Underground Kungfu cont...

[reemul]

Some systems came into the mainstream, some didn't. Those that didn't generally feel it goes against the principles of what the systems are about.


What you hear and learn never divulge to anyone. What you see never tell. For, after what you have to endure, would it not be like feeding a pig gold.

Those that came out, adhere to standards and restrictions, those that didn't, don't.

[Water Dragon]

Point and supporting arguments?

[reemul]

It was a statement which can hardly be disputed. Some systems chose to standardize themselves and teach to whoever had the cash. Some have chosen to remain highly selective toward membership and maintain an unrestricted evolution of the art.

[norther practitioner]

Well, the one thing that I have heard about stuff like this is, A million people can desire, want, or wish to attain, but only a few suceed. That being said, usually you lose something when you are being taught as part of the masses. A teacher can always teach, but to teach a group has its obvious difficulties. Whether cma should stay underground, well its too bad, but I fear that day is over, ma is a business now in some senses, you need to have a certain amount of students to cover your overhead. I personally think people should be educated about cma, let them decide if it is for them or not.

[Shooter]

I don't know if the reasons for some systems staying out of the mainstream is as elitist as the premise that it'll just get fed to pigs.

From what I read on this forum and other KF boards, I would say that what I was taught is definitely not a mainstream approach to Tai Chi Chuan. I used to try hard not to believe that, but as it is, my learning and teaching methods are, and always were in accord with the current so-called "MMA" model as a training regimen of basic skills - Lots of li and ming-energy with lots of hard-contact at a basic level to build a foundation for higher levels of energy-management skills. All in accord with the 8 Gates and structure principles, yet taking it to the ground, clinch, applying locks, chokes, whatever.

While the training isn't for everyone, it's imperative that an instructor ask themselves what they can give a person now, today, that they can take out of the training hall and apply effectively. Not what they'll be able to do in ten years' time.

[reemul]

Given what I go through in training, I'm not willing to part with certain information freely. Unfortuanately, specifically here in the U.S., people want everything handed to them. Kungfu is about work. To learn it, you must do it. For someone to just hand out information to someone not willing to work- translates to feeding the pig gold.

The for's and against of underground training can be argued all day long. That doesn't change the fact some schools will continue to remain secluded.

[Shooter]

reemul, by vurtue of the training, my school will always remain secluded. We have a joke among our group. When a guy comes in for his first training session and asks what time it is (which happens a lot), we know he's never coming back. :D

People don't really get anything beyond the basics of ring-fighting and Chi kung for about a year or so.

[Merryprankster]

Shooter-true--hard work scares most people off :)


Reemul--You contradict yourself--an underground art, secluded, knowledge divulged to no outsiders, cannot evolve except against itself. And we know what happens to inbreeders...

[Silumkid]

And still I am left wondering what the point of this post is.

It must be nice to be able to make such broad generalizations so comfortably. But hey, whatever makes you feel good.

Let's face it....even McKwoons/McDojos think they are special. Ask one sometime.

Quite frankly, this just looks like another "I'm special and you aren't" post. But like I said, whatever makes you feel good.

[raving_limerick]

MerryPrankster-

"Reemul--You contradict yourself--an underground art, secluded, knowledge divulged to no outsiders, cannot evolve except against itself. And we know what happens to inbreeders..."

I agree, and yet I don't. I think the idea of a static martial art is a silly one for several reasons. First like most everything else, martial arts were not created in a vaccum-- there's always going to be some influence from somewhere. While it's impossible to go back far enough to verify this, why would anyone think that martial arts evolved any differently than, say, language or science? So, in essence, there really has never been a martial art that remained "pure".

Secondly, the world's an ever changing place, and if you don't change to meet it, you get phased out. That's a fact of life. Who wants their art to end up like the Betamax or slide rule? (I certainly don't.) A style should be a little flexible, otherwise, what's the point of learning it?

On the other hand, I don't think I can bring myself to say that unchecked evolution is good. Look at cancer-- what you have there is a bunch of cells mutated from the original template, who are growing without any regulation from the body. So, no control is just as bad as too much control, at least in my mind.

IMHO, there has to be a healthy medium between the two. Like a group of cells in a healthy body, the students of a particular style should be similar to others in their style. However, the art will and should change over time to reflect changes in the world around us, much like our body changed to accept the new food sources brought on by the developement of agriculture and domesticated animals. A martial art (be it kung fu, BJJ, boxing, Llap-gnoch) will change alright, but it'll be a gradual shift as opposed to a sudden reconstruction.

