniques, etc.
But then, conditioning, in my opinion, has little to do with learining a fighting system as far as theory, techniques, sturctures, etc go. Unless you are refering to body awareness conditioning or muscle memory and not overall stregth or endurance conditioning.

Regarding the boxing, having previous experience in this area, and also somewhat of a boxing buff, I don't feel boxers have gotten better over the years on a whole, ans if they have, not because of training techniques, but moreso because the rules and sport has changed, so they would be 'percieved' as better.. I don't believe that advances in training methods and tactics have made better boxers today than the ones from 50-60 or even 100 years ago. Thinking back, there was a time of unlimited rounds of bareknuckle boxing fights that would last sometimes passed 50 rounds! Those guys were made of nails. Of course they probably trained differently than today because they were training for a different type of fight (sport?). 50 years ago, boxers fought a totaly different style on average again than compared to today or 100 years ago. Alot of the changes were because boxers were getting far too many injuries back in 'the old days'. So, I would say training has 'changed' because the sports have changed. I don't feel it's producing better fighters, just different, because they have to train for a different type of fight. Also, a shorter fight as history progresses. Maybe even, less 'damaging' fighters, which might be a down-step?

Also, if something is complete and works, there is no need for it to evolve. Unless the environment changes (rules implied, people grow extra limbs, fighting animals, etc).

(sorry for getting off the initial subject of Saam Mo kiu and Hou Chyun San Sau )
Great thread and sure makes for great reading!

Jonathan

Cang Long

12-10-2004, 03:47 PM

Terence,
One thing to keep in mind is that Hou Chyun San Sau by its very nature is very specific because HFY can be taught on 3 levels Philisophical, principle of mechanics, or the principles of strategies and tactics your HCSS lessons might be completely different than mine the experience of which can not be measured before hand or done without. So though you may have an idea of what SMK is you really must experience it in a HCSS setting to completely understand it.

t_niehoff

12-11-2004, 10:22 AM

Jonathan wrote:

If I may comment on some of this,

**Of course, and thanks for contributing!

Terence, in regards to the conditioning portion, I agree to a point. Conditioning is an 'important' part of any martial training (along with sports training obviously).
But to make it a 'huge' part, then that says to me one is training with the anticipation you will need more endurance for a fight that may last a prolonged period of time, like in a boxing match per se. Maybe because there are rules implied which limits the amount of damage one can give/recieve, or there are limits to the types of attacks you can use and 'off-limit' targets (throat, backside, temple, etc).

**It seems to me, and please tell me if you disagree, that we express our method via our bodies, so it follows that the better our bodies condition, the more easily and successfully we can apply our method. Moreoever, advances in training methods, including such simple things as modern protective equipment, now allow a trainee to fight as part of his training, which will not only increase his fighitng skill more quickly but also provide a greater and direct effect on his conditioning. And only by being in condition will a trainee be able to fight as part of his training (and reap the benefits of such training).

**With regard to the common assumption that fights will end quickly -- sure they can, and sometimes do, particularly if the skill level is significantly unequal. But even then, moving 100% full-out for a short period of time can be completely exhausting if one is not in condition. The overwhelming evidence (if we look at fights, including genuine "no rules" situations) suggests that as the fighting skill level of both participants increase so generally does the length of the fight (perhaps because being more skilled they better protect those targets?). And, IMO we can't assume that a fight will always begin with all things being equal -- perhaps I'll be sucker-punched, blind-sided tackled, etc. and find myself in a serious position of disadvantage from the get-go. It seems pragmatic, and please tell me if you disagree, that we should prepare for the worst but hope for the best. That way, if the best happens (a quick end) we're happy and if things don't go the best, we're still prepared.

In my martial training, I feel it (conditioning traing) is important. But a 'hugher' factor IMO would be addressing mangement and awareness of time, space and energy, so I can end a fight quickly
and not have to rely more on my conditioning training untill I can either land a lucky punch, out-stamina my opponent, or possibly lose the fight. And also training proper structures, techniques, etc.

**It's a fine thing to say "I'd rather rely on skill than conditioning." And that seems at first glance to make good sense. But I think we need to see that conditioning is a part of fighting skill rather than look at it (conditioning) as some separate entity.

But then, conditioning, in my opinion, has little to do with learining a fighting system as far as theory, techniques, sturctures, etc go. Unless you are refering to body awareness conditioning or muscle memory and not overall stregth or endurance conditioning.

**Fighting is a physical activity, just like any athletic endeavor. Let me use swimming as an analogy. You can learn to swim, the strokes, mechanics, etc. without being in good shape. But to become a really good swimmer requires that you actually swim a lot. To swim a lot requires that you be in good shape (swimming is exhausting). And just by swimming a lot, you'll get in good shape.

Regarding the boxing, having previous experience in this area, and also somewhat of a boxing buff, I don't feel boxers have gotten better over the years on a whole, ans if they have, not because of training techniques, but moreso because the rules and sport has changed, so they would be 'percieved' as better.. I don't believe that advances in training methods and tactics have made better boxers today than the ones from 50-60 or even 100 years ago.

**Around 1750 lunges, lateral foot movement, and stop-blocks of German broadsword fencing were adopted in boxing. In 1780 with the publication of The Art of Boxing, Daniel Mendoza popularized "scientific" boxing in England. The term "scientific" referred to the "science" (e.g., thinking and planning) required for the pugilist to move about the ring instead of simply standing toe-to-toe and slugging it out (as had been common). (Interestingly, drawings show pugilists standing left side forward with one hand high and the other hand low, their knees were bent and their bodies were thrown back to protect their heads. The straight left was the favorite attack, perhaps followed by a counter, meaning a punch thrown simultaneously with the other fighter’s attack.) Hooks and corkscrew punches weren't common in boxing until the 1880s. Jabbing and feints didn't really come into play into almost 1900. Dempsy invented the bob-and-weave around 1910. And I could go on. More recently, the peek-a-boo ("the system") was invented by Cus D’Amato in the 1950s. D'Amato did it again in the 60's with his "number system" of training. Boxing has continually evolved.

