Learning applications vs training for real skill

[kenneth fish]

In the 40 or so years that I have been doing CMA, I have seen many approaches to teaching and learning traditional Chinese martial arts. The more I see, the more I appreciate the very traditional manner in which I was taught. Every highly skilled teacher I have had has taught the same way - and i believe with good reason. My first teacher, Henry Leung, taught me his family style of proto Wing Chun. I learned from him every night in the basement of his restaurant. The first month consisited of nothing but stance work and very basic hand movements. Sifu Leung would correct me regularly throughout the night, but mostlly it was solitary work to get stance strength w/ quality of strength (springy yet strong), alignment, and mechanics (song kua, center in the area below the groin, relaxed shoulder, hip and akle joints etc). Sifu Leung would only add a movement or a concept if he felt I demonstrated sufficient grasp of what he taught me up to that point. Progress was slow, methodical, and painful. Sometimes other new students would come, and soon be doing applications. I felt like I was missing out, and asked Sifu about it. He told me "never mind them. Don't pay it any attention. You do your work". That was not terribly stisfying, but I did as he said. Later I relized that although the other students had learned lots of techniques, their skills existed from the shoulders on out - they did not have the foundation skills. Why did Sifu Leung teach them this way? Basically, he was giving them what they wanted (demanded in a sense). He, like most teachers, separated students (in his mind and teaching) into students and customers. The customers would come and go, and would not have either the intellectual capability or patience to do the real work. They would leave happy with what they got (basically a bag of tricks) and were not even aware that there was another world of depth and skill to be learned - the real art, the real kung fu.

This process was repeated with most of my teachers. When I learned from Master Zhang Jun Feng and his wife Xu Baomei, it was the same. Master and Mrs. Zhang would have me training skill (liangong) while others were working on applications. Again, I would ask, and be told (generally in somewhat hushed tones) "just work on what you are doing. You can learn that any time. This is more important now".

Others followed - Mrs. Zhu Suyi, taught me Tongbei, Xingyi and Bagua in the same way. My Shaolin teacher was equally strict and even more severe with his training methods.

After the foundation work was in place with each teacher, I slowly learned the sensitivity, speed, footwork, body placement, and appication work with each teacher. Traditional instruction was rational, methodical, and progressive in nature.

Today I see a lot of students and teachers who emphasize learning to fight from the start. I cannot count the number I have seen who have spent a year or two with a list of teachers, amassing forms and techinques, with very little in the way of real kung fu body mechanics and movements. What is distressing to me is that this seems to have become the standard, and these teachers and students do not know what it is that they do not know. The problem is two fold - teachers with only a low level of understanding giving students what they ask for (essentially kungfu flavored kickboxing) and students thinking that this is what it is about and demanding the same from their teachers. And so even really skilled teachers do as Sifu Leung and my other teachers did - give the students what they ask for (instead of what they need), and divide the instruction up between students and "customers".

Teaching kung fu is hard. It is not easy to find good students with the physical and mental attributes it takes to learn these complex, demanding skills, yet modern egalitarian culture tells us that anybody can become good at anything. While I believe that although anyone can attain a degree of skill at any endeavor, there are some limiting factors - innate talent, the amount of work invested, and competent instruction.

Contrast learning traditional Chinese martial arts with learning, say, ballet or piano. If a student were to complain, after a month or two of instruction, that they can't yet leap like Nureyev or improvise like Coltrane, they would be thought of as delusional. If the student slacked in practice, and complained that they were getting nowhere, there would be no question as to where the fault lay. Yet weekend martial arts students, or students who invest perhaps an hour a day in martial arts practice expect to reach levels of skill comparable to the teachers of generations past. It simply cannot happen.

I now, more than ever, teach like my teachers taught me. I concentrate on the important details of foundation skill with them, and we train them endlessly. Applications are shown as a way of letting the student know what the importance and applications of the skills they are working on are. Real fighting skill? After about 3 years of foundation work ( given the constraints of modern training time). Time in practice is a determining factor - I put in about 5 hours a day when I lived in Taiwan (5:30 to 8:30 AM on most days, then some more in the afternoon, and at least an hour at night). If this seems unreasonable, how many hours a day do you think a ballet dancer or classical guitarist trains and practices?