Anyhow, that's my dissertation on the matter. What say you?

[red_fists]

I also think that the time for "underground cma" has gone.

I also agree that out of the thousand students that study not many will make it or achieve a high level.

Furthermore I also belief that CMA had stayed underground we would not have BL, JL, CN and the other MA actors.

Add to that most probably most of the members on this and other Forums would have never gotten into CMA in the first place.

Pro and Cons for either side.

My current style is kinda semi-underground.
Fairly wide spread in Japan, but hardly and advertisement exists for it.
Online references are only found at some sports centers where a few of our Instructors teach and those simply list times & Tai Chi Chuan(no style name).

We do not have any organisation, but our Sijo keeps everybody close and traves a lot to make sure that we all progress nicely. Our Instructors have to train once a month with him, unless they are too far away.
Funny thing is when I tell people where I train and they look surprised as it is in a place that they frequent daily.
We are open to anybody that comes in and happily give a free trial lesson.

So I dn't think the question is "underground" or "above ground", but rather how each style can maintain a good level of Instruction.

Just my 2 devalued Yen worth.

[Merryprankster]

raving_limerick--

"Within Reason," is my "watch phrase" for life, so of course I agree with you. Some sort of super secret squirrel society is never going to get good at anything but fighting itself...even if the applications are all there, they will be lost over time. How do you practice your takedown defenses, if you are primarily a stand-up striking style, and nobody ever tries to throw you? Oh sure, you might do a couple of half-assed throws and your partner might "defend" them, but it's not the same as going against somebody who REALLY knows. And I think we can both agree on that.

On the other hand, you can't just add every technique in the book because it's something that worked on you or you like the idea. So yeah, within reason.

[JWTAYLOR]

Raving Limerick, you've hit on the basic tenant of American Kenpo and the ultimate goal of Ed Parker.

JWT

[reemul]

Just because a school is secluded, doesn't mean they are blind to what is going on outside their school. It just means their training practices, history, and knowledge are not open source. The Shaolin learned this a long time ago.

So to MerryPrankster, seclusion or underground schools are not contrary to the evolution of an art.

Also meeting with other styles is not the same as giving information to the untrained. Say I have a friend who spent years studying something else and he shows me a technique and I offer a more efficient way of doing the technique. This is not the same as feeding a pig gold. He has put in time elsewere true, but we are to some extent peers and it is not as though I'm teaching him our system, its just a simple exchange of info.

[Merryprankster]

I disagree--simple as that. Unless you meet regularly-say once or twice a week. And THEN, oh man, the styles start to bleed together, and your nice pure art is a b@stard. Tough. If you don't meet to share frequently, then you're only fooling yourself (as a style, whatever that means...)

"underground..." It's another word for psuedo-mystical, elitist horse****. "We hold the secrets of the ancients" and all that rot. Utter garbage.

Hard work, "above ground" or not, will suffice to keep out the "untouchables," so the underground boys won't have to worry their pretty little heads about it.

[Black Jack]

Merry,

I am not disagreeing with you per say but here is my two cents for you to consider, what if this hypothetical underground system has legitmate and pure striking and ground grappling sub-systems in it's cultures format.

Lets also say they pressure test and spar to a degree WAY higher than a standard gung fu kwoon, serious contact, condtioning, rolling and a very aggressive mindset to say the least, which is one of the reasons they are underground, this training allows them to keep their art's bloodline functional.

Would you still think that this system fits into the same category as the rest?

[Merryprankster]

My point is one of exposure--what is MY systems answer to this, and how can I employ it against trained opponents. When you stay "underground," this isn't easy to do. The pool of available opponents is smaller, etc.

I'm not even advocating that traditional methods of training or lore or oral history be negated or ignored. I'm simply suggesting that in relative isolation, a system, like an organism, tends to become highly specialized and because of that, somewhat fragile when exposed to unfamiliar stresses.

BUT, the simple act of exposing a system like this to outside stresses both exposes and changes the system... and the more unfamilar stresses, the more adaptations have to be made. Without a doubt, a great deal of those answers can be found within the flavor of the original style... but some won't. And that's the crux of the issue.

