'Things I should have learned about WC in a year but didnt.'

[quietobserver]

Fair enough, to each his own, Wing Chun isn't my thing but I have no interest in belittling it as an art. I will say that once you understand how the mechanics of a punch work it's not so much a matter of being taught as it is just putting in the time throwing punches. It took my teacher less than a full class to show me the mechanics, after that it was up to me to spend the time hitting the bag. Do you guys use heavy bags or do you hit something else? I ask because although I box now I have a background in kung fu and my shr fu stressed hitting the heavy bag- not as much as my boxing coaches do but he made it clear that that was the way to develop power.



I agree completely that no matter how good you are you have to practice regularly, but I'm willing to bet that Tyson still hits like a freight train compared to the rest of the world. I think he fell off because he lost his heart (and discipline) after his trainer died.



@ Troll Virus: Just STFU and GTFO

any trained fighter can be effective at his art. Mike Tyson is not an average person. Mike Tyson is a phenomenal athlete and if he were to punch you it's going to hurt. Maybe you can punch mike tyson too, but Tyson is used to getting punched in the face. Probably more so than you are. That's why it's silly to criticize other martial arts or styles because a phenomenal athlete will be exeptional in the art he or she chooses.

[quietobserver]

WHAT would happen if a year-old baby fell from a fourth-floor window onto the head of a burly truck driver, standing on the sidewalk?
It's practically certain that the truckman would be knocked unconscious. He might die of brain concussion or a broken neck.
Even an innocent little baby can become a dangerous missile WHEN ITS BODY-WEIGHT IS SET INTO FAST MOTION.

You may feel as helpless as a year-old infant-as far as fighting is concerned; but please remember: (1) YOU WEIGH MORE THAN A BABY, and (2) YOU NEED NOT FALL FROM A WINDOW TO PUT YOUR BODY-WEIGHT INTO MOTION.

You have weight, and you have the means of launching that weight into fast motion. Furthermore, you have explosive ingredients. You may not appear explosive. You may appear as harmless as a stick of dynamite, which children have been known to mistake for an oversized stick of taffy.

You can launch your body-weight into fast motion; and, like dynamite, you can explode that hurtling weight against an opponent with a stunning, blasting effect known as follow-through.
Remember this: You don't have to be an athlete to learn how to use your fists. And it doesn't matter whether you're tall or short, fat or skinny, timid or brave. Regardless of your size, shape, or courage, you already have the weapons with which to protect yourself. I repeat: All you have to do is learn to use them correctly.

It's true that nearly every guy can fight a little bit naturally, without having anyone show him the right way. It's true also that the average boy or man might sit down at a piano and be able to pick out some sort of tune with one finger; or he might use the "hunt and peck" system on a typewriter until he had written a couple of lines; or he might jump into a pool and swim a bit with the dog-paddle or with his version of the breast stroke.

But he never could become a good pianist without being taught to play correctly. He never could become a fast, accurate typist without being drilled in the touch system. And he never could become a speed swimmer without being shown the crawl stroke.
It was yanked straight toward the earth by gravity. It encountered nothing to change the direction of its moving body-weight until it struck the truckman's head. However, the direction of a falling object can be changed. Let's take the example of a boy sitting on a sled and sliding down a snowy hill.
In a sense, the boy and his sled are falling objects, like the baby. But the slope of the hill prevents them from falling straight down.

Their fall is deflected to the angle of the hill. The direction of their weight-in-motion is on a slant. And when they reach the level plain at the bottom of the hill, they will continue to slide for a while. However, the direction of their slide on the plain-the direction of their weight-in-motion-will be straight out, at a right angle to the straight-down pull of gravity.

Those examples of the falling baby and the sledding boy illustrate two basic principles of the stepping jolt: (1) that gravity can give motion to weight by causing a fall, and (2) the direction of that weight-in-motion can be deflected away from the perpendicular-on a slant, or straight forward.

