MaartenSFS wrote: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.
EXACTLY. And the path to get to the goal shouldn't take them around the mountain fifty times or to another mountain or down the river.. It should be efficient.
Also, there are different Shenfa for different purposes. Some are better for striking and some are better for wrestling, etc. Tonight the Shenfa for Longsword and Rapier fencing were completely different from each other and from what I do. When I tried my hand at Rapier fencing a lot of what I learned was not applicable, even my foundation training. I can't wait to try my hand at other types of weapons.
Swordsmanship/fencing does not equate to nor is it an efficient way of learning striking, wrestling or fighting skills.
I agree with Peacedog that "you may find 1000 people truly interested in the Chinese sabre." There is an existing market for swordsmanship/fencing workshop, classes, videos, etc. Most likely, your major target market is those with similar interests.
Your conflating by equating fencing and fighting.
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.