Are traditional MA methods useless?

[red_fists]

Way too quiet here, let's crank up some controversial Discussions.

Many People say that TMA and their Training is useless, inefficient and non-realistic.

Stories are many where one Guy learned a system decided to change the Training to make it more effective/realistic.

Now here is my view:
TMA train in a certain way for reasons
that are not always known to young and inexperienced Students.

While I agree that some improvements can be made.
At the same time I doubt that those training methods would have survived or that all the masters/good fighers of a style trained differently from their students.
Unless the MC Dojo was invented a few centuries ago and was the norm in TMA.
Or could it be that those People that changed training method/styles aspects maybe failed to see the point of what was taught.

There are many great and known Masters that only trained in traditional methods, but still became great Fighters.
I am aware that not everything I do & did in my training is geared towards actual fighting, but a lot of the training is done to further certain aspects of the Body, Mind & Skills.
If I have doubts about my training I ask my Sfu, who usually gives me an eye-opening answer about training aspects.

So, pls, tell me honestly why traditional methods are sooo bad.

I wanna hear arguments that go way beyond "Drills are unrealistic".
Take the methods apart and analyze them and than tell me what is wrong.

Also tell me what the goals are for the traditional methods. like Push Hands, Sparring Hands, Drills, Meditation, Qi-Gong, etc.

[scotty1]

Couldn't tell you why trad training methods are so bad, as I don't think they are. I think things like bag and pad work are essential, and neglected sometimes. As far as two man drills etc. then I always thought that the idea was to build muscle memory and reactions. Which is great, but without sparring pretty useless IMHO.

I think the reason that trad methods get such a bad rep. is because you see them being executed by weak men and women in a non-realistic fashion much of the time. Two man drills where you think you are going to get hit are a different animal to when you are partnered with somebody that actually aims off to 'help' the execution of the parry, block etc.

So trad methods executed hard, realistically, fast and many, many times I think are effective.

[Merryprankster]

Red,

You forgot the part where traditional training involved beating the daylights out of each other a LOT, taking challenges, etc.

And that's where people screw it up. They forget the part of TMA that involved blood. Those masters didn't get good by just doing forms or line drills.

[red_fists]

‚l‚o.

Nope, nothing forgotten.

Many TMA schools I know train those, not sure about the US though.

But than my Sifu and Sensei have always gotten rather physical on us as well.

Wish it wasn't maybe than my back wouldn't be buggered from a wrongly executed kick done by a fellow student, plus, a few other injuries I picked up along the way.

Nope, my back just told me about incoming rain, nothing forgotten.

[red_fists]

Memory going.

Also, since TMA don't train hard and hit each other, how come that the Aikido Dojo which we rent sports NEW Blood stains every Week.

Peace.

[Merryprankster]

Because YOUR instructors didn't forget that :)

[dezhen2001]

interesting thread guys :)

To me there are many different 'levels' in TMA training. The first and most important is health. Without that, how can you fight? Depending on your lifestyle, it may take a while to get even healthy. This is where things like Qigong come in to play, as that's what they are for: hard or soft qigong.

Then you have to build the correct foundation and body mechanics as well as attitude. This is usually done by forms training and takes a long time to develop. I mean i only know about Wing Chun and Taijiquan, but the foundation forms in each case (SLT and Lao Jia) are practised for a long time before moving on to the next.

Next you move on to partner work, which usually consists of some form of drill. This is where you learn to apply the principles and postures/movements you have learned in the forms. Again, to use everything correctly can take a long time. Of course, these are either with a coperative opponent or a resisting oppponent so you learn various things.

sparring comes after you know how to correctly apply principles and techniques. I know form my own experience before that rushing in to this is a big mistake (was for me anyway). The use of principles and attitude that has been developed through everything else should shine through here. Working first within your own system and then training with other styles/systems helps you understand more about your own style, and developresponses to other systems attitudes etc.

There are also other elements as well as these to consider: weapons training (teaching you how to use power and footwork even more), conditioning and the like.


Now, that's just what i think of course, but different schools do each thing to various degrees. Theres nothing like getting together with like-minded buddies and having a bit of a Ruck :) But if you do that too early and can't apply your skill properly, that's when you just get beat up. Or you learn how to defend but you're still not using the skill the correct way.
For me, i'd much rather spend a long time developing my foundation through doing SLT and chi sau before worrying about 'fighting'. That way i can apply the skill properly. Who said how long it would take to be able to use it to 'fight' anyway?

just my thoughts,
david

[MA fanatic]

OK I'll spice things up.

Like anything in life, martial arts should be updated. You say that many masters have used ancient TMA training and became great fighters. Who? Where did they fight? When did they fight (what year?)? Who did they fight? Did they fight other masters who have used the same outdated training techniques? Most likely they did. How would a master who uses TMA training techniques fair against a master who spends one year tranining with modern day training approaches, nutrition guides, modern machinery, blood monitoring, weight monitoring, modern supplements geared for peak performance, sport psychologists, weight trainers, pro coaches, etc. etc. The TMA guys, despite the popular opinion on this thread, would lose. I keep reading interviews with boxers of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, who say that due to modern day advances in training and nuetrition, the fighters of today are much quicker, more technical, and all around better athletes. If you look at the old training methods, you will see that they are basically similar to some of the modern training approaches, except the modern drills, machines, and diets are more accurate, better researched, and designed to fit the individual's needs. Just look at other sports. Look at gymnasts of the 50s and compare them to gymnasts now. Look at the inovative techniques in other sports, baseball, ice skating, basketball, boxing, wrestling, TKD, etc. etc. etc. Why should martial arts be any different. I think somewhere down the line MAs have become a religion to some. People began following masters, no questions asked. Pupils began accepting what the masters say as the truth. I recently read an interview in BB Magazine with a Shaoline Monk living in NY. The guys tried to explain why weight training will hinder your speed. Half the information (actually 75% of it) was plain wrong. Anyone who has any knowledge of weight training and physiology would agree. Yet, I'm sure his students follow his every word. I think if TMA are to continue existing, they should examine their training techniques and see what the world has to offer in terms of modern training. Let me ask you this....WOULD YOU GO TO A DOCTOR WHO HAD NOT GOTTEN ANY UPDATED TRAINING SINCE THE 60S WHEN HE/SHE FIRST FINISHED THEIR MEDICAL RESEDENCY? NO YOU WONT.
MA fanatic

[Merryprankster]

Stop talking SENSE MA Fanatic!!!

[MA fanatic]

I think I should add that combat oriented schools (San Shoue, Kyokushinkai karate, WTF TKD, BJJ, JUDO, Luta Livre, Sambo, Muay Thai, Submission Wrestling, Sabaki, Shidokan, etc. etc.) have already incorporated modern training techniques. Those schools who's schools compete against other arts in full contact events (or athletic competitions such as Olympic TKD sport) have already adopted modern training approaches simply because traditional conditioning and drills were not enough. Keep in mind that should masters of yesterday be alive today, they to, would have researched new training. All were inovators, just didn't have the same exposure as we do in modern times.
MA fanatic

[dezhen2001]

each generation of people who learns a martial art updates it :) you add your own experiences to the previous ones.

why do you say that techniques are outdated? the human body hasn't changed that much in a long,long time...

Why exactly would the TMA lose? it depends on the person as much as the skills they have. Not all fights are documented like on the UFC and Olympics or whatever. Look at bikers for example: i'm sure they are some real tough sob but they don't have a 'fight record'. People who need to, know who has fought who, that's all that matters.

As for following a Shaolin Monk: THAT'S religion! :D

Weight training, don't know about that, but my teacher and his etc. have gotten on fine without it at all.

Also: why can't you seem to accept Chinese principles and 'science' for want of a better word? They have their own principles and theories just like Western training does. They also achieve results.

david :)

[Daredevil]

In one word, are traditional martial arts training methods useless ; no.

But this is an interesting topic and one I've spent wondering about sometimes during my interest in the martial arts. Lately, I've been less concerned with this, considering I have found a great teacher.