"But," you ask, "what's the connection between all that falling stuff and the straight jolt?" I'll answer that question by letting you take your first step as a puncher, and I do mean s-t-e-p.





TO PROTECT yourself with your fists, you must become a knockout puncher. And you may do that within three months, if you're a normal chap-anywhere between twelve and forty. By "normal" I mean healthy and sound-neither ailing nor crippled.

You should be able to knock out a fellow of approximately your own weight, with either fist, if you follow my instructions exactly and practice them diligently. And in six months or a year, you may be able to knock out fellows a lot bigger and heavier than you are.



Analogies are ways to get across a point that someone has missed by putting the view in another more obvious general knowledge context, I put the above analogies in as they are the words of Jack Dempsey, but then again I suppose you will say he did not understand either.

The stances are only meaningless if you have no knowledge as to their purpose, Siu Lim Tao stance is for strengthening the legs and is preparation for Chum Kiu, where there is more strengthening and understanding the falling and driving phases of a step, Biu Gee is more the fighting stance, as well as teaching the circling step and lifting energy.

Not sure which strikes you think are meaningless, punch, palm, finger/thumb, elbow or kick?

Give me a more precise question and I will endeavour to answer it without analogy.

I think your comments on the stances is subject to your own opinion. Different styles incorporate the stances in different ways. You say that the stances are exaggerated and maybe to a certain extent they are, but in times of extreme high stress situations you have to go with what you know. That's the whole purpose of learning how to balance yourself with the stances. Something must have gone very wrong if you've entered the fighting stage. It means there was a serious failure in communication and all avenues have been exhausted. When this happens, it's pretty much a crap shoot in who will win and who will not. You do not know how determined the other guy is. Maybe the other guy is drunk and doesn't care that you broke his nose and his teeth and he keeps swinging. You don't know if his friends are going to jump in behind you and take you down. All you can really know in a fight is lower the odds of you getting your butt kicked.

[quietobserver]

There are tae kwon do stylists (Yilmaz) who have entered K-1 and knocked out some so-so kickboxers and demonstrated heart against a world champ like Masato.

And Chinese stylists (Gibson) who have blended there styles with muay thai and have knocked out some decent fighters in thailand.

There are kenpo stylists (Hackney) who have knocked out fighters and other athletes and demonstrated heart against world class grapplers (Gracie) and MMA artists.

Can the traditional wingchun community produce a successfull full-contact fighter using wingchun alone?

I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would definitely catch the attention of the martial arts world.

I don't think so. Why? because the element of surprise is the main component in Wing Chun. The whole purpose of Wing Chun is attack is the best defence. If you look at Mixed Martial Arts, both fighters are prepared. They hover around each other, try to test each other's boundaries. Wait for the other guy to move and then launch their counter attack. Professional fighters scout each other out. They know each other's styles. The weaknesses and the strengths. A Wing Chun person would lose their biggest advantage: the element of surprise. Martial Arts competitions and Mixed Martial arts are not very realistic in terms of real life fights in the street. What are the chances that a well muscled martial artist is going to pick a fight with you in the middle of the street for no reason? And how often will someone of the same size will come to you and challenge you to a fight? Most times, the other guy is bigger than you, intoxicated, or feels like he can physically take you on. As the smaller guy, you need to act fast, get your sucker punch in, get the guy on the ground and run away.

[Sagacious Lu]

If I was just teaching people only to punch and then I could concentrate just on the dynamics of punching power, and as part of the syllabus that Wing Chun forms make up the punch is taught from the first lesson, I refer to what I call 'LESSON' ONE' all the time when I do seminars, and that means if you are in a fight remeber 'LESSON ONE' punch them!