Thinking back, there was a time of unlimited rounds of bareknuckle boxing fights that would last sometimes passed 50 rounds! Those guys were made of nails. Of course they probably trained differently than today because they were training for a different type of fight (sport?). 50 years ago, boxers fought a totaly different style on average again than compared to today or 100 years ago. Alot of the changes were because boxers were getting far too many injuries back in 'the old days'. So, I would say training has 'changed' because the sports have changed. I don't feel it's producing better fighters, just different, because they have to train for a different type of fight. Also, a shorter fight as history progresses. Maybe even, less 'damaging' fighters, which might be a down-step?

**If you look into the history of boxing training, you'll see that equipment (the heavy bag, top-and-bottom bak, speed bag) came into the training regimen as different times, that different sort of exercises were incorporated at different times, strategies for training changed as new "techniques" were adopted into boxing, etc.

Also, if something is complete and works, there is no need for it to evolve. Unless the environment changes (rules implied, people grow extra limbs, fighting animals, etc).

**If one looks at the history of fighting (or any physical activity for that matter), I think we'll see that no system of knowledge is ever complete, that knowledge grows, people find better ways, find other ways, etc. Early boxing worked too, as did early jiujitsu, early swordfighting, etc. But as folks figured out better ways to train, as technology increased, as they found from experience ways to improve or confound their opponents, the arts evolved. They continue to evolve today. Look at how BJJ continues to grow.

(sorry for getting off the initial subject of Saam Mo kiu and Hou Chyun San Sau )
Great thread and sure makes for great reading!

**Thanks for the lively discussion.

sihing

12-11-2004, 11:33 AM

Sorry to take this even more off topic but I have one little comment. Does a art have to change/adapt or imporve if it is already complete? Jonathan thinks no and Terence thinks yes it does. In the example that Terence uses, BJJ, yes it has evolved but the BJJ/GJJ of the early 90's when the Gracie's dominated the UFC's with their unorthoadox style, does the style of that time still work? Yes it does, but today's competative fighter has learned to adapt to it, learned how the GJJ fighter fights and has learned to counter it. This is all fine and dandy in a competition, but when the opponent is random and unknown, like in a real confrontation, then being prepared for a particular type of opponent is impossible. You have to be prepared for all types of opponents. I believe that yes, training methods can improve and being in condition is great, but the concepts and principals behind the WC system will not change or adapt because IMO they allow one to protect themselves from anysort of attack available today. The odds of meeting a top notch fighter on the street is NIL. To train as a average person with limited training time available, to be able to defeat one such top notch fighter you need more than conditioning, you need a method more effective than what they are doing, giving you more of a tactical advantage, WC gives you this advantage IMO, rather than physical advantage which would be impossible to do unless you too are training to be a top notch fighter.

Good thread and please continue with the subject at hand, makes for good reading..

James

t_niehoff

12-11-2004, 01:27 PM

sihing,

I think you've misunderstood me; sorry that I wasn't more clear. This may be a long-winded post, but I want to make myself more clear. I'm saying that there is no such thing as a "complete art" or a "perfect art" -- that the very concept itself is an illusion. In other words, if we logically examine it we'll find that a fighting method *as a whole* is not a "thing" that may or may not "work" or may or may not be "complete" or that can be evaluated as a thing in itself. This is an illusion. There is only you testing what you know. WCK, for example, cannot be "tested" apart from you like a machine, or be at fault.

If I ask you to show me WCK what would you do? Could you produce a "WCK" separate from yourself? No, you would start moving through a form, or maybe apply a technique, but it isn't and never could be "WCK" doing anything, it will always be you doing something. WCK, as I see it, is a set of principles, some for body use and some for strategic applications in martial encounters. They are only guidelines for people to learn to help them become better fighters. They don't exist until someone applies them. So you can never evaluate WCK, you can only evaluate yourself, your performance. But what, you may ask, if I use my WCK perfectly? As human beings, can we ever be perfect or complete?

What you seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that "theoretically", if one perfectly follows WCK's approach they should never lose a fight. OK, but couldn't lots of fighting approaches say that? You see, if a WCK guy gets beat, he'll say it wasn't WCK's fault -- a flaw in the method -- but rather his personal failure (he didn't do WCK properly). But so will the boxer; he'll make the exact same argument. He'll say it wasn't boxing that got beat, it was him and his faults that lost, and that boxing's method isn't to blame (he didn't do boxing well enough). Same with BJJ. Or any art.

Now we can theorize about how this "should" beat that or how this strategy is superior to that strategy, but that's all theoretical -- these things aren't played out on a blackboard. All you have is what you can do. If the boxer is better at doing what he does than you are at what you do, he'll beat you. If you're better at doing what you do than the boxer is what what he does, then you'll win. It comes down to individual performance.

Certainly, some training methods and approaches to fighting are more successful in producing results in its trainees, i.e., significant improvements in individual performance. (And I stress *producing results*. Things we can see -- not claims, not theoretical arguments -- but evidence in fighting. We in WCK have many claims but very little evidence to back them up.) What makes these things more "successful" than other approaches? Not their adherence to their particular "theory" or approach IMO but rather that they continue to **focus** on producing ever-better results, that is, increased performance of its trainees (in fighting). A theory or concept is useful only to the extent that it helps to produce results. In the fighting arts, results are determined by and through fighting. And that's why those arts that have practitioners who have continued fighting have continued to grow and evolve; those fighters are constantly looking for anything that will give them an advantage over their opponents. Their focus is on results. While those that have gotten "stuck" in their theory, like tai ji or aikido, and have as their focus theory, stop growing and become cultural relics.

You said that WCK will prepare you to meet any attack. That's conjecture -- it's like saying "theoretically, this should work". Great, but can you do it? What I suggest is that instead of relying on conjecture that you see for yourself -- look to results. This is what fighters do. For example, if you think that you can't be taken down, then go fight with a good wrestler and see if you can deal with his shoot. If the wrestler is able to take you down, you will then be able to take that knowledge and experience and use it to modify and improve your training, making a more productive use of your time. You could then develop practical skills that may actually save you from harm one day. See the value of focusing on results?

JamesHFYofAZ

12-11-2004, 01:41 PM

You know, you could be absolutely correct in your discoveries J, can I call ya J? However, in truth you have not stepped out side SMK nor detoured from the topic in any way, think about it! Savi- "deeper".