What was said about the blood part of the training is exactly right. That is necessary and it is a part of traditional training, however, the problem with many schools these days is a bit more complicated ... and this my own theory about it, which may be a bit skewed since I come from an internal art and a Baji background -- Baji being rarely transmitted, carefully taught and rather hard to grasp. However, I definately think this line of thinking can be applied to many styles.

A lot of traditional training was and still is slow, requiring great patience. You're not given all the relevant training methods on day one, nor indeed on day 300. Why is it slow? Well, perhaps the way sifu's teach was motivated by making sure students were worthy, but beyond that there is the aspect of generating force. It takes time to develop the jing of many styles, to really embody the power generation mechanics.

Before that is done, all training in other methods is pretty much useless because you don't have the power to use it. Extremely put why spar, when you don't even have the correct understanding of generating force?

Now, please note I'm not advocating no sparring until five years .. indeed, being exposed to training methods beforehand can be helpful in the view of your overall skill development. I'm just saying people should have their priorities straight. If what you need to do is work on your punching mechanics, that's what you need to do.

So, the problem with styles being watered down is with students starting to teach before they have really embodied the style's essence or learned all the relevant training methods, which I feel was especially likely when the traditional arts were being transported to the western world (the foreigners and indeed orientals who first came here, perhaps possessing only a little of the actual skill, started teaching). Sure, back in wherever the art came from, your sifu could have had you teach the beginning students ; show them the basics that they'd have to work on for a long time. This does not mean you're a ready teacher, or truly understand the art with body-knowledge.

Does that make sense? I think it does.

Later,

[JusticeZero]

All I see from people trying to make their training "more realistic" is attempts to make their art more like boxing. Kicks? No thanks.. Locks? Too impractical.. Throws? No thank you.. Nerve cavity techniques? What voodoo! Deep stances for power generation? Bah! Bob and weave and bounce on yer toes! Close yer fists like a real man, boy!
....Why didn't they just go to a boxing gym to begin with?? I personally consider boxing to be rather ineffective for various reasons, but apparently, the only techniques people can understand these days are from it; why else would everything that wasn't a jab, cross, or hook be labelled flashy and evil?

[Repulsive Monkey]

The word Fanatic as any dictionary will let you know means imbalanced fervour, i.e. someone who hasn't got a good understanding. Again MA FAnatic all you do is rant in a 1-dimensional manner, and slate other arts especially ones which I feel you have little knowledge and experience of, and make amazing presumptions which trip you up. Do you realize that you're not convincing anyone but yourself?

Nothing you have said seems like a balanced statement. Nothing you have said sounds convincing, in fact the only thing that most people will be convinced off is your lack of underdstanding I feel.

Modern methods have their use as much as traditional. Now thats a balanced statement ok? When you slate traditional methods which I feel you have done in an amazingly generalized way (which is exceptable if you've experienced them all enough to put yourself in that position, fair enough) people with experience will look down upon your statements not out of ignorance or eliteism etc, but out of the pure knowledge that their years of experience has paid off and they know your statements to be lacking. From what you've said before it sounds like that aswell as teachers moving away from you vicinity, you have not bothered to stick around long enough to get the real gems of their teachings. Hence the over-tired and labourious "Cross-training is better than a single art" rant. Why do you take this line always??

[dezhen2001]

Boxing is effective - punch meets face=knock out :) I've traine din it for many years and it's very difficult to do also.

But internal training is very different and requires a long time to grasp. how can you remain relaxed and balanced to generate jing/ging? How can you remain calm and relaxed but still have a strong posture? it's really hard and really frustrates me. I know i just need to train more, so am happy to let it happen. I could go theother way of ocurse and just use strength. It works, but against someone stronger i'm a gonner. It's also not using the skill properly, so why do it wrong? I would rather train to be correct, no matter how long it takes :)

david

[scotty1]

"why else would everything that wasn't a jab, cross, or hook be labelled flashy and evil?"

It's not....

[Merryprankster]

Yeah... what scotty said. I think you'll find it's the training attitude that people think should be emulated, not the techniques. You don't have to like sportive arts, but nobody can deny that the attitude is typically to train hard for success...and that that attitude is common from gym to gym, rather than hit or miss.

[David Jamieson]

Sure the methods work, and most definitely, the style you practice is that which your teacher taught you, which in the scope of tradition should be the way he was taught. however, the changes are within how your teacher understands and interprets the style he was taught.

essence of form and practical techniques will always remain, but plenty of other things in a style change as it is handed down from one generation to the next.

The styles we all do are based in ancient studies but do not resemble the ancient styles for the most part.

Look at all the different families with the same style name.

You can have two schools of Choy Li fut or Two schools of Hung Gar that do the forms completely with a different flavour. Doesn't make the techniques any less effective but it is indicative of change in the style as time progresses.

Styles have to change with the times also.

The Kung Fu each of us learns is definitely not the same Kung Fu as was practiced in the Shaolin temple 2-300 years ago. And it shouldn't be. Kung Fu should be ever flexible and ever changing while at the same time it recognizes how to exploit certain aspects of human body mechanics (which are the same as they ever was).

Frankly, If I was in a system that spent a lot of time working on techniques for dismounting charging riders from their steeds then well... I guess that could be construed as an "art" but martially it must be adapted to be useful today and now. The opportunity to use techniques designed for dismounting horsemen is exceedingly rare and if you are learning "self defense" then I dare say...useless (at least without adaptation).

Also consider that at a novice level there are very few who can understand the more complex and unusual techniques found in some styles. THat's generally why teaching is systematic and builds with ability gained.

A person who takes up running for the first time in their life is definitely not gonna pull off a marathon with a weeks training.

So, if a style becomes insular and closed to growth it will rot and fall from the tree of great and effective styles. This has already happened to many styles of Traditional Martial arts from all over the world. That's just the natural way of things. Survival of the fittest so to speak.

peace

[dezhen2001]

MP: but it's the same in good TMA schools also... the attitude is the most important thing in regards ot training imo.

david

[Merryprankster]

You know, this is not aimed at you dz, but I've noticed a thing on this board--write something like what I wrote and you'll get "Yeah, but a GOOD TMA school, does train 'that way'".

And I always think it's funny because that's exactly my point. The thing is is that "training hard for success," is something that is present at 99% of the boxing gyms out there...it's part of what defines boxing. Unfortunately, that attitude in training is very hit or miss betweeb schools that claim to teach TMA--sometimes even varying within schools in the same style and lineage!

[red_fists]

MP.

IME, the good TMA schools are not found in the Yellow Pages or advertised broadly.

If a Sifu is good he will be known and serious Students can and will find him.

But do many people enter a Shop-Front or Mall kwoon and judge everybody by those standards.

From my friends that studied in Europe, Afrika & Asia and than in the US, I have heard that the level of Instruction on average is very different.

Not sure why that is though.

Peace.

[dezhen2001]

MP: i agree with what you have said :) I used to trian Shotokan, boxing and muay thai before i met my Sifu and it was exactly the same. train hard to get anywhere.

I don't know what the situation in the US is like for CMA? But form what i've seen online (McKwoons) and other schools, then it's not good... Most CMA classes i have been in (and i'm not talking taijiquan for health classes here) do train very hard. It's just the training is different.

When i met my Sifu it was by accident really, and i watched his class. It might sound boring, but everyone was just getting on with their own thing, either forms or playing chi sau. Doing a SLT that lasts 30 mins is actually very hard! Standing still for so long absolutely kills!
Training Qigong for 3 or 4 hours a day for a test is really something life changing. I don't know many people who would even do that :) I'm sure it's the same with your training...

Playing chi sau and analyzing what happens over and over again is really very taxing. I'm sure there are similarities with what you do as well :)

Again, different schools do different things but we all want to achieve the same thing...

david

[David Jamieson]

mp- you have to consider that there are many tma schools that put emphasis on the "art" form of martial arts. And in doing so they remove much of the martial context from the lessons learned.