[Black Jack]

I agree with you man, my only point is that in some cases not everything is so black and white, their are some elements to some systems out their who may be close door due to their nature but because of what they have, what they do and how they do it, it still maintains a serious degree of street combat effectiveness.

Two extra points to consider to your very valid comments-

1. You may be speaking from a competitive perspective, by meaning this, I mean the ring sports, where the evolution of a system is needed to adapt to the elements which it is composed off, a perfect example of this is seen in the history of the UFC, from when bjj was the only game in town, to its current evolution today where it now the wrestlers and strikers have evolved due to the system of bjj, for lack of a better term, to adapt or die in the ring.

In the street, evolution is needed to, but not to the same degree by any means, IMHO the evolution on the street is one of a personal evolution, the goal being IMHO to cut down and streamline your system, a evolution that is just as mental as physical, the evolution in the ring can help this but as we all know, the ring and not the kwoon are the street, but either way it has to be a personal blending of the two technologies, and not one of a generic robotron system.

2. Underground training by itself could just mean a underground training group, this does not by any means showcase that they do not pressure test themselves with other systems, but that their core group/brotherhood is made of people who can handle the strict level of training that this specifc group dedicates themselves to, a level that the commerical sheeple would never want to pay for, so this group remains private and thus can be more picky and choosy of who it wastes its time on.

Just my thoughts.

[rogue]

I may have missed it in the other thread but what do you mean by "underground"? What is your school protecting? Techniques, tradition, or (hypothetically) the fact that what they may be teaching is hogwash?

[Black Jack]

Rogue,

The other thread contained more info but from what I get is that by underground they mean that a group remains away from the general public eye because of the level of training and research they wish to push themselves to, levels the near by soccer dad may nut be comfortable putting himself into, this is how I take it.

[Braden]

So you meet up with Bagua guys twice a week to spar, right Merry?

[Merryprankster]

Black Jack--good points. When I think underground, I start thinking elitist "Prove you are worthy of our shaolin secrets" bullcrap... (Chung Moo Do anyone?) but I see your point. Certainly if you define it that way, then it works, no problem.

Braden--If there were some Bagua guys here that I knew that wanted to bang sometime, I probably would. As it is, I can protect from strikes :) Nice try though... :D

More specifically, I have some specific sportive goals in BJJ that would prohibit me from doing things like that INSTEAD of BJJ practice... in supplement to, yes, but then we run into time issues. It's really a priority issue. Since I box a few times a week and MT occasionally, I feel I have a good enough grasp on kicking and punching to allow me to implement MY gameplan--which is, of course, to close, clinch, lift, and drop. :) I do plan on doing some ring competition, but those are currently backseat to my sport BJJ goals...

So I make a pretty big distinction between Sport BJJ and ringfighting, myself. I like to think I'm not PARTICULARLY deluded about my skills or training, but maybe I am... who knows? :)

[Braden]

"As it is, I can protect from strikes..."

If you're relating your ability to defend yourself from a boxing, kickboxing, or muay thai strategy to an ability to defend yourself from a bagua strategy, you'll be in for a bit of surprise if a skilled bagua practitioner jumps you in an alley. Although, between you and me, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over the possibility.

To the extent that your argument is valid, it would also make valid a kungfu practitioners position that he can defend himself from takedowns through his kungfu practice and therefore doesn't have to work with wrestlers or judoka.

You can't have it both ways. Well, you can, it just would just be hypocritical.

[Merryprankster]

Except that that isn't what I'm saying. I should have made it clearer, and I apologize.

There is a big difference between saying "I can protect myself from strikes," but never having practiced with anybody who comes from a primarily striking background. That is, I have sparred against boxers, MT, and some TKD guys, and one eskrima guy. These people are primarily strikers.

Now, what would you say to me if I said, "I know I can protect myself from strikes because I worked with my sport judo buddy who's never thrown a punch or kick for real in his life, and he tried did some striking and I beat him?" I'd bet you'd tell me I was nuts.

By the same token, IF the KF style is one that is long on strikes and short on grappling, but the practicioner says he can defend a throw/takedown, because it "works on his training partners," and none of his training partners have a serious grappling background, well, then!

So, what I really recommend is practicing against people who something fundamentally different than what you do.

Anyway, that's what I think is so great about the San Shou format. Defend strikes and the takedown simultaneously, and it's actively done alot, and it's safe, reasonably. Lots of valuable skills to be had in that arena.