Fair enough, to each his own, Wing Chun isn't my thing but I have no interest in belittling it as an art. I will say that once you understand how the mechanics of a punch work it's not so much a matter of being taught as it is just putting in the time throwing punches. It took my teacher less than a full class to show me the mechanics, after that it was up to me to spend the time hitting the bag. Do you guys use heavy bags or do you hit something else? I ask because although I box now I have a background in kung fu and my shr fu stressed hitting the heavy bag- not as much as my boxing coaches do but he made it clear that that was the way to develop power.

Why did Tyson loose his punching power? My view is that after the death of Cus D'Amata and leaving Kevin Rooney he had nobody around him with a good knowledge of punching to keep him on track, watch the early fights and you can see the punch coming up from the floor, later he was relying more on the power of his arms and shoulders, you need to keep practicing the right way to maintain the things you have learned.

I agree completely that no matter how good you are you have to practice regularly, but I'm willing to bet that Tyson still hits like a freight train compared to the rest of the world. I think he fell off because he lost his heart (and discipline) after his trainer died.



@ Troll Virus: Just STFU and GTFO

[tjwingchun]

In my humble response.

TJ, I apologise if I caused offence. The intentions of my post were not to offend. Twonk is a common and affectionately used term to describe confusing dialogue.

No offence taken you TWONKER!

The point of my post was to gain a genuine understanding of why certain (most traditional styles included here) schools teach and instruct 'basic's' as opposed to 'effective' strikes and stances.

The basics should be taught as effective strikes and stances, their practice within the forms as I have said are abstract and exaggerated, outside the form in applications, their usage should be demonstrated in real scenarios, increasing in intensity with experience and understanding.

Boxers (as one example) from the outset learn a stance that they will use in the ring. From day one their motor engrams are trained in techniques they will use. However many 'classical' styles teach stance and techniques from the outset that have little practical application.

The Wing Chun basic stance just has to relax up slightly so that it is a normal standing position and from 'LESSON ONE' you are taught to punch down the centreline to your opponents nose, or stop a strike by protecting your innergate area while covering the centreline.

How more practical can it get! to learn to stop from getting hit and hit when threatened.

As you appear knowledgeable on the subject I was hoping you could actually explain why (briefly) rather than use analogies.

Repeat at the end of this post to reinforce point, the more precise the question the more relevant the answer.

[tjwingchun]

You just admited that it doesn't take years to learn how to generate enough power with a basic strike to hurt someone. Thank you. Why couldn't you have just said "You know what Lu, you're right" and skipped all the bullshit?

There are no quick fixes in boxing, just a whole lot of hard work. @ Thai Bri I'm starting to understand why these guys piss you off.

If I was just teaching people only to punch and then I could concentrate just on the dynamics of punching power, and as part of the syllabus that Wing Chun forms make up the punch is taught from the first lesson, I refer to what I call 'LESSON' ONE' all the time when I do seminars, and that means if you are in a fight remeber 'LESSON ONE' punch them!

You said it yourself Sagacious Lu that the more you do the better you get. When I made my comments relating to time scale I was referring to my observations about how students develop their knowledge and how well they understand the punch, so that they could maintain good technique and practice.

Why did Tyson loose his punching power? My view is that after the death of Cus D'Amata and leaving Kevin Rooney he had nobody around him with a good knowledge of punching to keep him on track, watch the early fights and you can see the punch coming up from the floor, later he was relying more on the power of his arms and shoulders, you need to keep practicing the right way to maintain the things you have learned.

To me the forms are abstract, exaggerated movements that isolate the different parts of the body so you can develop knowledge of the muscle groups and the directions that they are effective, chi sau and dummy give you ways of understanding how to apply those energies together to be effective in a conflict situation.

Co-ordination and timing only develop over years and can only be maintained by practice, which is why any professional sports is a 7 days a week job.

You get big increases in skill and ability over the first couple of years, then comes fine tuning and consistancy.

The 'quick fix types' I was referring to were people who join and want everything then and there and are not prepared to put the time in to get it.

Kung Fu = hard work + skill, that is the translation.