There are a lot of people who want to learn Kung fu for the same reasons people want to learn yoga. THere is merit in learning both.

It really comes down to the individual and what they are seeking.

Are they seeking self defense and effective fighting skills? Are they seeking to improve their health and lifestyle? Typically you should be able to get this from any regimen of exercise and good living. But also there are many indicators out there that people are learning not what they are told they will be taught but rather a hegemonic group of items with no "particular" focus.

Boxing gyms have a sole purpose. Produce a fighter in a realtively short time. The same goes for any of the "realist" type schools.

With an "art" form such as Shaolin Kung fu, the ability to deal with martial confrontations comes, but not necessarily in the short time that a boxer will "get" it. Also, the augmentation exercises such as meditation, chi kung and so on is not found in those systems that "focus" on just fighting. The boxer must generally go elsewhere for this unless they have a well rounded coach.

I think that one of the biggest issues with TMA is all the adherance to different cultural values that are otherwise alien to us as nationals of north american or european countries.
It's just a little strange when a european or north american is putting so much emphasis on cultural aspects like house gods and rituals as opposed to the meat and potatoes of the art delivered with the values of their own society.

Would you rather learn Chinese culture from a cultural centre or a university? Or would you learn it from someone who learned martial arts? Once again, it is about personal choices and understanding the consequences of your choices in seeking out anything.

This is one of the reasons why so many people get huffy about lineage so often, they honestly believe that because so and so 100 years ago gave this to their teachers teacher that they too must "have" it also.

Lam Sai Wing was apparently a great fighter, and a few of his select students gained Kung Fu in the style he perpetuated and in fact added their own pieces to make the body larger. But, I am certain there were more mediocre and just plain half arsed students from that time period forward as well.

In the end it's about what YOU can do with what you have been taught. if it was always about your teacher, or your leader then you will never experience Kung Fu or have because you will always be in the shadow of your lineage instead of growing as a person yourself.

or in other words (and this may bug ya) in the words of bruce lee:

"If you are looking at the finger, you are missing out on the glory of the moon"

peace

[scotty1]

If you said to me:

"I have a random MMA or boxer in my left hand, and a random traditional MA in my right hand, I will give you £1,000,000 if you choose the one that will win in a full contact match"

I would choose the boxer or MMA. And lets bear in mind that this is for a million squid.

Simply because a boxer/MMA/even a bloody Olympic style Taekwondo fighter is used to the contact, trains for full contact, and doesn't go up and down the training hall striking the air and doing light - no contact sparring.

This is what 'traditional' seems to mean to a lot of people. I think traditional Kung Fu training, back in the olden days, was quite hardcore, probably involving blood and bruises. When you're dealing with a fighting system involving complicated movements (say in comparison to boxing) then it MUST be pressure tested, because we all know what happens regarding fine motor movement when the adrenaline starts flowing.

Hate to bring it up, but if a BJJ stylist was shown a choke/hold/whatever, practiced them slowly on a willing partner, maybe 10/20 times in mid air, do you think he'd be able to do it in a fight? NO. So why do some people think that the same can be done for joint locks, pressure points, kicks and even punches?

Traditional methods yes, but harder, faster and with more intent.
And its not like we have to use one over the other (traditional and modern). A nice mix is lovely....

Obviously I realise that a call for more blood and bruises is not what your average Kwoon or Dojo owner is looking for, and I'm not talking about causing yourself damage in the name of self defense, but applications must be practiced in a realistic way.

Get used to the feel of redirecting a hard strike. Know how much pressure it takes to do it. Get used to doing it, so its a reflex.
I think, above all, the thing that I want from traditional classes is not to be taught techniques, but how to fight with those techniques. And unfortunately, that is just not happening, which is why I take kickboxing.

And I do realise that a lot of the people on this board train their Kung Fu in a traditional and realistic manner. But, they are in the minority. And classes like that are hard to find.

[scotty1]

"mp- you have to consider that there are many tma schools that put emphasis on the "art" form of martial arts. And in doing so they remove much of the martial context from the lessons learned. "

Exactly. That is why I am kickboxing at the mo, as then I can fight how I train, rather than going to Kung Fu on a Tuesday and getting taught 'the art' and having to go to the same teacher's kickboxing clas on a Thursday to fight. Why can I not be taught to fight using the techs I would learn on the Tuesday? Apparently (and this is his words) "people are not attacked in a traditional manner anymore."

:confused:

"In the end it's about what YOU can do with what you have been taught"

Very true. But if you never get the opportunity to train or practice what you have been taught in a realistic way then you're not going to be able to do much are you?

[dezhen2001]

wow, some good posts today guys :)

I guess you really just have to strike a balance between froms training and application/full contact training. With things like wing chun and taijiquan etc. it does take a long time to even learn how to relax and have the correct structure. I'm sure in Shaolin as well.

But who said how long it's gonna take to learn how to fight correctly? I'm in it for the long haul, so theres no rush.

to use the techniques properly takes a long time.

also - i never seen joint locks and pressure points done on anything except with partners etc before. if what u said is so scotty, then it sux :(

david

[scotty1]

"also - i never seen joint locks and pressure points done on anything except with partners etc before. if what u said is so scotty, then it sux "

Well, I've never seen joint locks and pressure points practiced in thin air, but then I've never seen them practiced against a resisting opponent either. What I meant by that was more that a boxer/MMA will be shown a technique (1), practice it slowly/softly with a co-operative partner (2) and then go at it HARD, until they can apply it in a stressful situation (3). I realise that this process will be longer the more complicated the movement is (a la Praying Mantis etc.) but I think in a lot of classes the process stops at stage 2.

All the classes I've seen or attended in England tend to be very hard on the exercise/conditioning front, but a bit lax on the applications, sparring front. All the sparring is kickboxing style, which is good fun, but then how do you practice things like joint locks, manipulations etc. in a combat situation?

[dezhen2001]

Hi Scotty :)

hmmm... the only thing i have experienced locking and throwing etc. in is aikido and shorinji kempo. At first you don't resist as you have to get used to it, but once you get better it gets more interesting. Partners resist and you learn how to counter movements and flow in to other techniques etc. s well as apply them in randori training (sparring). Like i said, i can only tlak from what i've done and seen, so i guess i've been lucky...?

david

[shaolinboxer]

"If you said to me:

"I have a random MMA or boxer in my left hand, and a random traditional MA in my right hand, I will give you £1,000,000 if you choose the one that will win in a full contact match"

I would choose the boxer or MMA. And lets bear in mind that this is for a million squid. "

With this I completely agree, hence I incorporate ring fighting and self defense skills into my training.

But, what if the question were "I have great MMA/boxer in my right hand and a great TMA in my left, and I will give you $10,000,000 if you can choose the one who will have the easiest time accepting at work, the most balanced home life, and over sense of well being."

Put my money on mr kung fu. I don't mean this as an absolute statement, but rather I think that would be the smartest way to play the odds.

My personal truth is that the whole practical vs tradition is like anything else...mu, yin/yang. My training incorporates (in phases) deep traditional art (aikido, jodo, kenjutsu), ring figting (san shou), self defense (anyhing lese I can pick up from anyone I meet along the road), and even high flying kungfu craziness (wushu).

To me, the complete martial artist is not a matter of 4 ranges. It is the marital artist who takes time to explore all avenues of training, conditioning, thinking, fighting, and fancy dancin' around. Take as much as you need from each.

The traditional arts offer a lot, but the modern arts also have much to offer. And the artsist that gives up trying to choose and learn the strength (and weakness) of both is, IMO, better for it.

[KC Elbows]

To change the argument a little, what if the bet involved a random, ring fighting boxer, and a random, ring fighting TMA?

Much as I like boxing, surely I'm not the only one here who has seen and/or met cr@ppy boxers?

[shaolinboxer]

Hmmm, interesting KC.

Let's see what we can define as ring fighting AND traditional...kyokushinkai, seido, full contact TKD (not olympic style) do we count san shou...do we count muay thai?