Cang Long

12-11-2004, 02:23 PM

Terence,
It sounds as if you don't believe the most efficient point in time and space is obtainable and in HFY our practice is like a laboratory not on whether or not it exist but how to best cultivate one's ablity to achieve that end. If you don't think that the most efficient point in time and space for each situation is obtainable then of course you will always see the system as incomplete and in need of refinement (evolve) because the end goal is unobtainable in your view. In my view you are not giving wing chun enough credit when you say it is incomplete because what wing chun is in essence is the understanding of energies. A certain type of energy(yang) comes into a gate and is met with a disolving energy (yin) and that works every time. The variable being human ability to comprehend and execute. That human variable does not negate the fact that the system is complete and does not need to be refined or evolve.

t_niehoff

12-11-2004, 04:38 PM

Hi Tony,

Tony wrote:

It sounds as if you don't believe the most efficient point in time and space is obtainable

**Of course it is. A boxer hits another with a "perfect" right cross that ends the fight -- these things happen all the time. All I'm saying is that there is a huge difference between "obtainable" and the ability to do it on demand whenever we want.

and in HFY our practice is like a laboratory not on whether or not it exist but how to best cultivate one's ablity to achieve that end.

**All martial arts "cultivate one's ability to achieve that end." Do you think boxers train to not try to use time and space most efficiently?

If you don't think that the most efficient point in time and space for each situation is obtainable then of course you will always see the system as incomplete and in need of refinement (evolve) because the end goal is unobtainable in your view.

**No, that's not it. I'm saying there is a huge difference between "obtainable" -- that which *can* be accomplished -- and being *able* to accomplish it on demand. One can throw effortlessly in judo; that is obtainable, but not something even the best judo guys can do whenever they want, and it depends, among other things, on the relative skill level of their opponents.

In my view you are not giving wing chun enough credit when you say it is incomplete because what wing chun is in essence is the understanding of energies. A certain type of energy(yang) comes into a gate and is met with a disolving energy (yin) and that works every time. The variable being human ability to comprehend and execute. That human variable does not negate the fact that the system is complete and does not need to be refined or evolve.

**Boxers can say the same thing -- any punch can be evaded and countered. Theoretically it should work every time (funny how these theories never work out in reality). The variable is, like you say, the human ability to comprehend and execute: individual performance. It seems to me that we're saying the same thing.

Cang Long

12-11-2004, 06:10 PM

Hello Terence,

You said,I'm saying that there is no such thing as a "complete art" or a "perfect art" -- that the very concept itself is an illusion. In other words, if we logically examine it we'll find that a fighting method *as a whole* is not a "thing" that may or may not "work" or may or may not be "complete" or that can be evaluated as a thing in itself. This is an illusion. So no we are not saying the same thing. Because wing chun as I know it is complete. In Hung Fa Yi, Wing Chun does have a shape and can be explained in words that being 1,2,3,5,6 and 5 and expressed using the body to express the wing chun formula all based on human anatomy, skeletal structure and physiology.**All martial arts "cultivate one's ability to achieve that end." Do you think boxers train to not try to use time and space most efficiently? Trying is San Kiu again someone completely selfaware has moved beyond the labels of style and is just understood to be Weng Kiu because of their understanding of time space and energy in every situation.One can throw effortlessly in judo; that is obtainable, but not something even the best judo guys can do whenever they want, and it depends, among other things, on the relative skill level of their opponents. Again this is San Kiu thinking because when the Judo practitioner has the right time space and energy his opponent 's abilities are no longer in play if the opponent was weng kiu in that moment then the Judo practitioner would have been denied the proper time, space or energy before the throw ever came into play.All I'm saying is that there is a huge difference between "obtainable" and the ability to do it on demand whenever we want. That is a valid point Terence it's just that all the HFY practitioners that have posted here think your opinion on how effective HFY SMK in a HCSS setting would change should you experience it, just as our did.

dmilner321

12-11-2004, 07:43 PM

Ok, Dave. To start with a simple thing, let's talk about conditioning. You'll agree, I hope, and if not let me know, that conditioning is a huge factor in our overall fighting performance. As such, it is an important part of our MA training, And don't you agree that we now know, and our knowledge continues to grow, more about nutrition, exercise physiology, training methods, etc. which allow us to get into better condition more quickly? It seems, for instance, that athletic performance in every area has significantly improved over time. Do you take those things into consideration in your training or not?

xxx Conditioning has impact in fighting performance. There have been advances in exercise / training knowledge, nutrition,etc. that when applied help conditioning. I use some and not others. I don't take steroids for example, although it might increase my fighting performance.

And hasn't fighting methods continued to evolve as well? Haven't boxers, for one, gotten loads better over the past one hundred years (training methods, tactics, etc.)? Same with groundfighting skills -- hasn't BJJ, which evolved in the last 50 years and continues to evolve at a good rate, changed the face of groundfighting and brought it to new level? Any fighiting method with groundfighting will need to take those developments into account won't it?

xxx Boxing / fencing have seen improvements, as some you've noted. BJJ has focused on and improved groundfighting as separate from traditional JJ. Early UFC tournaments allowed Royce Gracie to capitalize on complete lack of grappling skills of other styles and play his strength to their weakness. This caused many martial arts styles to include cross-training where their system didn't address the ground game, or those that did to train for it. Then wrestlers dominated for a while because their takedown skills were better than BJJ and they could play a ground and pound game. Most recently I'd say strikers / boxers (not as good as top pro boxers) who have ample ground skills have been winning. All of these have been examples of training specific strengths to combat known weaknesses of top athletes / styles. Where there's money to fund a purse, someone will have a team put together to figure out how to beat someone else to win that purse.

I'm still undecided on how much of this is actual evolution of styles applicable to teach the general public versus specific focused training to capitalize on known weaknesses. There's probably a little of both.

I know NHB/MMA fighters today kind of have a mindset where they are "inventing" new things in fighting that when I hear explained sound a whole lot like old things I've heard before. They generally don't respect or pay much attention to things taught that are older than 5 years especially if the person teaching it doesn't have a UFC / Pride ring record and a cool line of clothing. So to some extent this causes them to reinvent the wheel. But there is a lot of "mouth art" out there, so I can understand their perspective.