I will repeat that I can only give direct answers to direct questions, how long is a piece of string? leads to "How High is a Chinaman? How Low is his brother!"

[tjwingchun]

In reply to tjwingchun.

What a load of TWONK !!

Algebra, a,b,c ..l,m,n !! What are you talking about ! I can guess that this is the 'classical mumbo jumbo' Bruce Lee criticised !

From what starts as a perceptive and enlightened view of many 'Classical' martial arts you seem to lose the plot. If you can't explain striking without resorting to very tenuous analogies then it could be because you don't understand yourself ?

WHAT would happen if a year-old baby fell from a fourth-floor window onto the head of a burly truck driver, standing on the sidewalk?
It's practically certain that the truckman would be knocked unconscious. He might die of brain concussion or a broken neck.
Even an innocent little baby can become a dangerous missile WHEN ITS BODY-WEIGHT IS SET INTO FAST MOTION.

You may feel as helpless as a year-old infant-as far as fighting is concerned; but please remember: (1) YOU WEIGH MORE THAN A BABY, and (2) YOU NEED NOT FALL FROM A WINDOW TO PUT YOUR BODY-WEIGHT INTO MOTION.

You have weight, and you have the means of launching that weight into fast motion. Furthermore, you have explosive ingredients. You may not appear explosive. You may appear as harmless as a stick of dynamite, which children have been known to mistake for an oversized stick of taffy.

You can launch your body-weight into fast motion; and, like dynamite, you can explode that hurtling weight against an opponent with a stunning, blasting effect known as follow-through.
Remember this: You don't have to be an athlete to learn how to use your fists. And it doesn't matter whether you're tall or short, fat or skinny, timid or brave. Regardless of your size, shape, or courage, you already have the weapons with which to protect yourself. I repeat: All you have to do is learn to use them correctly.

It's true that nearly every guy can fight a little bit naturally, without having anyone show him the right way. It's true also that the average boy or man might sit down at a piano and be able to pick out some sort of tune with one finger; or he might use the "hunt and peck" system on a typewriter until he had written a couple of lines; or he might jump into a pool and swim a bit with the dog-paddle or with his version of the breast stroke.

But he never could become a good pianist without being taught to play correctly. He never could become a fast, accurate typist without being drilled in the touch system. And he never could become a speed swimmer without being shown the crawl stroke.
It was yanked straight toward the earth by gravity. It encountered nothing to change the direction of its moving body-weight until it struck the truckman's head. However, the direction of a falling object can be changed. Let's take the example of a boy sitting on a sled and sliding down a snowy hill.
In a sense, the boy and his sled are falling objects, like the baby. But the slope of the hill prevents them from falling straight down.

Their fall is deflected to the angle of the hill. The direction of their weight-in-motion is on a slant. And when they reach the level plain at the bottom of the hill, they will continue to slide for a while. However, the direction of their slide on the plain-the direction of their weight-in-motion-will be straight out, at a right angle to the straight-down pull of gravity.

Those examples of the falling baby and the sledding boy illustrate two basic principles of the stepping jolt: (1) that gravity can give motion to weight by causing a fall, and (2) the direction of that weight-in-motion can be deflected away from the perpendicular-on a slant, or straight forward.

"But," you ask, "what's the connection between all that falling stuff and the straight jolt?" I'll answer that question by letting you take your first step as a puncher, and I do mean s-t-e-p.

Equally if you (or the other poster) believe you can strike (punch) effectively after 2-3 weeks then you show even more lack of understanding !

I can't think of much that's simpler or more basic than throwing a good hard punch. Once I was shown how to throw a punch it took me about 10 minutes of hitting a bag to realize that I could hit harder by using my legs and hips. After a couple of weeks the motion felt comfortable and natural to me, and it was obvious from the way the bag moved when I hit it that I was hitting A LOT harder than I used to. It didn't take 2-3 years, it was more like 2-3 weeks.