I mean, is it a TMA like John Bluming or Don Draeger?

http://www.realfighting.com/0102/jonblumi.htm

[scotty1]

KC - never met any boxers to be honest. I expect there are loads of crappy boxers, but it must be harder to hide crappy skills in a boxing gym than it would be in a traditional kwoon or dojo that does little to no hard contact. Surely, if you're a crappy boxer you're going to get hit a lot, can the same be said of a kwoon?

"what if the bet involved a random, ring fighting boxer, and a random, ring fighting TMA? "

If the ring fighting TMA trained as hard as the boxer I would go for the TMA, due to his larger range of weapons.

David - your positive experience with joint locks and throws being practiced in sparring, against resisting opponents and as part of combos is great, but whenever I have learnt them it has been a one off 'soft' movement.

I think some of this is due to the atmosphere in the class. If it is one of enthusiasm to learn and fight efficiently then your training partners will be more likely to help you in your goals. If, however, your class is full of people who wish for a bit of a confidence boost and a light workout then I don't think they are going to attack you full force, or appreciate it when you punch them in the face because they missed a parry.

Also, you say you did locks and throws in Aikido. When an art is as lacking in striking and as reliant on locks etc. as Aikido is one would expect that they would be drilled quite thoroughly.
I think in Kung Fu (at least the classes I have been to) joint locks etc. have been viewed as secondary to strikes and given only cursory attention.

[HuangKaiVun]

One who actually USES his martial art needn't worry about what others say or think.

If a method works, nobody's criticism can change that.

Worry not about the techniques that others don't have but the ones that you DO.

[Royal Dragon]

What we are *today* calling traditonal arts would be laughed at as weak copies or childs play by the old school Kung Fu fighters of a hundred years ago. Every thing I have read about them tell me they did NOT train the way we do today. They did not do endless forms, but only a handfull at best, challenge matches, full contact bare knuckel were rather common. It looks to me that once they layed the foundation down, and had an understanding of the arts core principals and power generation mehtods, they fought, ALOT!!

Drills in the air are fine for the beginning to intermediate levels that are still learning the foundation of prore mechanics. After all, if you can't do it right in the air, you can't do it right against a resisting opponenet wile under the gun.

The problem, is unlike the MAsters of old many of todays players don't move on to the difficult and often ego bruising training methods once they egt it right just doing it in the air.

I contend that the Traditional arts are VERY rare, especially in the USA. Kung Fu here has become a new age movement where respct and health issues are of primary concern. True martial aspect is just glased over, or only "Talked" about, instaed of actually done. This is NOT Traditional. What the MMA's are doing is far more traditional than most Kung Fu schools calling themselves traditional.


If you want to do Kung Fu traditionally, as soon as you "get it" in the air, worki it with an opponet who will progress form passevely leting you explore the techique on them, to full resistance, to testing it on the Leti. THAT is traditional, not punching and Kicking in the air forever and making up new forms every so often to keep the interst of the wishy washy students.

If true Wu Gong is to survive into the future, we need to run duel programs, where the wishy washy Sheeple can do forms and dance to support the Kwoon, and another that the true, serious students can work the boring drills, and the hard ego bruising contact nessasary to excell in the art.

[dezhen2001]

Hi Scotty :) The aikido i did actually had a lot of strikes and atemi as part of the skill. I do know however that many schools don't show these. That doesn't mean that they aren't there of course...
A lot does depend son the teacher as well, after all he dictates how the class is run. Would you rather have small numbers and dedicated students following the traditrional way or Sheeple as RD put it? Depends on why u are teaching...

I agree with what RD and the others have said. But the main thing is to get a proper foundation first. It can take long enough anyway, so really you just have to keep going :) I know i'm a long way off but slowly and surely i'll get there

david

[shinbushi]

Originally posted by MA fanatic
I think I should add that combat oriented schools (San Shoue, Kyokushinkai karate, WTF TKD, BJJ, JUDO, Luta Livre, Sambo, Muay Thai, Submission Wrestling, Sabaki, Shidokan, etc. etc.) have already incorporated modern training techniques. Those schools who's schools compete against other arts in full contact events (or athletic competitions such as Olympic TKD sport) have already adopted modern training approaches simply because traditional conditioning and drills were not enough. Keep in mind that should masters of yesterday be alive today, they to, would have researched new training. All were inovators, just didn't have the same exposure as we do in modern times.
MA fanatic

I agree that they would update their training methods but more on the line of

Tony Blauer

Marc MacYoung

Peyton Quinn

Ranther than Sport MA. Don't get me wrong I love Pride and king of the Cage but they are not geared to street self-defense but challenge match type fighting.

[shinbushi]

Originally posted by Royal Dragon


... especially in the USA. Kung Fu here has become a new age movement where respct and health issues are of primary concern. True martial aspect is just glased over, or only "Talked" about, instaed of actually done.

The scarry thing is the amount of people especially women who think they are becomming great fighters. There are several women out there that think they are bad asses because they take Taebo :rolleyes:

[Royal Dragon]

There are several women out there that think they are bad asses because they take Taebo

You know though, Tae Bo fighters are really hard to beat, if they have "Mortal Kombat" music playing when they fight.:D :p :confused:

[red_fists]

Hi all.

Here is an experiene from a friend that does Kendo.

He studied overseas and than moved to Japan do continue his Study over here.
At one stage a friend of his took him to the local Police Dojo for a sparing session.

So my Buddy happily went there and got his Body trashed, punched, kicked, stomped and thrown.

He kinda though WTF is going on here, why do I get rhwon attacked even after I lost my Bokken, and so on.

So he asked his Sensei back in the US why he never learned that stuff.
The Police in Japan train an older Kendo System.

But most Schools had to take a lot of stuff out as the public considered them to dangerous to sent their Kids to study under a Sensei that teaches the traditional System.

Also this often happened in order to get compulsory insurance for the Dojo/Kwoon.

Now this rules differ naturally from Country to Country and thus in some places TMA have become "watered" down.

Example:
Over here in Japan ew don't even sign a waiver for Injuries or similar. It is common knowledge that when you do MA you will get Hit, kicked, dumped and bruised.
Also the use of protective Gear is less here than in some other Places.

And the Kyokushin Guys down the road often looked like a steamroller rolled over them.

Post continued later on.

[dre]

[Originally posted by scotty1

Lets debate :)

YOU : "I have a random MMA or boxer in my left hand, and a random traditional MA in my right hand, I will give you £1,000,000 if you choose the one that will win in a full contact match"

I would choose the boxer or MMA. And lets bear in mind that this is for a million squid.

ME : Boxing? What the hell is so great about boxing? They tend to get kicked in the balls a lot. While they're palying their "game" I'm trying to attach my foot to their package. Talk about OBVIOUS faults in a system , look at boxing. . ."

YOU :Simply because a boxer/MMA/even a bloody Olympic style Taekwondo fighter is used to the contact, trains for full contact, and doesn't go up and down the training hall striking the air and doing light - no contact sparring.

ME : I can respect this , but Boxing? Still giving me trouble. I've taken sport TKD , and I didn't see it as very tough.

YOU :This is what 'traditional' seems to mean to a lot of people. I think traditional Kung Fu training, back in the olden days, was quite hardcore, probably involving blood and bruises.

ME : It still is to some. I go to a closed door school. No whiners.

You :When you're dealing with a fighting system involving complicated movements (say in comparison to boxing) then it MUST be pressure tested, because we all know what happens regarding fine motor movement when the adrenaline starts flowing.

ME : I agree! Theres only one way to test.

YOU : A nice mix is lovely....

ME : You talk about MMA and TMA as if they are seperate. The dirtly little secret is that (Darth Vader Voice of TMA) *MMA , I AM you father. . . !"

YOU : And I do realise that a lot of the people on this board train their Kung Fu in a traditional and realistic manner. But, they are in the minority. And classes like that are hard to find.

ME : And you say all hybryd MA is Practial and realistic. For you I have two words : Cardio Kickboxing!!! You know it! lol. But seriously, there are plenty of health/ carido oriented Boxing classes and Gyms,

[red_fists]

Post continued.