Anyway, while all this is very entertaining, weren't you going to explain to us your specific learning methods in detail? I for one would really like to hear the specifics so I can see these universal truths and compare them to the detail I know of SMK/HCSS. You are talking about something more than just "stay open to learn new concepts/techniques" here, aren't you?

Rgds,

t_niehoff

12-12-2004, 08:17 AM

Tony wrote:

So no we are not saying the same thing. Because wing chun as I know it is complete.

**How can we ever know that a system of knowledege, any system, is complete? If we are lacking something, we are obviously ignorant of it, and can't know. And, so what if it is "complete", however you define that? For example, even if you can use your tan sao a certain way and achieve great results that doesn't foreclose the possiblity that someone else can use it differently and achieve great results. Boxers can say they have a "complete stand-up fighting method." So what? It still comes down to individual performance since the art doesn't work by itself. That's why I think the whole issue isn't really important -- it doesn't bear on those things that are important.

In Hung Fa Yi, Wing Chun does have a shape and can be explained in words that being 1,2,3,5,6 and 5 and expressed using the body to express the wing chun formula all based on human anatomy, skeletal structure and physiology.

**Every fighting art has a shape, a methodology that can be explained in words, expressed using the body, and is based on human anatomy, skeletal structure, and physiology. Your methodology is different than other methods, that's all.

Trying is San Kiu again someone completely selfaware has moved beyond the labels of style and is just understood to be Weng Kiu because of their understanding of time space and energy in every situation.

**OK, but aren't HFY practitioners "trying" at some point in their training too? All highly skilled practitioners of any fighting method move beyond the labels of style. Let me put it to you this way -- do you think TSE reflects reality, that these are "real" things like gravity is real, or do you see it as just some conceptual construct unique to HFY? Well, if it is real, won't any fighting method need to take those real things into account, even if unconsciously (just as they do gravity)? They can't ignore the demands of gravity. Won't higher level of skills naturally reflect a higher appreciation for TSE? Now these other arts may not use HFY's terminology, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the reality of it.

Again this is San Kiu thinking because when the Judo practitioner has the right time space and energy his opponent 's abilities are no longer in play if the opponent was weng kiu in that moment then the Judo practitioner would have been denied the proper time, space or energy before the throw ever came into play.

**We're saying the same thing -- it takes ability, personal performance, to achieve the right TSE, and that also depends on the personal performance level of your opponent since skill is relative.

That is a valid point Terence

**Thanks. It seems to me that all fighting methods have "ideals" that when obtained allow for the most efficient and effective expression. How closely we get to those "ideals" depends on 1) knowing them (so I agree with you that knowledge is important), 2) our personal performance level, and 3) our opponent's personal performance level. That's why I object to saying something like "if you know WCK and execute it perfectly. . . " The boxer, who is our opponent at the moment has his "ideals" too. Whether he can achieve them, just like whether I can achieve mine, depend on our relative skill levels. If his performance level is greater than mine, he'll beat me. Simple as that. Thus, it all comes down to individual performance.

it's just that all the HFY practitioners that have posted here think your opinion on how effective HFY SMK in a HCSS setting would change should you experience it, just as our did.

**Perhaps. But from what I've read, SMK is basically learning theory that I'm already familiar with, HCSS is an "interactive, hands-on teaching method" that too I'm familiar with. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but from what I'm hearing here it seems many fighting methods have these things just not in your terminology. I'm not saying SMK isn't effective -- of course it is, because it simply reflects how humans learn (just as modern learning theory does). You can call gravity by some other term -- that doesn't make your appreciation of it greater or make persons who don't adopt your terminology appreciate it less.

t_niehoff

12-12-2004, 08:35 AM

Hi Dave,

Dave wrote:

xxx Conditioning has impact in fighting performance. There have been advances in exercise / training knowledge, nutrition,etc. that when applied help conditioning. I use some and not others. I don't take steroids for example, although it might increase my fighting performance.

**You are a wise man.

xxx Boxing / fencing have seen improvements, as some you've noted. BJJ has focused on and improved groundfighting as separate from traditional JJ. Early UFC tournaments allowed Royce Gracie to capitalize on complete lack of grappling skills of other styles and play his strength to their weakness. This caused many martial arts styles to include cross-training where their system didn't address the ground game, or those that did to train for it. Then wrestlers dominated for a while because their takedown skills were better than BJJ and they could play a ground and pound game. Most recently I'd say strikers / boxers (not as good as top pro boxers) who have ample ground skills have been winning. All of these have been examples of training specific strengths to combat known weaknesses of top athletes / styles. Where there's money to fund a purse, someone will have a team put together to figure out how to beat someone else to win that purse.

**I think that oversimplifies things a bit -- BJJ has continued to be a major factor, both in training (anyone that fights NHBs, even the wrestlers, train in BJJ) and in participants that win those fights (loads of BJJ fighters have continued to dominate). But I do agree with you that these sorts of events have demonstrated the need for cross-training. That's because actually fighting, especially with skillful persons from other fighting methods, shows us where we are lacking in our own development. Theoretically I may believe that I can deal with a wrestler's shoot, for example, but facing a good wrestler may teach me otherwise.

I'm still undecided on how much of this is actual evolution of styles applicable to teach the general public versus specific focused training to capitalize on known weaknesses. There's probably a little of both.

**I think it all comes down to what our objective is.

I know NHB/MMA fighters today kind of have a mindset where they are "inventing" new things in fighting that when I hear explained sound a whole lot like old things I've heard before. They generally don't respect or pay much attention to things taught that are older than 5 years especially if the person teaching it doesn't have a UFC / Pride ring record and a cool line of clothing. So to some extent this causes them to reinvent the wheel. But there is a lot of "mouth art" out there, so I can understand their perspective.

**I agree with you that they have a put-up-or-shut-up attitude, that they don't buy into something without seeing its value firsthand. But that's because they are fighters -- they are going to go out and lay it on the line, and they want to *know* rather than believe that whatever it is will be effective.