TO PROTECT yourself with your fists, you must become a knockout puncher. And you may do that within three months, if you're a normal chap-anywhere between twelve and forty. By "normal" I mean healthy and sound-neither ailing nor crippled.

You should be able to knock out a fellow of approximately your own weight, with either fist, if you follow my instructions exactly and practice them diligently. And in six months or a year, you may be able to knock out fellows a lot bigger and heavier than you are.

Take my post the right way. I get the impression you may very well know exactly what you are talking about. However drop the analogies and please tell us all why you do do all those 'seemingly' meaningless stances and strikes if they have no practical application in either the street, or even (dare I suggest it) the ring !

Analogies are ways to get across a point that someone has missed by putting the view in another more obvious general knowledge context, I put the above analogies in as they are the words of Jack Dempsey, but then again I suppose you will say he did not understand either.

The stances are only meaningless if you have no knowledge as to their purpose, Siu Lim Tao stance is for strengthening the legs and is preparation for Chum Kiu, where there is more strengthening and understanding the falling and driving phases of a step, Biu Gee is more the fighting stance, as well as teaching the circling step and lifting energy.

Not sure which strikes you think are meaningless, punch, palm, finger/thumb, elbow or kick?

Give me a more precise question and I will endeavour to answer it without analogy.

[Juicefree]

In my humble response.

TJ, I apologise if I caused offence. The intentions of my post were not to offend. Twonk is a common and affectionately used term to describe confusing dialogue.

The point of my post was to gain a genuine understanding of why certain (most traditional styles included here) schools teach and instruct 'basic's' as opposed to 'effective' strikes and stances.

Boxers (as one example) from the outset learn a stance that they will use in the ring. From day one their motor engrams are trained in techniques they will use. However many 'classical' styles teach stance and techniques from the outset that have little practical application.

As you appear knowledgeable on the subject I was hoping you could actually explain why (briefly) rather than use analogies.

Troll. You are correct, I am the dog's testicles (again, a light hearted point) so don't forget it. Next time, solely for your benfit I will supply sub-titles for the hard of understanding.

[Troll Virus]

Punches don't have to be perfect, they just have to be hard enough and accurate enough to hurt your opponent.

There's always room for improvement.
The closer you get to perfect, the more often you KO.
Ever KO someone with the first hit?

You just admited that it doesn't take years to learn how to generate enough power with a basic strike to hurt someone. Thank you. Why couldn't you have just said "You know what Lu, you're right" and skipped all the bullshit?

I won't presume to speak for TJ, but this threads about Wing Chun within a one year time frame.
TJ's put a lot of effort into his replies.
Maybe he just isn't saying what you want to hear though eh?

There are no quick fixes in boxing, just a whole lot of hard work.

Interesting statement.
Why not expand on that on an appropriate thread?

@ Thai Bri I'm starting to understand why these guys piss you off.

I'm starting to think Thai Bride and you are thinking of getting engaged?

[Sagacious Lu]

Dodge a question? ME? I don't think so, lol.

Not being funny, but when you have been teaching professionally for over twenty years blah blah blah blah...

Okay, now that you're done stroking your (apparently fragile) ego we can get on with the discussion

I tend to get students to think of the forms as an alphabet, once the sequence of letters have been learned,

So what? We're not talking about forms we're talking about hitting hard.

Getting close to my point now so stay focused.

That's a relief

Think of my example of the alphabet, A,B,C---X,Y,Z

You think that L,M,N are the essential parts that you have learned to give you a heavy punch, you could be right in your assumption.

However if you take a break and return to training just L,M,N you would be lacking the background knowledge from A,B,C.. etc. and if you decide to teach just L,M,N, then your student would be lacking the background stages that were essential in letting you progress to L,M,N,.. and inhibit them progressing to X,Y,Z.

You lost me here. I don't use letters to strike, I use my fists, knees, elbows, shins etc. It's just not that complicated.