The other Problems I see is consummerism and commercalisationn(sp.) of MA in general aswell as false ideas of what TMA used to be like.

1.) Consummerism:
The average Student has a pre-conceived idea of what MA should be like. This to a large degree is especially true in the arts that enter point Tourneys.

And there are many Kwoon/Dojo that only train for those, but those are not "traditional" MA in my opinion.
Nor are Schools that train to enter NHB, UFC, Pride, or those that train Wushu style.

All of the 3 above are fads in my opinion and similar ones will/have come and go/gone trhough the ages.Also Student and heir parents want to have more fun and learn flashy wushu looking moves without getting hurt.
Or learn Self Defense without getting hit. Do a large degre I also blame Firearms on this attitude as People think "Hey, I don't need H2H skills as I am packing firepower."

Continued in next Post (this is gonna be a long one).

[red_fists]

2.) Commercialisation(sp.) of the Arts:

MA is a BIG seller right now and has been for some time.
Heck, you can't watch a Movie without someone doing a flashy kick or similar, even down to Cartoons,etc.
Add to that the glorificiation of Fighting and Warrior Aspects (aka Matrix, Ghost Dog, Blade, Jet Li, Jackie Chan and so on).

And what to you have people getting a totally unrealistc idea of what MA is and what it does for you.
Naturally those People now wanna spend money to learn to move like the Guys in the flicks and naturally there are plenty of People catering for them.

But since Movie fighting is Wushu and Chambara, people don't want to learn TMA style.

Asians consider most Martial Arts Movies as pure Fantasy and thus tend to fall less into that trap.
Of course Movies also set trends into which MA is cool at the Moment.
Look at how MA goods are sold, why do we have so many Schools, Videos, Online Shops etc. selling Goods, because it is about the Green and not about MA anymore.
Continued next Post.

[red_fists]

Continued:

3.) Unrealistic view on MA.

In the 2 points above I have outlined a few reasons why People go those views.
But even the average MA is guilty of this.
How many KFO Members say, that the old Masters did this and did that.

Yeah, I can see challenge matches arranged for every Sunday afternoon b4 Tea and Daily sparring so brutal that the Guys can't defend their Village if it gets attacked the next Day.
I can also see the weekly lineup of 100 Prisoners to train a killing blow or test a Katana.
Bull the other one it hathest Bells on.
Sounds like too many been watching too many poor HongKong MA Movies.

History records maybe less than 1% of the old MA, Composers, Generals and so on.Who can say that people in 100yrs will even remember Yip Man, or even that JKD will still be practiced.

Or how much taller the stories about A. Kim similar will be. Yes, the MA of old trained differently, but than they didn't have TV, KFO and similar to give them stupid ideas.

They trained hard after a Days work, they did their routines and yes, they also did their Forms.

Maybe the ratio was different we know that some style trained 1 posture for 2~3 month and tahn moved onto the next one. The Form grew as each Posture was mastered and added to the Forms training.

But than lets also not forget that most of the Guys that studied MA did so in order to make a living of it, and many were considered too stupid, arrogant or violent to hold other work.
Continued.

[red_fists]

Closing of rant.

For me atleast TMA methods work, I have used my TMA successfully in confrontation.

I think TMA will work for everyone, if they got the right attitude and spirit.
If you wann be as good as the Masters of old forget about Gym, KFO, TV, NHB, UFC and so on.
Work hard on your Basics, train your Forms & Qi-Gong and you will get there.

But the real problem is not TMA, but the practicioner who got wrong ideas, little dedication and similar.
How many of us do really train daily and give 100% all the time.
How many do scarifice personal stuff/wealth/luxury in order to train.
To be honest very few , yes, I am also among them, but I got no illusions of where I am heading with my skills.

There are Guys I see training in the Park, every morning regardless of Weather and conditons. They work hard at their MA and try to better themselves.
Those for me are the TRUE Masters of MA, not somebody that runs a School,
advertises publicly, calls himself Sifu , collects Trophies, enter Tourneys, and so on.
Granted some of those Guys to teach, but I would say that the majority are not.

So at the end of my rant, I wanna say think about your MA and your attitude about it.

[Black Jack]

Before I start-my answer to the question is a BIG no-now that this is out of the way.

My two yen,

1. Dre,

I don't know where people get this contemptuousness for those that practice the sweet science, as if these people who practice western boxing, thai boxing, or burmese boxing can not for some unknown reason defend against a kick to the fork, or translate their skills to the street in a whole manner.

IMHO they are brutal streetfighting arts, western boxing has given me a lot, and I know plenty of guys who can clean house without having to crossover to any asian fistic system, I would wager that this same disdain towards boxers comes from the same root cell that bashes MMA or mixed martial art systems.

The veteran boxer Ned Beaumont has already written two EXCELLENT books, "The Savage Science of Streetfighting" and "Championship Streetfighting" to showcase why boxing's simple basics are they stand up striking art for when brought out of the ring and into the street.

Add to this that ring boxing also has a darker counterpart, old bareknuckle pugilism, is a mix of boxing and rough and tumble wrestling, whose real NHB abilities in the ring are easy to showcase in our time.

Not to mention the amazing attributes boxers have, developed through not only sheer physical conditioning methods but by a constant restistance based training program with a alive training atmosphere.

I would not want to take my chances unarmed against a boxer when I had the chance to pick a kf guy instead, sorry, I will pass on the boxer, even more so when that boxer has some grappling experiance, a dangerous combination to say the least is a guy trained in western boxing and catch as catch can wrestling or judo or bjj or sambo or whatever.

2. Red Fist,

How do you blame a inattimate object for the decline of martial art studies?

Its a martial tool, a martial tool with a line of martial/academic study that is as long in researchable training material as any bare-fisted martial art system, not to mention in the hands of a basicaly trained shooter and in the proper context, it is a much superior tool than that of someone who just has their hands to go on.

It all depends on ones access to training, range, ones understanding of the tool in that range, skill, attributes and mindset. Rules are made to be broken, some say never bring a gun to a knife fight, but if that gunfighter knows WWII pointshooting or the old Quick Kill system taught at the elite Recondo school during the Vietnam war, then well those rules could be broken.

In the end martial arts are just a tool, one most will NEVER have to use in a serious context, but it is always important to train for that 1 in a 1,000,000 occasion, its better to be prepared with the most advanced tools around you, to add them to your traditional training, then stay outdated because of style pride.

[joedoe]

Originally posted by scotty1
"mp- you have to consider that there are many tma schools that put emphasis on the "art" form of martial arts. And in doing so they remove much of the martial context from the lessons learned. "

Exactly. That is why I am kickboxing at the mo, as then I can fight how I train, rather than going to Kung Fu on a Tuesday and getting taught 'the art' and having to go to the same teacher's kickboxing clas on a Thursday to fight. Why can I not be taught to fight using the techs I would learn on the Tuesday? Apparently (and this is his words) "people are not attacked in a traditional manner anymore."

:confused:

"In the end it's about what YOU can do with what you have been taught"

Very true. But if you never get the opportunity to train or practice what you have been taught in a realistic way then you're not going to be able to do much are you?

Scotty, if you want to learn a TMA and learn how to use it in a pressure situation, and you happen to live in London, see if you can find a teacher by the name of Kim Han. He is a Wu Chu Chuan teacher who in my experience is an excellent teacher of not only the art but also of the fighting applications. He also encourages his students to spar full contact and test their technique in pressure situations.

But if you don't live in London, then don't worry about it :)

[red_fists]

2. Red Fist,
How do you blame a inattimate object for the decline of martial art studies?

Reread what I wrote, I don't blame the Tool, but the mindset that many have from using/owning/carrying it.

You Guys are WAY to quick to jump on anybdoy that might say something against Guns or your perceived modern ways.