Anyway, while all this is very entertaining,

**I found it informative too.

weren't you going to explain to us your specific learning methods in detail? I for one would really like to hear the specifics so I can see these universal truths and compare them to the detail I know of SMK/HCSS. You are talking about something more than just "stay open to learn new concepts/techniques" here, aren't you?

**I'm not sure what you mean by "specific learning methods" -- as I already explained to Tony, all humans learn the same way, SMK or modern learning theory, both describe how that happens (using different terminology). Are you asking how I teach WCK or how I personally train? I don't mind sharing.

dmilner321

12-12-2004, 11:12 AM

**I think that oversimplifies things a bit -- BJJ has continued to be a major factor, both in training (anyone that fights NHBs, even the wrestlers, train in BJJ) and in participants that win those fights (loads of BJJ fighters have continued to dominate).

xxx BJJ has the judo gi's, and uses the gi to work a lot of controls / holds that aren't workable in a ring event. I think they train what they call "submission wrestling" which has wrestling takedowns and includes BJJ positions / submissions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're the one actively training in that now, aren't you?

**I'm not sure what you mean by "specific learning methods" -- as I already explained to Tony, all humans learn the same way, SMK or modern learning theory, both describe how that happens (using different terminology). Are you asking how I teach WCK or how I personally train? I don't mind sharing.

xxx Yes, that's what I'm asking. Both how you teach and train, including whatever learning theory you incorporate, and how you implement the advancements some of your posts reference.

Cang Long

12-12-2004, 02:52 PM

Morning Terence,
How can we ever know that a system of knowledege, any system, is complete? It is relatively easy to detemine this actually, we find that a system any system is complete when something is added to the system and the system then no longer works as intended and just the same if something is subtracted from that system again it no longer works then and only then do we know that what we have is actually complete. Your methodology is different than other methods, that's all. This may or may not be true in all cases.**OK, but aren't HFY practitioners "trying" at some point in their training too? All highly skilled practitioners of any fighting method move beyond the labels of style. Let me put it to you this way -- do you think TSE reflects reality, that these are "real" things like gravity is real, or do you see it as just some conceptual construct unique to HFY? Well, if it is real, won't any fighting method need to take those real things into account, even if unconsciously (just as they do gravity)? They can't ignore the demands of gravity. Won't higher level of skills naturally reflect a higher appreciation for TSE? Now these other arts may not use HFY's terminology, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the reality of it. From Mastering Kung Fu p.54 "Every hand, every stance, and every tactic in Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun is examined and trained in the same fashion. For example, the nature of Tan Sau is to disperse incoming energy within the upper gate. Simultaneous offense and defense are only posssible when Tan's true nature is employed in the upper gate at Mun Jong range. Any other range will negate simultaneous offense and defense or allow penetration of one's own defense, resulting in suffering a strike or the jamming of one's own weapons. In other words, at the wrong time and space, tan's true nature simply cannot be expressed." HFY is complete based on a criteria of what the only things that matter Time space and energy. This passage does not suggest that if you don't do it the hung fa yi way you are wrong it doesn't suggest that your tan is based on your personal body type or your personal skill level what it suggest is that the true nature of tan is based on Time Space and Energy as we agree - Reality. Now extrapalate that to every "technique" employed by HFY and when you get done there is nothing more and nothing less to add or subtract based on the total number of possible energies that could possibly enter the human six gates and be delt with in the most efficient manner based on an acute awareness of reality(ts&e). We're saying the same thing -- it takes ability, personal performance, to achieve the right TSE, and that also depends on the personal performance level of your opponent since skill is relative. No, it requires that astute awareness of time space and energy that anyone with ability can acquire through the proper Hou Chyun San Sau.

Perhaps. But from what I've read, SMK is basically learning theory that I'm already familiar with, HCSS is an "interactive, hands-on teaching method" that too I'm familiar with. Wing Chun tells us experience trumps those things read, said, heard, seen or thought there is only one way to experience Hung Fa Yi Saam Mo Kiu Hou Chyun San Sau.

t_niehoff

12-12-2004, 08:00 PM

Dave,

I'm presently working on an article that will give folks some idea of how my group trains.

But to give you some answer to your questions -- with regard to learning theory, I've basically incorporated McCarthy's 4MAT system of learning, along with Maslow's learning stages, combined with Dreyfus' Model of Expertise, along with the modality approach to aid me in teaching WCK (all different perspectives on the same thing).

Since I believe that WCK can and should only be taught one-on-one, that by necessity involves a interactive, hands-on approach. In format, I follow the same model that all successful fighting methods follow: learn the tool/technique/tactic, drill it, then put it into fighting practice. But I train each student differently, first finding out his natural proclivities and building off of those. I look at is as I'm not teaching a system, I'm training individuals. We naturally place a strong emphasis on conditioning, and make use of the many advances in that field (like HIIT).

I make great use of modern protective equipment since it allows us to fight as the *core* and brunt of our training.

sihing

12-12-2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Hi Dave,

**I think that oversimplifies things a bit -- BJJ has continued to be a major factor, both in training (anyone that fights NHBs, even the wrestlers, train in BJJ) and in participants that win those fights (loads of BJJ fighters have continued to dominate). But I do agree with you that these sorts of events have demonstrated the need for cross-training. That's because actually fighting, especially with skillful persons from other fighting methods, shows us where we are lacking in our own development. Theoretically I may believe that I can deal with a wrestler's shoot, for example, but facing a good wrestler may teach me otherwise.

This is a good thread and discussion, please keep going, but to this quote above, just one thing. Why is it that we are always having to deal with the wrestler, grappler, boxer, muay thai, this that and the other things involved with those stylist and not them having to deal with what we have to offer? Ever since my introduction to these internet MA forums, I continue to hear "but if the wrestler gets you down to the ground..." and/or "if the Thai Boxer connects with his elbow, and with their conditioning regimend they can..", then this and that. The idea is to neutralize them with specific concepts, strategies and movements/techniques that allow maximum efficiency and effectivesness as well as protection against any and all attacks regardless of who or what system they come from, in a very UNORTHADOX way, unknown to most people and fighters, unless investigated by them specifically. I say unknown because if our WC was more known they would be incorporating it and some of our advantages. Everyday that I teach someone anything to do with WC combat, I explain why we do it, how it works, and when it works and against what, not just to do it. When this is the standard then you cannot be fooling yourself into a false sense of effectiveness, because if you are the only one to believe it know one would be willing to learn, and that is not the case in the Wing Chun world, since there are millions of practiticioners worldwide.