In the same way you do not teach algebra before a child has learned to count, you don't fill a students mind with advanced, (though they might be perceived as simple) concepts before they are ready.

We're not talking about algebra either

Using the punching analysis you use, I can understand your view that once shown how to use your legs and hips you can develop a heavier punch, but there are aspects that you still have to learn for yourself, the co-ordination and timing that gets you closer to the "perfect punch" takes forever, the search for "perfection" keeps us striving forward, not accepting what is a 'better punch' but wanting what is a 'devastation punch'.

Are boxers the 'best punchers' in their career's after one year or four? (or in your case 2-3 weeks!) I don't know, it depends where you start judging them from, as a kid, youth, or when they start adult competition.

Punches don't have to be perfect, they just have to be hard enough and accurate enough to hurt your opponent. Obviously I'm a lot better now than I was after 2-3 weeks; that's because that was a long time ago and I've been training regularly ever since. Obviously the more I train the better I get; I never said I knew it all after 2-3 weeks, I just said I could throw a solid strike- which I could.

I have had students use their punch effectively within weeks/months

You just admited that it doesn't take years to learn how to generate enough power with a basic strike to hurt someone. Thank you. Why couldn't you have just said "You know what Lu, you're right" and skipped all the bullshit?

The "quick fix" types that Troll Virus refers to also appear in boxing.

There are no quick fixes in boxing, just a whole lot of hard work. @ Thai Bri I'm starting to understand why these guys piss you off.

Equally if you (or the other poster) believe you can strike (punch) effectively after 2-3 weeks then you show even more lack of understanding !

I don't see why you'd say this; I was able to win fights using punches long before I had any training at all. I looked sloppy doing it and I wouldn't have been able to beat a trained fighter but I was certainly able to knock the wind out of the guy who was trying to hurt me. It was effective enough that I got to go home with all my teeth. My understanding is that that was whole point of throwing the punch in the first place.

[Troll Virus]

In reply to tjwingchun.

What a load of TWONK !!

Algebra, a,b,c ..l,m,n !! What are you talking about ! I can guess that this is the 'classical mumbo jumbo' Bruce Lee criticised !

Not how I read it at all.
You've got someone trying to explain in text, things which are easily shown in person.
I fail to see;
A/ Why you need to be so offensive.
B/ Who the TWONK you are to have an opinion.

TJ will no doubt speak for himself, but having looked at your existing posts on here, you certainly seem to think you are t3h c0443ct1mund0
Post an Intro eh?

From what starts as a perceptive and enlightened view of many 'Classical' martial arts you seem to lose the plot. If you can't explain striking without resorting to very tenuous analogies then it could be because you don't understand yourself ?

Listen, why don't you go and think on how you, with all your expertise, could actually add to a discussion instead of subtracting from it.

Equally if you (or the other poster) believe you can strike (punch) effectively after 2-3 weeks then you show even more lack of understanding !

Which other poster?
What the TWONK do you know about it?

Take my post the right way. I get the impression you may very well know exactly what you are talking about. However drop the analogies and please tell us all why you do do all those 'seemingly' meaningless stances and strikes if they have no practical application in either the street, or even (dare I suggest it) the ring !

If you need any help getting your keyboard all the way up your crack, ask your schools auxiliary nurse.
She'll have the gloves and cream from last time TWONK.

TWONKER

[Juicefree]

In reply to tjwingchun.

What a load of TWONK !!

Algebra, a,b,c ..l,m,n !! What are you talking about ! I can guess that this is the 'classical mumbo jumbo' Bruce Lee criticised !

From what starts as a perceptive and enlightened view of many 'Classical' martial arts you seem to lose the plot. If you can't explain striking without resorting to very tenuous analogies then it could be because you don't understand yourself ?

Equally if you (or the other poster) believe you can strike (punch) effectively after 2-3 weeks then you show even more lack of understanding !