In the end martial arts are just a tool, one most will NEVER have to use in a serious context, but it is always important to train for that 1 in a 1,000,000 occasion, its better to be prepared wit
h the most advanced tools around you, to add them to your traditional training, then stay outdated because of style pride.
I agree to a certain degree. I will add new methods and techniques, when there is a real need for them.
But simply adding new stuff just because it is new or sems to be the current fad takes away from the old training and the effectivness of the style.
And this is the same attitude that has existed in TMA for a long time.
New stuff had to proof itself in real life sitaution before it was even considered for becoming a part of a style.

Too many People get hung up into being prepared for anything, rather than learning/mastering what is given and than seeing if new stuff needs to be added.

Might be a sign of modern times, or maybe a problem with the MA students and their attitude towards "Hard Work".

Just my Opinion.

[red_fists]

One final thought.

TMA were always about specialised Skills for the few, and I don't think that TMA are designed for the masses.

Personally, I had to see TMA being commercialized as they are now and taught to every Tom, **** & Harry that can wave some green.

If People wanna learn fighting, fine join a school that makes you into a fighter in a short period of time.

TMA is a life long commitment and a lifelong of hard work and advancement.TMA is designed to lift the practicioner above the fighting masses.

Nuff said.

[diego]

Or how much taller the stories about A. Kim similar will be. Yes, the MA of old trained differently, but than they didn't have TV, KFO and similar to give them stupid ideas. """"

say what you want about kfo, just leave tv out of it- 2qoute the great Homer
:)

[raving_limerick]

Originally posted by red_fists
One final thought.

If People wanna learn fighting, fine join a school that makes you into a fighter in a short period of time.

TMA is a life long commitment and a lifelong of hard work and advancement.TMA is designed to lift the practicioner above the fighting masses.

Nuff said.

Two things, probably quibbling I suppose, but I'm beat after sitting through 8 hours of class and a graduate seminar today and thus, my temper's a bit short.

Red_Fist, I generally like what you post, but this time I think that you're wrong.

Let's look at the first statement. This implies that traditional kung fu either a) takes an extraordinary amount of time to learn and b) is not a fighting art. This is exactly the thing that I'm sure that ANY traditional kung fu praticioner would decry. Sure it takes a while to MASTER a system, but do you really think you can't learn how to execute a center-line punch unless you've had years of training? Don't you people ever practice?

(This I think comes down to the fact that a lot of our fellow CMA enthusiasts seem to expect the most complicated techniques out of a system when talking about fighting. If I get jumped I'm going to stick to the very basics that I know. If I know 5 techniques I'll use them. If I know 1000 I'll use what ever works and is the simplest. I'm not doing a wushu routine for crying out loud.)

Secondly, the martial arts are a life time of refinement, not advancement. This may seem kind of minor, but the two are very different concepts. Sure I might learn more techniques as I progress in my Wing Chun, but what I want to do is refine them until I can use any technique from any position in any situation. I don't want to advance, I want to perfect my fighting ability. Simple as that.

I'm not even going to get into why I think all martial artists should spar and learn to hit bareknuckle. But that said, let the debate rage on.:D

[dezhen2001]

raving limerick: good post :) Just my thoughts...

Anyone can learn how to fight, but can you do it with the correct body mechanics (such as relaxation and ging for wing chun). THAT is what takes the time to learn imo, not 'fighting'. Anyone can do that even without trainng, but using your system correctly is different.

Advancment doesn't mean that it's not refinement. It just means things and you get better. The simpler the better, i agree :) But to do simple things against many different variables is a real biatch don't u think? Hence why it's a life long endeavour.

david

[JusticeZero]

The thing that really blows my mind out about this whole debate, see, is the fact that Boxing is a TMA. So is MT. So when you say "Boxing can wipe the floor with Trad. MA's", you're making a really nonsensical statement. In Japan, I hear, Karate is mundane, but Boxing has an exotic mystique, with ancient master boxing coaches crawling out of the woodwork and offering to teach their mysterious secrets to anyone who can cough up some money... it's totally a matter of perspective. A MA isn't traditional just because it was created in a different country, that's silly.

[red_fists]

Let's look at the first statement. This implies that traditional kung fu either a) takes an extraordinary amount of time to learn and b) is not a fighting art.


From a fighting poinnt of view MA take a long term to learn and become proficient.

Look at Yang Lu Chan, it took him 18yrs of study to learn at te Chen Village.
Could he fight before than, yup.
But after 6yrs he was still loosing and only started to win after 12 yrs.

And this makes it unrealistic for Military and Self defense purpose for the average schmoe in the street.

MA usually were reserved for the upper classes and high ranked Military.
Forget the stories about Okinawans peasants developing MA. It was the Bubishi (Military Commanders) that used them.

Peace.

[Royal Dragon]

MA usually were reserved for the upper classes and high ranked Military.
Forget the stories about Okinawans peasants developing MA. It was the Bubishi (Military Commanders) that used them.


reply]
I don't know about that, my the external part of style was taught to regular military as far back as the Ming dynasty. Yes, aspects were held back for only the family, but the Northern Long Fist was standard training for the military at that time.

[red_fists]

I don't know about that, my the external part of style was taught to regular military as far back as the Ming dynasty. Yes, aspects were held back for only the family, but the Northern Long Fist was standard training for the military at that time.

As was Xing Yi, but than I wouldn't call the average Soldier skilled in the MA either.

And is teaching just the external part not the same as what we see in most McKwoon today??
Atleast that is what we are accusing them off, methinks.

BTW, modern Armies also teach H2h, but I would't consider the average Soldier skilled in H2H.

Peace.

[Black Jack]

Red Fist,

"Do to a large degree I also blame firearms on this attitude".

Maybe I looked to close at what you were writting in comparison to what you were saying but I just don't buy that viewpoint anyway.

By the way, who are the YOU guys you are in reference to?

Perhaps a cabal of camo clad men with machine guns and swedish chew sitting around a campfire talking about who killed Kennedy.:D

Here is something else, I don't believe their really is any new stuff, just new viewpoints coupled with new training technologies, everything has a root, be that root something from an set method of training, something picked up through experiance or even something passed down from one bloodline to another, like the Gurkas and their family kukri dances or fighting tricks picked up through real combat.

What makes you think that any of the old stuff was determined to be effective through a real life scenrio and if that was the case, something I am not so sure of, why would one occurance, used once, over 300 years ago be deemed worthy of use in a modern enviroment?

Just thoughts, I think all martial arts and self defense studies have something of value, for some people its shallow, for some deep, both are fine if those are the chosen goals, but IMHO everything needs tweaking to fit each player on a individual level.

[red_fists]

By the way, who are the YOU guys you are in reference to?


Nope a couple of Combat Vets(Recon, Op-Medics, Bomb disposal, etc) from the SA Army and Troops that were stationed in Townships during troubles there.
South Africa at that time was still fighting a war, and my Friends were all vets.


What makes you think that any of the old stuff was determined to be effective through a real life scenrio and if that was th
e case, something I am not so sure of, why would one occurance, used once, over 300 years ago be deemed worthy of use in a modern enviroment?

Nobody said once, it needed to proof itself time and time again.


Just thoughts, I think all martial arts and self defense studies have something of value, for some people its shallow, for some deep, both are fine if those are the chosen goals, but IMHO everything needs tweaking to fit each player on a individual level.

Couldn't agree more with that sentiment.

Thought:
Again you like many assume that we TMA Guys are steadfast against change, which is totally and 100% wrong.
Our History is full of changes and adding new skills/techs and adaptation.

Just because we don't embrace the latest ideas at the drop of a Hat or replace our form of grappling with BJJ doesn't make us bad boys. ;)

Peace.

[Merryprankster]

Red_fist--

do you have ANY idea of how long it takes to "master," boxing or wrestling? Or muay thai? Or BJJ? Or any of these ring sports that form the basis of most gyms that "teach you to be a fighter in a short time," rather than being a "martial artist?"

Guess what? It's usually somewhere between 10 and 20 years!!! Every now and then you get a phenom, but that happens.

Spare me the elitist bull****.