James

Cang Long

12-13-2004, 05:35 AM

Why is it that we are always having to deal with the wrestler, grappler, boxer, muay thai, this that and the other things involved with those stylist and not them having to deal with what we have to offer? Exactly!
James,
Well said I couldn't agree more.

t_niehoff

12-13-2004, 10:03 AM

Tony, this is just my perspective so take it fwiw.

I don't want to partake in arguing "theory" with anyone for I've come to realize that it is a pointless and meaningless, and ultimately frustrating, exercise. Loads of stuff sounds great "in theory". In theory, all things are possible. Doing it, making it work against skilled opposition, is something else; these things aren't decided on a blackboard or in thought-experiments. For example, I've heard some people claim (including a TCMA "grandmaster") that if one's horse is "correct" then they can never be taken down. They can "theoretically" defend that assertion. And perhaps, theoretically, it is even true -- who knows. But in reality, I've never yet seen or heard of anyone that can do it (against a really good wrestler, for example). So while theory may tell them they don't need anything other than their horse to deal with a shoot (so their method is "complete" without a shoot defense), experience may prove that learning to sprawl may be a necessity!

And this is why I also don't place any significance on the notion that these things can be proven HCSS. Certainly teaching needs to be inter-active and hands on, but teaching doesn't prove anything. Lots of things can be explained or demonstrated and appear logical, even amazing; but that doesn't mean it will actually work for a specific individual (but may for someone else) against skilled people in a realistic encounter (where they are meant to work). Some people, for example, have claimed WCK has groundfighting. Again, theoretically they may be able to defend that position. I've yet to see or hear of any of them getting out on the mats against skilled groundfighters, like BJJ blackbelts, and proving it. Of course, when they eventually try and fail, it is always blamed on the individual's performance level (they just didn't do it well enough) rather than flawed "theory" (it was a poor idea in the first place). And that's because a "system" or a "theory" doesn't "work" by itself, it is not a thing that in itself can be tested apart from the individual (so the theory can never be blamed); only a person's performance can be tested. Thus the individual is blamed, not the "system" or "theory".

On the other hand, there often are things that have proven effective in fighting for many others but a trainee will find that they just don't work for them (for whatever reason). To persist in doing them will be a losing proposition; instead, they should focus on their individual needs and not be a slave to the system. The reality is that all we ever have is individual performance, and that it always comes down to individual performance. So my perspective is I don't judge these things from a theoretical standpoint but from an operational standpoint -- does this or that increase *my* or the trainee's individual performance level or not (and that can be determined only in one way). I don't care what theory tells me fighting should be, or what theory tells me I should be able to do, I care what my experience actually fighting shows me, and use that to determine what it is I need to do to further increase my performance level. And what I've found, and this seems to be what many other fighters have found (and is now an accepted major tenet in fighting training), is that individuals have different strengths and weaknesses, can do some things very well naturally and others not as well, etc. and thus have different individual "needs". I use WCK as a means to address those needs rather than try to impose a "system" on the individual.

On a different note, I don't see tan sao as simply dispersing the opponent's force/energy but rather the term, tan sao, describes what I am doing, spreading *my* bridge hand. That motion can have many different effects depending on the situation including dispersing the opponent's hand (bearing force), kun na, fan kum na, throwing, striking, etc. My "definition" seems to be broader than HFY's. Which of us is correct? Do we resort to theoretical conjecture to decide? My position is we look to whether it helps the trainee increase his performance level or not.

t_niehoff

12-13-2004, 10:53 AM

sihing asks:

Why is it that we are always having to deal with the wrestler, grappler, boxer, muay thai, this that and the other things involved with those stylist and not them having to deal with what we have to offer?

**It is a reference to the issue of theory vs. experience. As I said in my previous post, theory may tell us that if we have a good horse no one will be able to take us down but experience -- with someone good at taking a person down, like a wrestler -- may show us something else. A person may believe they have the "answer" to kicking attacks but have they faced a really good kicker, like a thai boxer, in a genuine encounter?

**Now, why isn't it that these other martial arts aren't asking the same question about WCK practitioners? Simple -- they are fighters, and they can look at what the overwhelming majority of WCK practitioners are doing, and they know, from their experience, that these folks have no real fighting skill; most don't have a clue. So the concensus opinion of WCK among most of these fighters is that it is bullsh1t.

Bryan Feagin

12-13-2004, 01:12 PM

Hi Terrence,

I've been following your conversation with Tony on this topic of 'theory vs. experience', and I have to say that is is the best, most interesting, and thought provoking discussion of this topic that I've seen on ANY MA forum. Kudos to you both! This is the kind of stuff that they only dream of talking about on the kungfumagazine and KFO forums! :)

To interject my 2 cents, I would have to say that you are BOTH correct (how Zen of you, no?). You both have valid observations that, from a certain perspective, are right. But being a HFY practitioner, I would like to add a little something to what Tony is trying to express to you. Perhaps it will expand your understanding of what he is trying to say. Perhaps not. I'll just give it to you, and you take away what you will.

You are correct in saying that any theoretical system in and of itself is of little value, without the individual's internalization and application of it. But there are concepts within HFY that go beyond mere technique. And the proof that an individual practitioner has 'gotten it' is simply to test them with a skill challenge. A practitioner can say they 'get it', when in actually they merely understand it from an intellectual (i.e., theoretical) level, and that is all. They still can't express it from a body karma standpoint.

I'll give you a simple example that most all systems of Wing Chun share: the idea of 'gates' or gate theory defense. Often times you'll see a beginning practitioner with less than a year's worth of experience. You explain the idea of gate theory to them. You tell them something along the lines of "it's like the difference between man-to-man defense and zone defense in basketball." You show them the gates and their relationship to the body. You show them how to defend their gates, and how to achieve simultaneous attack/defense. The student then tells you, "I get it now." In fact, they tell you that repeatedly, over and over, "I get it, I get it, I understand it." But then you throw them into a sparring match with another student, and by simple observation you can tell, they clearly DO NOT get it. They're still chasing their opponent's hands. They're still worried about their techniques. There's no body unity. It's still a 'man-to-man' defense for them, and they get hit repeatedly. There's a mental paradigm shift in their head, that they haven't experienced, haven't internalized yet. Conceptually, the light still hasn't gone off yet...