Excessive concentration on learning to fight in the fromative stages of learning will, in my opinion, impede the acquisition of real skills. The student will only learn/reinforce what they already know or what comes most easily, and will eventually leave with nothing but techniques.

[yusuf]

teachers with only a low level of understanding giving students what they ask for (essentially kungfu flavored kickboxing) and students thinking that this is what it is about and demanding the same from their teachers.

QFT ..

Well said Ven Fish...

[Kurt Robbins]

A lot of teachers teach this way; from my grappling Thai Boxing coach to my old juijitsu coach. The unfortunate aspect is when the teacher does not have a realistic applicable approach from the basic training on. Sounds like you were lucky in finding someone who could take you through the whole way.
My Baji teacher was great at jing be Gong and forms but little to no understanding of practical usages,realistic applications and sensitivity. Judo teachers - Muay Thai teachers grappleing... etc etc have this method In general.
I think you have a good fromula for a great teaching method.

[Dale Dugas]

Incredible post Shifu Fish.

I have to show it to my students when the complain.

[dragontigerpalm]

Great post about what should be an obvious truth.

[Ron Panunto]

Well Ken, I don't think that anyone with any experience would dispute that classical training provides the strongest foundation for excellence in the arts, however, I think the type of training requested by a student depends on why he is training. You compared mastery in CMA to mastery in ballet, classical guitar and jazz, and I assume that you were referring to PROFESSIONAL dancers and musicians, i.e., those who choose to make a living through dance or music. If someone wants to be a professional teacher of martial arts or a professional bodyguard, then I wholeheartedly agree that they should put in the 5 hours a day practice, however, IMO 95% of all MA practitioners are simply hobbyists who might attend one or two classes a week and attend an occasional seminar, and chances are they will only do this for a few years before tiring of it and moving onto something else. So I don't think it's reasonable to expect all students to spend three years in a horse stance before they are shown how to through a punch.

[Chris McKinley]

I'd go further and say that, not only don't they put in the time on the foundation, they don't learn how to fight either. IOW, the worst of both worlds. By far, most modern practitioners of CIMA do not know how to handle themselves in a real violent assault, especially one which involves weapons used in anger. This is indiscriminate of whether they spend time on foundational skills or not, and as Dr. Fish explained so well above, most do not. Sadly, I see a widespread commonality of lack in both respects.

[mixjourneyman]

The article certainly gives a lot to chew on.

The problem is that people bring unrealistic expectations to martial arts.
How many of us started martial arts because we thought we could have an average level of skills?
Probably not many.
We all want to be able to move as fast as Bruce Lee and eat brainz as good as JW, but for the most part, most of us don't have the drive to do that (self included). Plus we don't know how to go about doing it.
Martial arts has too many facets to be a realistic option for most people.
That is compounded by the fact that there is no easy way.

By the same token, at this point in my martial arts practice I am just happy to reap the basic benefits in terms of health and peace of mind. That is what I think most people can get from practicing MA. So at least there is a bright side to all this.

[H2O_Dragon]

I kinda agree with this, and I kinda don't. I definately agree with the elements Mr. Fish is talking about, I'm not so sure the specific order is necesary. I've seen this in Muay Thai, Boxing, Judo, BJJ, all the sports arts. Usually, you start learning technique, but it doesn't work for whatever reason. You go ask coach what's wrong, and he tells you to do some boring little movement, 'about 10,000 times'. Thing is, now the motivation to eat bitter is there. You train the basics at home, and go to class to spar, roll, randori, whatever. It's always pretty obvious who's doing extra training on their own. I do disagree with the premise that too much focus on fighting impedes development. I think focus on fighting stresses the importance of foundational training, especially when you have a wide range of experience on the fighting floor.

With all that being said, I find it funny that Mr. Fish said it takes about 3 years to get to real fighting skill. Judo, Boxing, Muay Thai, BJJ, I've heard the same thing in all those arts as well as Taijiquan, about 3 years to proficiency. I think this is what the old 'many pths to the mountaintop' saying was getting at.