Take my post the right way. I get the impression you may very well know exactly what you are talking about. However drop the analogies and please tell us all why you do do all those 'seemingly' meaningless stances and strikes if they have no practical application in either the street, or even (dare I suggest it) the ring !

[Troll Virus]

Hey TJ, I for one, am not holding you personally responsible for the perception of WC in the wider market.
You've focussed on what it is that, you, yourself do, which is the sensible way to go.

I dunno, maybe this thread titles kind of unfortunate.
It's that time frame thing of 'a year'.

I remember getting a reaction a while ago, by saying that you could learn all you needed to know about MA in 12 months.
You could get all the data in that time if you applied yourself, but being able to apply the data is something else again.

Largely these discussions break down, because a lot of the abstracts have to be seen and felt to be understood.

Had a conversation with a guy a few years ago who was very Anti-WC.
Now I don't have a problem with anyone being overly Pro or Anti anything, as long as their opinion is based on experience, so I told him I wouldn't bother talking to him about it until he went and trained with a known guy who was local to him.
He went on a night the chief Instructor wasn't there, and he turned up late, so wasn't allowed to participate.
He then proceeded to lecture on about how awful the class was.
One he didn't participate in.

Now just like what you talk about what WC is to you, I do the same.
I think about what it is, rather than what it isn't, and that can clearly be different things to different people.
Everyone has different requirements.
I know what my limitations and expectations are in a fight, and it's a long time since I expected a string of classes to change my base ability.

WC has a broad range of principles and abstracts that I've found myself drawing on from time to time, which is great for me.
I didn't waste my time.
I can understand though, why those looking for Tekken Fighting Combos would be dissapointed in WC.

You mentioned a teaching analogy earlier.
Here's one of mine;

I used to talk to students about 'dot to dot' Kung Fu.
You get those dot-to-dot picture books, where you draw a line from 1 to 13, to 24, to 2 etc eventually getting a crude picture of Leo the Lion.
If you drew Leo the Lion free hand, his mane wouldn't be all spikey, you'd have curves etc.
First you get a childs drawing, and then you work on getting from point to point without the corners.

If all you need to do, is learn just enough to go scrawl on walls, then WC probably isn't for you.

Anyways, one of my concerns was how different the perspectives were.
TB, TJ & TV are all discussing the same WC organisation.
Where TJ and TV differ from TB is that we've both trained with the head of that organisation.
TB apparently had a bad experience with a sub instructor or two.
What I'd urge everyone else to do, is take on a seminar with Sam Kwok, or perhaps even Trevor here.
I think you'll get a much better idea from that, than from the discourse offered on the diverse Anti-WC threads here and elsewhere.

[tjwingchun]

This lofty business of lessons learned over the years is great and all, but you're dodging the real question. You said:...but up against seasoned streetfighters or martial artists a beginner with less than 2-3 years tend not to have the knowledge of body mechanics to generate power from the floor and put full bodyweight behind a strike to make it decisive.

Dodge a question? ME? I don't think so, lol.

Not being funny, but when you have been teaching professionally for over twenty years AND each lesson you teach is a personal development program (for up to 30+ people) AND you want each student to take something new away from the lesson AND you are aware of each students personal skills and learning curves AND you have students who still train with you since you started (who have a brain!) AND you have studied learning patterns AND you have a vision of educating rather than dictating AND you are frustrated by the crap Wing Chun that surrounds you and stains you with association, then you will live in my world, where I get questioned all the time by students and that is what I ask them to do, where I get tested, which I expect, where I expect to have to justify everything that I teach with reason, straightforward technique and principle, where you are never satisfied with being able to do it yourself until you can get others to achieve what you can do, where each day you find it difficult to carry on, until you get to the next lesson and a student with potential asks a question that you answer and they thank you for learning something new and you walk away feeling that you have least made a difference and it is not just a business!

OK rant over lets address the question/problem!