Now, you may say, 'well, only through lots and lots of hands-on experience can a practitioner actually "get it." For many Wing Chun schools/lineages throughout the world, this is true. But do you realize, that through HFY's SMK teaching methodology that we've actually seen beginning students 'get' this concept of gate theory in a matter of days or weeks, instead of months and years? With the right system, and the right teaching methodology, you can compress the time factor that it takes for a student to internalize the concepts. Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun has many more concepts like this one, that a student has what I call an 'aha!' moment, where the concept is instantly internalized. And with SMK and HCSS, it's a layered learning approach (much like college, have to learn 101 stuff first before you'll ever understand 401 stuff, etc.)

Again, just my humble 2 cents,

sihing

12-13-2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
sihing asks:

Why is it that we are always having to deal with the wrestler, grappler, boxer, muay thai, this that and the other things involved with those stylist and not them having to deal with what we have to offer?

**It is a reference to the issue of theory vs. experience. As I said in my previous post, theory may tell us that if we have a good horse no one will be able to take us down but experience -- with someone good at taking a person down, like a wrestler -- may show us something else. A person may believe they have the "answer" to kicking attacks but have they faced a really good kicker, like a thai boxer, in a genuine encounter?

**Now, why isn't it that these other martial arts aren't asking the same question about WCK practitioners? Simple -- they are fighters, and they can look at what the overwhelming majority of WCK practitioners are doing, and they know, from their experience, that these folks have no real fighting skill; most don't have a clue. So the concensus opinion of WCK among most of these fighters is that it is bullsh1t.

Are the "Fighters" laughing/scoffing at the practitioner or Art? I've seen lots of funny ineffective WC stuff also, but I wouldn't be laughing at the art as a whole. The same can be said for all the MA out there, including the one's practiced by the "Fighters", there are lousy practitioners and awesome ones that really represent what the art is about.

Does anyone really think if someone trained the same way, with the same intensity of the competative MMA NHB fighter, but used WC as their fighting method, that anyone would be laughing or thinking WC is BS? Nope, they wouldn't IMO

As for the first part of your post Terence, in essence for me I've learned the complete WC system stemming from my lineage, but it is still up to me to be able to apply it against someone else, this applies to anything learned, regardless of how it is learned. We have particular methods of defending kicks for example, and if applied correctly, with proper timing and such, they are very effective, against all types of kickers, but it is still the responsibility of the individual to be able to apply it correctly. So in a way if someone does not do it correctly, then it is there fault not the arts. The more skillful one is in any MA the more dangerous they are, e.g., a Karate reverse punch is very powerful and penetrating and if it connects with your head you will be hurt badly, same with the standard WC punch, but the difference is the efficiency and effectiveness of the WC punch is greater, therefore allowing one a higher success rate with it as compared to the Karate punch, IMO. If a perfect Karate man and a perfect WC man fight I believe the WC man will win just based on the overall differences between the two arts in regards to how the WC system delivers its tools to its intended targets, someone's body. Of course if I fight the Karate man in his element (punching range of fighting) I will have more problems, just like if I stay in kicking range against a kicker, more problems there also. Fighting is a science and one has to do both, study the theory and learn how to apply it in reality(fighting) by actually using it in a fighting simulated atmosphere, which means that I may get hit and hurt while training it, but my partner or partners are not going to continue to injure me while I am down. There has to be limitations, otherwise permanent damage may occur.

James

Bryan Feagin

12-13-2004, 03:45 PM

This post is again to Terence, not a reply to Jame's post above. One thing I forgot to mention in my previous post is the focus in HFY of Time, Space, and Energy (TSE) vs. mere Techniques.

In HFY, we believe that given the right technique, at the right time, in the right space, with the right energy, WILL hit (or WILL be successful) every time. Yes, every time. And, regardless of the practitioner. Now, maybe you would think this claim is a little exaggerated, a little extreme. Well, if you think about it in terms of isolated context of the application, it's not so extreme.

Let me give you an analogy to another type of skill that one could learn. Let's say you want to learn how to drive a car successfully. Here's how most martial arts (including mant schools of Wing Chun) would train this skill.

90% of time spent:
1000+ repetitions of stomping the gas
1000+ repetitions of stomping the brake
1000+ repetitions of turning the wheel back and forth

10% of time spent:
Driving the car (analogous to sparring)

Now, using the above method, you may well indeed learn how to drive a car. Eventually. But the process could take a very long time. And, do you think that the above method is the most efficient way to learning the proper Time/Space/ and Energy for applying the brake successfully in order to avoid slamming into the back of another car that has abruptly come to a complete stop?

Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun's training methodology takes a different approach altogether:

Only 10% of time spent:
- Repeating the actual techniques of gas, brake, and wheel, ad infinum. In Wing Chun terms, this is analogous to repeating the actual techniques of things like Taan, Bong, and Fook. How many times do you have to repeat a technique to get its purpose? After all, in about 50 repetitions of each you get the shape and movement of each technique down pat, do you not? You don't have to spend countless hours of repetition to get the right technique. This is at a very low level of Wing Chun learning.

90% of time spent:
Learning the proper Time/Space/and Energy of applying the gas

- in conjunction with -

Learning the proper Time/Space/and Energy of applying the brake

- in conjunction with -

Learning the proper Time/Space/and Energy of applying the wheel

- and -

Putting it all together:
Now, given a known type of driving terrain, and a known distance between you and the car in front of you, and a known speed of both cars, and knowing the performance capabilities of your car like the back of your hand, do you think you could you apply the brakes of your car (i.e., the technique itself) and be able to miss hitting the car in front of yours pretty much EVERY SINGLE TIME? Or even 90% of the time? And regardless of the type, make, and model of the car in front of yours?

In Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun, we believe that with the proper training methodology, it *IS* possible to attain that level of skill (i.e., Weng Kiu) in Wing Chun. Except in HFY Wing Chun, we would use actual skill challenges and live sparring to prove that you actually are 'getting it' conceptually (i.e., internalizing the concept through body karma) at each stage of development. Each successive stage builds on the last. This is a much higher level of learning, how to apply concepts properly.

In other words, in HFY the focus is training over and over again the 'correct' and proper Time/Space/and Energy of how/when/where/why to apply a technique. It's NOT a focus or time spent on the technique itself. This is BIG, BIG, HUGE difference in training methodology and focus, IMO. Actually, it's a complete paradigm shift in training focus/method if you think deeply about it.

I hope my analogy above is making sense. It's very hard to convey these things/concepts through words and dialog. Hands on training experience is really the best (and perhaps the only) way to get it. If anyone wants to add to (or refute) what I'm trying to say, be my guest...

Again, just my 2 cents,

t_niehoff

12-13-2004, 04:12 PM

**Hi Bryan, thanks for contributing.

Bryan Feagin wrote:

I've been following your conversation with Tony on this topic of 'theory vs. experience', and I have to say that is is the best, most interesting, and thought provoking discussion of this topic that I've seen on ANY MA forum. Kudos to you both! This is the kind of stuff that they only dream of talking about on the kungfumagazine and KFO forums!

**I'm glad you feel that way. I'm finding it also thought-provoking.

To interject my 2 cents, I would have to say that you are BOTH correct (how Zen of you, no?). You both have valid observations that, from a certain perspective, are right. But being a HFY practitioner, I would like to add a little something to what Tony is trying to express to you. Perhaps it will expand your understanding of what he is trying to say. Perhaps not. I'll just give it to you, and you take away what you will.

You are correct in saying that any theoretical system in and of itself is of little value, without the individual's internalization and application of it. But there are concepts within HFY that go beyond mere technique. And the proof that an individual practitioner has 'gotten it' is simply to test them with a skill challenge. A practitioner can say they 'get it', when in actually they merely understand it from an intellectual (i.e., theoretical) level, and that is all. They still can't express it from a body karma standpoint.

**I've heard that term "skill challenge" before, but what exactly do you mean? Fighting? With whom?

I'll give you a simple example that most all systems of Wing Chun share: the idea of 'gates' or gate theory defense. Often times you'll see a beginning practitioner with less than a year's worth of experience. You explain the idea of gate theory to them. You tell them something along the lines of "it's like the difference between man-to-man defense and zone defense in basketball." You show them the gates and their relationship to the body. You show them how to defend their gates, and how to achieve simultaneous attack/defense. The student then tells you, "I get it now." In fact, they tell you that repeatedly, over and over, "I get it, I get it, I understand it." But then you throw them into a sparring match with another student, and by simple observation you can tell, they clearly DO NOT get it. They're still chasing their opponent's hands. They're still worried about their techniques. There's no body unity. It's still a 'man-to-man' defense for them, and they get hit repeatedly. There's a mental paradigm shift in their head, that they haven't experienced, haven't internalized yet. Conceptually, the light still hasn't gone off yet...

Now, you may say, 'well, only through lots and lots of hands-on experience can a practitioner actually "get it." For many Wing Chun schools/lineages throughout the world, this is true. But do you realize, that through HFY's SMK teaching methodology that we've actually seen beginning students 'get' this concept of gate theory in a matter of days or weeks, instead of months and years? With the right system, and the right teaching methodology, you can compress the time factor that it takes for a student to internalize the concepts. Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun has many more concepts like this one, that a student has what I call an 'aha!' moment, where the concept is instantly internalized. And with SMK and HCSS, it's a layered learning approach (much like college, have to learn 101 stuff first before you'll ever understand 401 stuff, etc.)

**Thanks for elaborating on how the SMK teaching methodology speeds up student progress; that gives me a better understanding of what you fellows are talking about. In my view, however, it's not that SMK speeds anything up, it's that these other WCK folks are not getting good training in the first place. My experience is like yours -- with good teaching, the student typically "gets it" right away; unfortunately, most WCK teachers aren't very good teachers! For example, not too long ago I had a visitor from out-of-state that came to see me about a particular problem: that he lacked power in his punch. Within 30 minutes his punch was knocking his training partners into walls. He kept saying, "I can't believe it!" But it's simply a matter of my being able to do it, and also being able to communicate effectively with him, to help him find it. Of course, that doesn't mean he'll be able to use it successfully against a skilled fighter though; that only comes with lots of practice, and with actually trying to use it against a skilled fighters. Please understand, I'm not trying to belittle the SMK teaching methodology -- obviously if it produces good results, then it is useful. I'm simply trying to express that those results are not necessarily unique.

And just fwiw, I don't use or teach the concept of "gate theory defense"; in my approach, that is an unnecessary concept.

Bryan Feagin

12-13-2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff

**I've heard that term "skill challenge" before, but what exactly do you mean? Fighting? With whom?

It differs depending on the concept being tested. It may include live sparring. At the very least, it is a way of isolating the proper context for the application of the concept, so that the practitioner can learn the proper Time/Space/and Energy to be successful.

For example, not too long ago I had a visitor from out-of-state that came to see me about a particular problem: that he lacked power in his punch. Within 30 minutes his punch was knocking his training partners into walls. He kept saying, "I can't believe it!" But it's simply a matter of my being able to do it, and also being able to communicate effectively with him, to help him find it. Of course, that doesn't mean he'll be able to use it successfully against a skilled fighter though; that only comes with lots of practice, and with actually trying to use it against a skilled fighters.

That's great that you helped him with that. In HFY, learning the correct vertical punching technique and power output is built right into the training methodology. It's called the 'Siu Lin Tau' progression (as opposed to 'Siu Nim Tau', the first form --- big difference). And there is a very specific progression of training it to get the desired results in a very short amount of time. It includes the proper body mechanics and structure for the vertical punch, including whole body structure and proper footwork movement. I won't go into all the detail, but suffice to say it's right there, built right into the SMK curriculum, and it's not an afterthought or an add-on. And it's trained at a very specific time and place in the overall curriculum progression. On purpose. For a reason. It's not disconnected from other learning, but serves as a 'foundation' point for other learning co