[Darthwing Teorist]

In Systema, every class is different: we learn applications, but they vary widely while the principles stay the same. I like this approach because it gives certain base to be used quickly while at the same time it de-emphasizes rote learning. It also helps in the way that you glimpse examples of how to apply the basic principles, eventually allowing oneself to be confident enough to let the body do what it was trained to do.

It depends how the martial art curriculum is structured: IMO, it is good to learn a few good basics quickly while being aware of your limitations and the fact that the training is deeper than what you can do at the moment. Having a good teacher that is like a lighthouse pointing to what is possible and showing you the way, helps a lot.

[neijia_boxer]

the customer/student treatment i believe is more an American one. I usually see the successful long term relationship of the teacher-student in Asia culture with Asian teachers and asian students sadly. America students often go to several places until they find a teacher they like.

Ken- it was you that showed me some really good kick mechanics that went full circle with me on some material Park had taught in terms of pakua kicks.- that was a customer lesson.

I'm practicing again on Park Bok Nam's Pakua material and teachings since. there was a whole lot of 'eat bitter' when I went to his school and another kung fu school prior in Richmond Va. some days it was a whole lot of stance holding or just a few techniques to do over and over until the legs and body were just so sore all over. that was real student work.


great post, i'll be sharing it with some people who need to know it. the human Body has to have a good structural foundation drilled into it other wise the applications will not have much behind it.

Alot of people dont want to do the hard work and i see tons of people doing forms with awful stances and flexibility.

[kenneth fish]

Matt:

Yes - and bear in mind that I was teaching you in the context of teaching you a few times before you went to a tournament - not in the context of having you as a student. We also worked on slipping and side stepping, as well as getting your stance narrower and more mobile - areas that only get better with repetitive drilling.

[GrahamB]

Yet weekend martial arts students, or students who invest perhaps an hour a day in martial arts practice expect to reach levels of skill comparable to the teachers of generations past.

I agree with the general spirit of your post Ken, but is the above quote really the case? I keep reading stuff like this here... I'm beginning to think it's a dumb kind of argument used to put other people down. A straw man argument.

In all my years of doing martial arts in the UK I've hardly every met anybody who thought they were going to become some sort of great master with minimal training. Is it an American thing? Is the US overwhelmed with armies of delusional martial arts practitioners who are dumb enough to think they can be a ninja after a weekends training course? I doubt it. People are people wherever you go.

All you have to do is put on the gloves and test it out in a friendly spar and you know exactly where you're at. Belts, etc, have no meaning in that sense. You're as good as you are. Mainly that you suck and you need to practice more is the conclusion you normally come to

Conversely, I wonder how many established teachers fall into the trap of not testing themselves in this way anymore? They become too obsessed with the fine details - the little things that make it right - and stop checking themselves in the more obvious things. They assume the position of being the established teacher, too above it all to get their hands dirty. That's not aimed at anyone, I just think it's another trap you can fall into. Sure, you don't practice the basics sufficiently you're going to suck (anyone who has ever got very good at any skill knows this), but there are plenty of other traps to fall into that make you suck as well.

I'd just like to offer this as an alternative viewpoint, and I don't mean to get in the way of all the back slapping too much.

Also the whole customer/real student thing is avoided by finding teachers who don't charge and teach because they enjoy it and want to pass it on. Very rare, but they are out there somewhere. Kind of like the A-Team

[Royal Dragon]

I think it is important to work on applications almost form the first lesson. When I teach, the first few weeks are basics in the air only, but after that i include some sort of two man work in every class. If a student needs to work basics more, the two man work may only be in the last 10 minutes or so, but I think it is important to do some sort of two man work every time.

My reason is several fold. one is that the two man work is the reward for hard work. Students actually train harder if they see a bit of a reward after class.

Some of my reasoning has to do with the fact that hard training requires a gradual cooling down period after, and basic twoman app work fits the bill nicely.

another reason is that two man work ties to the solo foundational work, and it shows a solid progressive methodology that instill a lot of confidence in the student.

[Darthwing Teorist]

America students often go to several places until they find a teacher they like.

Maybe I interpret this wrong, but I don't see what it wrong with find a teacher that you like. Why should you waste your time in a school that you realize that you don't like? If you don't like a teacher why stay if you have other choices? While the path is shown by the teacher, the student is the one who manages his travel and chooses his paths.