MaartenSFS wrote:I believe that anyone that wants to teach martial arts should determine their focus, that is to specify what skill their students can expect to gain within a reasonable time frame and in what context they will be able to use it. The teacher should have this skill and be able to use it against a resisting opponent. Being great at sticky or push hands is just not going to cut it, if that's the end goal. I'm not against those training methods as a part of the partner training before it gets real, but I can't accept skill in those alone equating to skill in fighting.
For example, if 75-80% of Taijiquan is Shuaifa/Qinna and how to counter them, the focus should probably be on gaining those skills and how to use them in wrestling (since Tuishou as it should be practised is way too limiting, in my opinion, to be considered as fighting or wrestling). The teacher should be able to handle themselves quite well in wrestling and use most of these techniques in the curriculum against a fully resisting opponent. The striking aspects can also be taught, but more as additional self-defence techniques when the shit hits the fan.
If it's Xinyiliuhequan then the teacher should be able to do the same for sparring using the fists, elbows, shoulders and some low kicks, preferably full-contact, and won't be expected to be a champion wrestler.
With a well-rounded art like Baguazhang I suppose it could go either way or they should be able to do both.
If you decide to excel at all aspects of combat it's a much tougher path and you'll have to contend with a lot more different types of fighters that may want to test you, but you can say that you are a true warrior.
I've decided, over the years, to focus on swordsmanship with the Chinese sabre and feel confident that anyone that comes to me will not walk away disappointed by my ability and will be 100% clear as to what they stand to gain under my tutelage. I'm still working to be that confident about my unarmed sparring, which focuses on open-handed and fist techniques with the occasional low kick. I think that determining your focus in this way is great for students, as they will know what they are working towards and will be able to measure their success with frequent reality checks, but this approach also helps keep one from becoming delusional about one's own abilities. Whatever you decide I wish you all the best.
MaartenSFS wrote:I teach my swordsmanship to be compatible with a host of every day objects. If you had taken a quick glance at the swordsmanship section of my webpage or read any of my swordsmanship threads you'd know that. I believe it to be every bit as practical for self defence as many unarmed systems.
My students will learn how to fence against a fully resisting opponent using modern safety equipment. It's a combat sport. That skill will be easily transferable to a multitude of other weapons and even unarmed fighting. Clear enough for you?
MaartenSFS wrote:I believe that anyone that wants to teach martial arts should determine their focus, that is to specify what skill their students can expect to gain within a reasonable time frame and in what context they will be able to use it.
would not this be the "style" CMA styles tend to specialise in different aspects They believe to give them an advantage
The teacher should have this skill and be able to use it against a resisting opponent. Being great at sticky or push hands is just not going to cut it, if that's the end goal. I'm not against those training methods as a part of the partner training before it gets real, but I can't accept skill in those alone equating to skill in fighting.
For example, if 75-80% of Taijiquan is Shuaifa/Qinna and how to counter them, the focus should probably be on gaining those skills and how to use them in wrestling (since Tuishou as it should be practised is way too limiting, in my opinion, to be considered as fighting or wrestling). The teacher should be able to handle themselves quite well in wrestling and use most of these techniques in the curriculum against a fully resisting opponent. The striking aspects can also be taught, but more as additional self-defence techniques when the shit hits the fan.
If it's Xinyiliuhequan then the teacher should be able to do the same for sparring using the fists, elbows, shoulders and some low kicks, preferably full-contact, and won't be expected to be a champion wrestler.
With a well-rounded art like Baguazhang I suppose it could go either way or they should be able to do both.
If you decide to excel at all aspects of combat it's a much tougher path and you'll have to contend with a lot more different types of fighters that may want to test you, but you can say that you are a true warrior.
I've decided, over the years, to focus on swordsmanship with the Chinese sabre and feel confident that anyone that comes to me will not walk away disappointed by my ability and will be 100% clear as to what they stand to gain under my tutelage. I'm still working to be that confident about my unarmed sparring, which focuses on open-handed and fist techniques with the occasional low kick. I think that determining your focus in this way is great for students, as they will know what they are working towards and will be able to measure their success with frequent reality checks, but this approach also helps keep one from becoming delusional about one's own abilities. Whatever you decide I wish you all the best.
marvin8 wrote:MaartenSFS wrote:I teach my swordsmanship to be compatible with a host of every day objects. If you had taken a quick glance at the swordsmanship section of my webpage or read any of my swordsmanship threads you'd know that. I believe it to be every bit as practical for self defence as many unarmed systems.
My students will learn how to fence against a fully resisting opponent using modern safety equipment. It's a combat sport. That skill will be easily transferable to a multitude of other weapons and even unarmed fighting. Clear enough for you?