I tend to get students to think of the forms as an alphabet, once the sequence of letters have been learned, they can begin to understand how to put them into words and then sentences, and then when they have confidence they can , via chi sau, learn how to correspond with others, ultimately so they can win any argument they come across, the better educated, the more likely to be able to answer an unusual question.

Getting close to my point now so stay focused.

As a teacher you have to be aware of the stages of growth each student goes through and the level of individual ability/potential they bring with them. This is one of the reasons that I admire Wing Chun so much, not that it is MY style, I am not that arrogant to think that, it makes up a lot of who I am, or is it that it just suits me?

Wing Chun has an inherent developmental strategy that exists in the forms, from understanding new concepts/principles/movements with an isolated limb that you have most control over and think you are good at! The arm/hand in Siu Lim Tao, then understanding how you build co-ordination of the whole body, Chum Kiu and finally how you use the different ways you can use the body in fighting, Biu Gee. The dummy gives realisation about movement and reactive energies, the pole and knives provides extra training for strength and focusing your energies.

Which is absurd. I can't think of much that's simpler or more basic than throwing a good hard punch. Once I was shown how to throw a punch it took me about 10 minutes of hitting a bag to realize that I could hit harder by using my legs and hips. After a couple of weeks the motion felt comfortable and natural to me, and it was obvious from the way the bag moved when I hit it that I was hitting A LOT harder than I used to. It didn't take 2-3 years, it was more like 2-3 weeks. So I repeat the question I asked on page 2:

Think of my example of the alphabet, A,B,C---X,Y,Z

You think that L,M,N are the essential parts that you have learned to give you a heavy punch, you could be right in your assumption.

However if you take a break and return to training just L,M,N you would be lacking the background knowledge from A,B,C.. etc. and if you decide to teach just L,M,N, then your student would be lacking the background stages that were essential in letting you progress to L,M,N,.. and inhibit them progressing to X,Y,Z.

In the same way you do not teach algebra before a child has learned to count, you don't fill a students mind with advanced, (though they might be perceived as simple) concepts before they are ready. The fact that there are many concepts and principles attached to techniques in the forms require them to be dealt with in order, not through some wish to hold a student back but to maintain the structure and teaching programme of the forms, in the same way the alphabet is fixed when the e's and s's are the most used but don't come first, everybody is an individual who learns at different rates and has different abilities in understanding various aspects of Wing Chun, the necessity to have a four year training regime is because there is so much to learn in the system, and to have a study plan laid out that covers anybody learning from scratch is invaluable. How to adapt that plan to the individual student and their particular abilities and needs is up to the individual instructor and their knowledge and understanding of that specific student.

Using the punching analysis you use, I can understand your view that once shown how to use your legs and hips you can develop a heavier punch, but there are aspects that you still have to learn for yourself, the co-ordination and timing that gets you closer to the "perfect punch" takes forever, the search for "perfection" keeps us striving forward, not accepting what is a 'better punch' but wanting what is a 'devastation punch'.

Are boxers the 'best punchers' in their career's after one year or four? (or in your case 2-3 weeks!) I don't know, it depends where you start judging them from, as a kid, youth, or when they start adult competition. The more you practice, the better you get, the better you know yourself, the better you are at 'self-development'.

If I only had the PUNCH to teach, then I could concentrate on just that and I could add Chum Kiu, Biu Gee, Dummy, Knife and Pole form knowledge to Siu Lim Tao understanding in the first few weeks/months, but I have a complete system to teach and although you think my methods absurd, I have had students use their punch effectively within weeks/months without the need to give them more to think about than Siu Lim Tao.

The "quick fix" types that Troll Virus refers to also appear in boxing, they did in the 50's which is why Jack Dempsey wrote his book 'Championship Fighting', though he called them "Fancy Dan's", a good student gets better, faster, the secret is to keep them progressing and their knowledge accelerating as they go further on with practice.

[Troll Virus]

If you're having a problem performing when nature calls than what you need is a good laxative, not kung fu lessons

LOL.

Good one.