[Black Jack]

double post

[Black Jack]

One last point Red Fist,

I do not assume that tma's, whatever that REALLY is, are against change. I know and have even spoken to tma's on this board that are all for taking a look at different systems, playing with them, learning from them, and adapting what they can from them.

Gong Fu means hard work-thats something every art has in common:D

[dre]

Black Jack -

I was actually talking more about Western Boxing. In fact my first Fencing teacher was an old (pro) Boxer. I only brought up Boxing , since the topic of the thread was the faults of Tradtional systems (I consider Boxing a traditional system , Boxing is farrr from new). Boxing may be a very soild system , but it has obvious faults in Grappling ( to borrow an MMA argument) and in kicking, two important ranges. Boxing is a very good adition to Pugalistic skills, but is not a complete system in itself. A pure boxer Vs. A pure Judoka , I'd put my money on the Judoka.

" I would wager that this same disdain towards boxers comes from the same root cell that bashes MMA or mixed martial art systems. "

Nah, I was mad at the BJJ jerks that live near me. I'm considering learning at a Vale Tudo school actually. I like my MA, all of it, traditional or no. I have a special place in my heart for weapons though , lol.

"Add to this that ring boxing also has a darker counterpart, old bareknuckle pugilism, is a mix of boxing and rough and tumble wrestling, whose real NHB abilities in the ring are easy to showcase in our time. "

True, true! Ever heard of Apalachan Boxing? (or was it Chesapeake Boxing. . .)?

[scotty1]

Dre - I won't debate the pros and cons of boxing with you, Black Jack has already done that (thankyou Black Jack).

I do realise that you train in a hard and realistic manner, and did actually say as much in my posts. But that is not the majority.

"You talk about MMA and TMA as if they are seperate. The dirtly little secret is that (Darth Vader Voice of TMA) *MMA , I AM you father."

That may be true, but doesn't stop the fact that the son's training is now (in many cases) more realistic and effective than the Fathers.

MMA fight, lots. I have never seen a TMA school that fought, lots.

"And you say all hybryd MA is Practial and realistic"

No I don't, I said a lot of MMA gyms train more effectively than a lot of traditional kwoons. Because they fight a lot.

"For you I have two words : Cardio Kickboxing!!! "

If I had of said that all hybrid MA was effective then yes, cardio kickboxing would be an exception, but as I pointed out above, that's not was I was saying, and therefore your above commment is irrelevant.

"But seriously, there are plenty of health/ carido oriented Boxing classes and Gyms,"

There probably are yes, but they are not what we are talking about, and even including those, I would venture that there are more boxing/MMA gyms that train effectively and realistically than there are 'proper' Kwoons.

Joe Doe - thanks mate, I don't live in London. Don't know one in Worthing do you?
:)

I don't even know why we've started debating about boxing vs. MA. It doesn't even translate into modern vs. traditional, because the poor MA classes we are referring to don't use modern or traditional training methods, they use ineffective methods. Red Fists did not start the thread to discuss modern boxing training compared to modern martial arts training, he started it to discuss
effective modern training compared to effective traditional methods, and their use in learning a traditional martial art.

I for one would like a definition of what everyone thinks are traditional and modern training methods, so we can discuss.

I'll start - Traditional:

Forms, sparring, two man drills, technique practice in the air.

Modern (ie. boxing/MMA training):

Bag work, pad work, sparring/rolling, drills to practice tachnique, shadowboxing

Not too much difference in my mind. Put the pads/bag work into the traditional, and you're not missing much.

I don't think the argument is so much traditional vs.modern as effective vs. crap.

My list above is only what I could think of in 2 minutes based on my experience, which is not much, so please feel free to point out any shortfalls and/or massive differences in what you think is 'traditional' and 'modern' training.

[scotty1]

Just thought of something.

'Bag Work' in a traditional sense is surely a makiwara (?) or WC dummy or other similar device to practice striking. So that narrows the differences down to zero, yeah?

Or am I way off in saying that to my mind there is only one difference in traditional and modern training methods? And that is forms.

Whatdoyoureckon?

[Merryprankster]

Shadowboxing is really just "freestyle," forms, IMO.

[scotty1]

Yeah I suppose it is. Which lessens the gap between supposed traditional and modern methods even more, IMO.

[red_fists]

For me there is also not much difference between TMA and most modern MA.

Maybe some training tools differ, but the students attitude and dedication should still be the same.

Yes, TMA does have Drills, sparring and rolling.
Form training is simply a catalog of moves that also shows possible applications and combinations.

Lets remember that a lot of MA could not read or write, so how did the remember the Techs and pass them on via Forms.

Forms also allow a Student to train on his own and learn the basic flow of techs.

All the traditional methods are simply tools in the TMA'S arsenal.

What I see as the problem is that too many MA & people can't see past the surface of the Training to see the real value of each method.
Or simply reject traditional because they cannot correlate modern day thinking with old ideas.

As was pointed out in the last few Posts a lot of the Gear used in modern MA is simply the modern day equivalent of traditional tools.
Which one is better for training each Student has to decide on his own, same if he wants to train traditional methods or modern.
Same way if a Student doesn't like Forms, he can learn the Form and than each tech out and drill them indiviudally.
Which actually is how many TMA are taught.

Sorry, ranting again.

[MA fanatic]

Repulsive (before you even think of analyzing me based on some screen name I have chosen for the forum, why not look at your screen name, you silly monkey):

Yes I advocate for cross training and more research on traditional methods. I think, however, buddy, that you are mistaken as to the people's reaction when they read my posts. I'm not trying to get followers, just stating my free opinion. Can I be wrong? Sure. But, I think many agree with me. In fact, I think as many agree with my statements as they do with yours. You attack me because I have cross trained. Keep in mind, I have moved from school to school because living in a big city, schools do tend to relocate, I did have to attend graduate school, and I did have to move where my job takes me. I still have a family to support. As for the length of time training in a system, I think 4 years in one style, 7 years in another, is enough to get the basic idea of what is going on. I also looked at some higher belts, and pretty much knew where my training would take me. Since you brought up my "lack of experience" touching on somethings I said on a previous thread, I am forced to repeat my experience.
1) 4 years wing chun and chin na (my master incorporated both)
2) Hapkido and TKD (competed...took me 7 years to get a black belt from the coach of my states team). Also faught full contact bare knuckle at that time.
2) 3 years Muay Thai and shooto (faught full contact)
3) Almost three years bjj now and Muay Thai (still train)
Yes, I have taken seminars from any master who come to give seminars. Have taken seminars from Royce, Caique (trained at his school), Vlad Vasiliev, George Dillman, Eric Paulson (awsome fighter), Remy Presas, and Paul Vunak. Nothing wrong with attending seminars, reading books, and collecting instructional tapes to train with sparring partners.

As for my statements. I never said that traditional methods are useless. They are not. However, they do need to be updated.

Dear Repulsive, you're such an English Scholar attacking the silly screen name I have chosen for myself, why don't you analyze your screen name Repulsive Monkey? What does that name lead us to believe about and your skill level. Makes me think of a silly monkey following master's orders and blindly believing that mere traditional methods will one day lead to higher skill. Wake up.

Which part of my posts did not make sense to you? Where did I prove my "lack of experience?" I think in terms of martial arts research, and actual combat experience I can outclass you. If you wish to blindly follow some training methods, go ahead. I believe that as martial artists, and consumers, it is our duty to question, research, grow, experiment, and better ourselves. Please Repulsive, enlighten us where you think I am wrong on that issue?

I can see how people like you cannot stand people like me. You tend to accept your training as a religion, believing that all your master tells you is pure truth. I see my master instructers as mere humans (though some were very good and skilled people) who can in fact be wrong. As a matter of fact, ALL have admited that they can be wrong. I was also fortunate to train from masters and accomplished athletes who are flexible enough to always research and explore new ideas. My Korean master, for example, was a 6th dan in HAPKIDO, 5th in TKD (5 time Korean national champion), 2nd dan in JUDO (his father was the coach for Korean national Yudo team...and my teacher competed in local Judo tournaments) and was a boxing champion of Soul Korea. When I met him he was training in the martial arts for over 35 years, yet still was talking to me about taking private classes from a rather famouse Kung Fu instructor who opened a branch in the city. He weight trained, used a dietition when needed to prepare students for fighting, and did a great deal of research into other arts. Nothing wrong with that. And he was as TMA as they come. He encouraged students being individuals, not followers. (I wonder if your teacher tells you the same.