Ok... I slept 5 hours last night... not enough for me. I'm napping.

Cheers!

James

[Braden]

I agree completely.

I think where I was trying to find a point of disagreement (whether there actually is one or not) is as follows: by the same logic as you just outlined, how can you claim to be able to defend against bagua strategies when you have never encountered them? I suppose if you believe that every martial strategy in the world can be reduced to striking and grappling, then you won't have a problem with this. I don't believe this however. Maybe this is the point of disagreement? I suppose by analogy I would say that I believe judo and wrestling have very different strategies, and if you prepared your whole life for a judoka assailant and suddenly were attacked by a wrestler, you may have a problem! Bagua, even a striking-heavy version such as the one I study, is at least as different from muay thai as judo is from wrestling.

One of the errors I percieve in the positions of many people who study the popular MMA arts is they honestly believe the arts they study subsume every possible, viable martial strategy. They come by this error honestly, as reliable information, let alone competent practitioners, of some of the arts with very different strategies are hard to come by. While many of them would be quick to respond to this by suggesting their rarity is related to their utility; I would be equally quick to inquire about the availability of competent muay thai or savate in north america a couple decades ago. Surely they didn't _just_ become viable arts?

Of course I wasn't putting down seeking out a wide variety of training partners, not just in terms of stylistic background, but also physical attributes, etc.

[reemul]

As I said Shaolin leaned long time ago to be open to what goes on outside the " temple". With regard to your example of sparing other styles, that is not so much an example of evolution of style then it is adjustment of ones personal strategy. This isn't relative to Underground systems alone. I spar different systems (TKD, BJJ, JKD), My style doesn't reflect the adaptation of these systems just how I use my training to deal with the different styles(so I don't see the ba$tardization coming into effect.). My teacher has always maintained that the instruction of kungfu provides for sound techniques and body mechanics but each individual will develop their own style.

If someone feels they can only counter a style with that style, then said person is severly lacking application skills(unable to APPLY their particular style or system to changing circumstance). Which is common in MA

[Archangel]

What exactly is a Bagua strategy, I looked at the internet sights you gave me before and I still can't figure it out. The techniques seem to be (and no offense here) ba$tardized forms of striking and standup grappling. Are bagua fighters looking for a knockout? Are they looking for a crippling takedown? How would they differ from some of the techniques found in MMA?

[Braden]

Archangel - I'm not sure what sites you're referring to.

I hope it was not inferred that I brought up bagua as a specific case with respect to this discussion. I simply hoped to suggest that there were a wide variety of strategies which one may be familiar or unfamiliar with.

I do not think I can do any justice to answering your question, for a number of reasons. Firstly that I don't think those kinds of questions CAN be done justice. Secondly, I think there is a wide gap between our respective approaches.

So... paranthetically...

Technically speaking, there's a wide variety of bagua out there, as bagua was initially taught as a method of movement, exercise, and martial strategy to allready well-established martial artist. The foremost proponents of the art had widely varied backgrounds, and so what they taught varied (So, we have bagua-chinese wrestling, bagua-longfist, bagua-xingyi).

That said, there are alot of things in bagua I don't see in judo, wrestling, boxing, and muay thai. I don't see alot of explicitly exerting force while moving. Or the converse of accepting force while moving. I don't see alot of outer door work. I don't see folding techniques or continuation combinations. Except with judo sweeps, I don't see any leg jamming work. With respect to targetting, there are alot of differences (I don't see boxers or muay thai men hunting the mastoid and floating ribs). With respect to overall strategy, I don't see the same idea of coupling opponent control with striking while standing (although certainly while on the ground; while standing, opponent control seems to be the dominion of grappling alone). Except for someone with a 'pure' wrestling or judo approach, these arts or a composite thereof seem 'broken' to me: there is the idea of a technique being successful or unsuccessful; and then there is the idea of a successful technique increasing the next technique's chance of success. Boxers and kickboxers are good at this; and when they incorporate wrestling or judo into their mix, it seems to me this becomes exaggerated. But it's not the only way of doing things. Consider BJJ; if an escape or submission does not succeed, do you really count this as a failure, and you both rewind and start again from where you were before?

Of course, there are also a great many things found in these arts which are not found elsewhere. And I don't mean to suggest that I feel their peculiarities make them inferior.