I did read your "swordsmanship section of your webpage" and "swordsmanship threads." No, it is not clear enough to me, as a consumer.
Again, self-defense does not come to mind with swordsmanship training. You have not clearly conveyed to me (the consumer) how training swordsmanship is "easily transferable to a multitude of other weapons and even unarmed fighting." That is the reason I asked.
Do I carry or find a sword, stick or bat with me on the streets? This is a limited situation. For unarmed fighting, it would seem to me spending time training unarmed combat is more effective. It is the responsibility of the teacher/business person to convey the transferability and practicality of the training being taught.
windwalker wrote:MaartenSFS wrote:I believe that anyone that wants to teach martial arts should determine their focus, that is to specify what skill their students can expect to gain within a reasonable time frame and in what context they will be able to use it.
would not this be the "style" CMA styles tend to specialise in different aspects They believe to give them an advantage
The teacher should have this skill and be able to use it against a resisting opponent. Being great at sticky or push hands is just not going to cut it, if that's the end goal. I'm not against those training methods as a part of the partner training before it gets real, but I can't accept skill in those alone equating to skill in fighting.
For example, if 75-80% of Taijiquan is Shuaifa/Qinna and how to counter them, the focus should probably be on gaining those skills and how to use them in wrestling (since Tuishou as it should be practised is way too limiting, in my opinion, to be considered as fighting or wrestling). The teacher should be able to handle themselves quite well in wrestling and use most of these techniques in the curriculum against a fully resisting opponent. The striking aspects can also be taught, but more as additional self-defence techniques when the shit hits the fan.
If it's Xinyiliuhequan then the teacher should be able to do the same for sparring using the fists, elbows, shoulders and some low kicks, preferably full-contact, and won't be expected to be a champion wrestler.
With a well-rounded art like Baguazhang I suppose it could go either way or they should be able to do both.
If you decide to excel at all aspects of combat it's a much tougher path and you'll have to contend with a lot more different types of fighters that may want to test you, but you can say that you are a true warrior.
I've decided, over the years, to focus on swordsmanship with the Chinese sabre and feel confident that anyone that comes to me will not walk away disappointed by my ability and will be 100% clear as to what they stand to gain under my tutelage. I'm still working to be that confident about my unarmed sparring, which focuses on open-handed and fist techniques with the occasional low kick. I think that determining your focus in this way is great for students, as they will know what they are working towards and will be able to measure their success with frequent reality checks, but this approach also helps keep one from becoming delusional about one's own abilities. Whatever you decide I wish you all the best.
Don't agree with your characterization of Chinese MA. Yes they should and do have to deal with all different types of fighters hence the different styles
development thought to give one an advantage. Weapon training ie swordsmanship is a good niche to fit into...kendo, Iaidō, escrima among others might be considered to be market competitors.
It might be good to look at their marketing and market focus.
While I do not teach commercially tired it a couple of times , I've removed my self from the taiji market feeling for the most part that the common expectations held by those in it do not align with my own of essence and functionality . as to reality checks, getting hit a good reality check,,,training on moving with awareness helps one to understand how not to get hit while hitting the focus.
luck in finding your niche and developing your market.
MaartenSFS wrote:I believe that anyone that wants to teach martial arts should determine their focus, that is to specify what skill their students can expect to gain within a reasonable time frame and in what context they will be able to use it.
Bao wrote:If you just want to only teach fighting, you can teach Sanda. If you want a traditional art then it’s more complicated,...
windwalker wrote:wish you well in any endeavor you choose.
Being a corrections officer is a lifestyle.
One that may not allow you enough time to pursue your other goals. Having said this I did know Aikido teachers in Hawaii who were corrections officers.
their art was tested on a regular basis.
Bao wrote:MaartenSFS wrote:I believe that anyone that wants to teach martial arts should determine their focus, that is to specify what skill their students can expect to gain within a reasonable time frame and in what context they will be able to use it.
If you just want to only teach fighting, you can teach Sanda. If you want a traditional art then it’s more complicated, you need both a short-time and a long-time goal. Traditional arts build a specific body method, a way you move and use your body. If you don’t want to teach this kind of practice that includes basic training, jibengong as stance work, you can just go and teach Sanda instead.
For weapons I believe that anyone who has a good foundation in any tcma could pick up a stick or a steel rod and make himself pretty well use of it. Any TCMA body is originally designed for using tools and weapons.
johnwang wrote:Bao wrote:If you just want to only teach fighting, you can teach Sanda. If you want a traditional art then it’s more complicated,...
I don't understand your logic here. I teach my student how to fight. I also teach my student TCMA. There is no conflict there. My entering strategy and finish strategy are my goal. After I have defined my goal, I then find a path to get there. I won't teach anything that's not useful for fighting.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: Appledog and 12 guests