Tonight, something dawned on me during class. Like many things in WT, the concept seems so simple but actually fairly difficult to execute exquisitely. Tonight's idea: having confidence is such a big part of being able to go forward and attack as a defense.
In practicing defending against random attacks, I’ve always been told:
- “You are moving in too late!”
- “You need to move your body earlier!”
- “Go forward!”
- “You need to step into him earlier!”
It is still difficult to do, but whatever has happened in the last year has made it a little easier to follow these concepts. And I think it has to do with a different level of confidence, which comes from several things, but I’ll mention a few: a little more experience, not caring too much and tensing up for fear of getting hit during training, and the development of a more reliable structure.
More experience
I won’t say much more about this, as it has been mentioned several times that it’s about the intensity and dedication to the training session that counts. With the limited amount of time devoted to WT training, all the more reason to do so!
Less fear of getting hit
A perfect attack/defense isn’t going to be executed every single time. Mistakes are bound to be made on the journey. That’s where training comes into play! And if I get hit, so what? I’m still working on this aspect of training – not flinching, not evading a la natural instinct… just taking the hit and try and try again. If it were that easy, then why work so hard? This “not caring” attitude sure is tough to get used to!
Reliable structure
Something reliable to back up the argument. A little oomph and engine behind the kick-start. I guess it’s not just strength though, but a flowing force that ends with a good oomph, which will hopefully be learned with time. It’s like with anything, you need to have the skills to back up what you’re getting yourself into. For example, competing in ice skating (sorry, I’ve been watching NHL players on CBC’s “Battle of the Blades”), a breakaway shootout shot in hockey, running into an emergency Code Blue… if you don’t “got somethin’”, why would you go ahead? I think that having a reliable structure helps a lot with the WT concept of going forward, by contributing to the building of confidence.
What else?
I did leave something out though. This confidence is also a part of the “fighting spirit” that some people just have. Like turning on a switch, these people just have it. Without being involved in any fights or big sparring competitions, I wonder if this quality can be bred. It depends a lot on the individual. Check out these blog posts:
http://stevemcminn.blogspot.com/2009/10/it-is-not-necessarily-martial-art-but.html
http://usefulnessisinemptiness.blogspot.com/2009/09/applying-traditional-kung-fu-concepts.html
Well, that just about wraps this light-bulb thought of mine for the night.
Si-Fu: “Go forward!”
To-dai: “But, with what, and then what?”
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
A tradition that evolves over time
I recently came across an article by GM Kernspecht on Wingtsun Welt at http://www.wingtsunwelt.com/news.php?id=1729
Quote: “Asians often have a different point of view, and in my experience many would rather allow themselves to be struck on the head than use a technique that is not part of their style.”
I hope he was using the word “Asians” to describe “traditionalists”. Because then I would tend to agree more with that statement. But only if the word “traditionalist” means that the person is traditional in the techniques rather than the concepts of WT. After all, how many times have you heard that WT is not a style, but a system?
Traditional techniques
If the person is traditional in the techniques only, and also without realizing how or where they originated from, then to this person in WT there are bong saus, tan saus, fak saus, straight punches, and even hooking punches, etc. However, there wouldn’t be a spinning back fist or a high roundhouse kick in the WT repertoire.
Is this person limited or restricted then? Perhaps, but what if a so-called traditional technique does the job every single time? Hard to predict that, but then there would be no problems whatsoever. But if an attack isn’t used because it wasn’t in the dictionary of traditional techniques, at the expense of getting hit instead, then that would be considered a failure. This is what the above article alluded to. I suppose this scenario could happen, but hopefully whatever high-impact hit is done is still economical and to the point without wasting too much energy. To counter that though, what if it doesn’t fit those ideas but still gets the job done anyways?
Traditional concepts
If the person is traditional in the concepts, then I don’t think that’d be too much of a problem, as long as there are functional and effective techniques to back up those concepts. Because either the concepts would create the techniques, or certain techniques would fit into the concepts. After all, “if the way is clear, then move forward” could mean a nice high hook kick to an open face. If you’ve seen some demos by Sifu Heinrich Pfaff, then you know what I mean.
Anyways, my first reflexive response to that article was “wait… I’m an Asian – what is he trying to say?” But in my infant years of learning WT, I think he was trying to say when it comes to learning a martial art, that it’s sometimes okay to be goal-oriented and think about the ends rather than the means. And if we are stubborn traditionalists, then we might lose out on certain aspects of training WT.
Do you want to be traditional or effective?
Quote: “Asians often have a different point of view, and in my experience many would rather allow themselves to be struck on the head than use a technique that is not part of their style.”
I hope he was using the word “Asians” to describe “traditionalists”. Because then I would tend to agree more with that statement. But only if the word “traditionalist” means that the person is traditional in the techniques rather than the concepts of WT. After all, how many times have you heard that WT is not a style, but a system?
Traditional techniques
If the person is traditional in the techniques only, and also without realizing how or where they originated from, then to this person in WT there are bong saus, tan saus, fak saus, straight punches, and even hooking punches, etc. However, there wouldn’t be a spinning back fist or a high roundhouse kick in the WT repertoire.
Is this person limited or restricted then? Perhaps, but what if a so-called traditional technique does the job every single time? Hard to predict that, but then there would be no problems whatsoever. But if an attack isn’t used because it wasn’t in the dictionary of traditional techniques, at the expense of getting hit instead, then that would be considered a failure. This is what the above article alluded to. I suppose this scenario could happen, but hopefully whatever high-impact hit is done is still economical and to the point without wasting too much energy. To counter that though, what if it doesn’t fit those ideas but still gets the job done anyways?
Traditional concepts
If the person is traditional in the concepts, then I don’t think that’d be too much of a problem, as long as there are functional and effective techniques to back up those concepts. Because either the concepts would create the techniques, or certain techniques would fit into the concepts. After all, “if the way is clear, then move forward” could mean a nice high hook kick to an open face. If you’ve seen some demos by Sifu Heinrich Pfaff, then you know what I mean.
Anyways, my first reflexive response to that article was “wait… I’m an Asian – what is he trying to say?” But in my infant years of learning WT, I think he was trying to say when it comes to learning a martial art, that it’s sometimes okay to be goal-oriented and think about the ends rather than the means. And if we are stubborn traditionalists, then we might lose out on certain aspects of training WT.
Do you want to be traditional or effective?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)