It’s not a one class is 2 classes a week and it’s Rubbish, you tell me what Master stands there watching without giving any input to the lesson
Ok one more time for those who have a hard time reading - YOU ONLY WENT TO ONE And again WHAT IS YOUR BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE? Because that in and of itself can determine which way the answer to your question goes A traditional one - if you had actually trained you would know this
Don't be absurd - the method is tied to the teacher not the genetics Ip Man was one such master who watched as much as he taught
I didn't say all Chinese people teach this way, or that this is the only way to teach something, but just that this method used to be the main way of teaching beginners. Why Kung Fu Masters Refuse to Teach | FIGHTLAND This article explains much the same point.
It also kills the art and leads to terrible skills and abilities and isn't how traditional arts were taught by those who actually fought
Agree with the first part, the second...well kinda Wang Shu Jin was a giving teacher if you were in his inner circle, as was Hung i Hsiang (apparently), but there is a history of many others being far less generous - in fact them chastising you for having crappy form was considered high praise since they deemed fit to comment. Boxers such as Shang Yun-Hsiang were known as strong fighters but also lousy teachers, and Ip Man (arguably the most well known outside the MA world) would often defer to his students to teach But yes, it is definitely at the "bum backward" end of the scale progression wise within a Western context where challenges are highly unlikely!
Mod note: Dannyuk, please be aware that text speech is not allowed on this forum. Please spell out words like "you" in the future. All our terms of service may be found by clicking on the "Terms and rules" button on the lower right hand corner of every page. Thanks!
If a style of teaching doesn't resonate with you, that is perfectly ok. If you go to a school and it doesn't feel right, I think that is ok too. I think if you had mentioned that at first, it would have helped others understand. But you mentioned not liking that they covered a block. And well, going over basics is something you will run into at any school- any school worth going to that is. You made it sound like you knew they only did that one block over and over again in the class for weeks on end. And others were questioning how many classes you actually went to to know this. Instructors often focus on a theme in a class one night, then another theme another night. I think this is what others here were trying to allude to. (I am getting the feeling there is a little mix up in communication going on here.) I don't think you have to go to more classes if you just didn't like the methodology of how it was taught. That is what free classes are for, after all. To find the right match for you. Do you have any idea from other posts here of what school to check out next?
When these guys actually taught when there arts were needed to fight with, private security guards teaching their wagon guards, the masters in charge of village defences right up until the 1940s and so on, they taught much differently than people looking to build commercial schools to keep them off the streets and in the drugs habits they had developed, those that saw it as a way to make money like yip man taught in a way that prolonged learning and developed very different levels of skills in his students,
And those who learned from those guys in likelihood taught the same etc... Many still have "closed door" disciple groups and prolonged "tasting bitter". Hell, Guro Dans first kali teacher made him hit the bag for 2 hrs with a #1 and #2 and left the room I am not saying its good...i certainly don't teach that way...but it has a lot of precedent in Japanese, Chinese, Filipino and even Korean martial arts. Sang H Kim once told a story of when was teaching the olympic team once and for their training told them to do 2000 round kicks. They objected saying "we are the olympic team training for the olympics" He replied "good point...make it 4000"
And that comes more from the commercial side, at least with the Chinese arts you taught your in door students the real stuff (if they were lucky many still didn't pass there skills on) and used your disciples to teach the main classes where you made you money.. What I'm saying is this wasn't widespread when people actually needed to fight or needed there students to be able to fight, the traditional way the Hakka arts was taught was in small uneven number classes so the teacher always had someone to go hands on with for example, in Hongkong though when yip man was looking to make money not turn out serious fighters this is how he taught for example, and a number of his students followed suit, up shot is regardless of the marketing very few of his students could fight well and those that did had backgrounds in OR trained other arts At the same time, it wasn't a traditional way to teach until the arts lost their martial meaning
So that would cover 90% of todays practitioners then Again don't disagree and I *technically* have WSL lineage too. My Sigung is Sifu Der from the Bay area, although as I don't profess to be a Wing Chun practitioner it isn't a lineage I claim with any degree of authority Which again covers most practitioners today! I am betting that - like me - you remember "stance training" when you started out...it seemed SO pointless, but to this day I can still do a solid kiba dachi on command! So many of the things that were essentially the instructor "doing nothing" were as much about developing that determination et al...in fact even as a non-karateka I shake my head at what passes for kihon these days, so I would not say that such "mundane" training has no purpose, although I would question if every session consisted of stuff I am perfectly capable of (and should be) drilling at home The point is that the OP - after ONE class - decided it was "rubbish".....I would say that whilst this is possible, it may not be the school that is lacking