As for me taking the same stance on all threads: well I am the same person. Why do you always take the same stand on all threads?

ONCE AGAIN: Traditional training methods are not useless. But, most are outdated. Masters, Sifus, Senseis, Sabunims, Gurus, etc. should examin modern training approaches to optimize their student's success in the ring, on the street, and/or attain peak physical health. There is a lot of new information and research out there, TMA (though some already do this) masters have to realize this.
MA fanatic

[scotty1]

"Traditional training methods are not useless. But, most are outdated"

What is your definition of a traditional training method?

In the course of my last few posts I have realised that most modern training methods have a traditional equivalent, and that it is the equipment that has changed.

If you could please give me an example of a specific traditional training method that could use updating I would appreciate it, because to my mind there are only so many effective ways to train personal combat, and I can't believe that we (in the modern times) have really invented anything that hasn't been done before.

If you could point out where I am wrong though I would be interested to read it. :)

[red_fists]

Hi.

I am with scotty1 here.
Give us some concrete, detailed examples.

How for example can we train a shoulder lock differently today than a 100yrs ago?

How can we improve on a punch using modern methods?

How can I improve my striking practice, how is it different if I strike a Maitai-wari, WC-Dummy, Sand-bag or a Tree?

For me the difference is in most modern students who wants to posess skill quickly and without much hassles, pain, sufffering.

Those that aren't into spending 3~4 yrs building a Skill and try to shortcut, by using an excuse of modern methods are better, etc.

MA is not for everybody, don't try to make it fit to you by giving lousy excuses.

Rand over.

So, pls

[MA fanatic]

You are exactly right. As a matter of fact, I have said that exact thing in my first post on this thread. It's just that we have state of the art equipment now to improve reflexes, muscle growth, speed and strength. My TKD master I mentioned above used to make us squat our own weight to promote power in kicks. We used to also squat with students on our shoulders. Good training. But, when he introduced weights, SMITH Machine, and rubber bands connecting our legs to our bodies for kick resistance, our kicking speed and power sky rocketed. That is just one example. Once again, TMA methods work, but need to be improved upon with modern day equipment, nutritional research, etc. Another quick example before work. Prior to full contact matches, most fighters now work with nutrition experts (most good fighters are nutrition experts in their own right). My Muay Thai instructor told me that his teachers a long time ago would tell him to eat a steak a few hours before a fight for protien. The approach has changed drastically. Like I said before, we're living in the Golden Age of martial arts. We can receive supplemental training from videos, other schools, the internet, and seminars. We have access to state of the art nutritional manuals, strength conditioning equipment, endurance enhancing equipment, relaxation tapes, NLP (Neurolinguistic Programing) tapes for peak performance, etc. etc. Why not use that? Why do I see students at a local shotokan school still curling some selfmade contraption resembling pails of sand for arm strength?
MA fanatic

[red_fists]

MA Fanatic.

That is fine and good.

But how will those things give you a better skill, and motor control?

Also that type of training is fine for Sports, but excessive, IMHO, for normal Street defense.

You are talking from a sport perspective adn NOT from a MA perspective in my Opinion.

Peace.

[MA fanatic]

I have done my share of focus mit training, heavy back training, partner drilling, and makiwara training (though I have kicked wooden posts to condition my shins, I have yet to spend hours punching a tree). But, as you know, new focus mit drills are developed all the time. New partner drills and even new "shoulder locks" are created all the time. If you have any grappling experience, you would know that in Brazil, new techniques are developed each year and drilled until they are perfected. Boxers, grapplers, kick boxers, San Shoue fighters, all know new training drills, and are in touch with state of the art training equipment.

You are wrong to say that those who research new methods of training are merely looking for an easy way out. That is just incorrect. Some are, and some are not. Just like many practicing some outdated exercises just do so to appease their masters and leave class early. Some of the best fighters in the world, including the Gracies, Eric Paulson, all members of the Lions Den, BJJ practitioners, Kickboxers, and Boxers, Grapplers, as well as I'm sure the Chinese Wu Shu team members (who I have spoken with), constantly research new approaches to training, conditioning, and improving their techniques. It has nothing to do with a martial artist avoiding putting in the work. I have taken seminars from Eric Paulson (for example), who is one of the most accomplished modern fighters. He is always in touch with new focus mit drills being developed, new grappling two man drills being developed and new techniques being developed. After his amazing seminar, our fighters have won local, national and international Muah Thai, and grappling championships. I am all for hard work. AS a matter of fact there are more slackers from hard work in TMA than in MMA gyms. But that is an entirely different thread.
MA fanatic

[MA fanatic]

I see and know the difference between a street fight and even the most NO RULES type martial arts event. Of course even NHB competitions are not street fights. As a matter of fact, most NHB competitors (most have even said so publicaly in interviews) do not see themselves as street fighters. However, when discussing physical conditioning, the difference is not that great. Sure techniques are different, but IMO, a martial artist should still have strength, speed, power, endurance, etc. etc. I'm surprised I'm even being debated on that issue. I'm not advocating for people to be athletes, I'm merely saying that new methods of training should always be researched by educators of martial arts. Why is this such an issue? (I do have to add that many methods ...like heavy bag training... remain a constant, though new developements have been made in those training methods as well.)
MA fanatic

[scotty1]

I agree with you MA fanatic. If you are losing out on an opportunity for effective training for the sake of 'tradition' I think you would be laughed at by most of the 'old masters'.

I don't think using equipment to increase the speed of your kick is only useful for sport. A faster kick is a faster kick, self defense of UFC, no?

Traditional methods/modern methods = same thing by our current reasoning.

So therefore, if methods are methods, why not use the most advanced equipment possible to increase the effectiveness of those methods?

Unless of course the equipment is taking away the need for physical effort on the part of the practitioner, or the need for perseverance or any other beneficial characteristics that are built through hard training. ie. If we took the eqipment away, would the practitioner still want/ be physically able to/ know how to train?

I think the answer is an obvious yes, but I would hate for it to get to the stage where technology replaces determination as our main training tool.

[Merryprankster]

Red,

Wake up man!

"Most modern students who wants to posess skill quickly and without much hassles, pain, sufffering.

Those that aren't into spending 3~4 yrs building a Skill and try to shortcut, by using an excuse of modern methods are better, etc."
This is everything, I'd hate to tell you, and it's not "Modern vs Traditional," it's "People who are lazy vs. people who aren't." Lazy people will not succeed in any combat sport OR in any martial art system worth its salt.
I don't know where this idealized view of people from the past came from but it has to stop! They squatted to take a dump too, you know.

The traditional methods weren't better, and as we see, closely match with what MMA type gyms are doing now. Sparring, along with other sorts of physical drills and training is necessary to the development of martial skill. Well and good.
What MA is talking about is developing the instrument of expression--the body. Modern training methods for the body are better than the were three hundred years ago. We have better equipment, better understanding of human physiology, neuromuscular response, specificity training, nutrition, etc, than we did back then. I don't want to hear crap about their methods being different but just as effective. You're talking about a culture in which mercury pills were taken for longevity and tiger ***** was thought to improve erectile function. I can cite similar ridiculous examples of western understanding from the same period, of course...it's just that we know better now than we did then... Athletes keep breaking world records in the most basic tests of physical attributes--speed, endurance, and strength...and it's not ALL due to better chemistry :).
Korean Judo is a fantastic example of the blend of east and west. They use Western Sports Science to train the body and use a more "Japanese Judo," than Europe and Russia... and they have done very well. Very, VERY well.

[Royal Dragon]

MMA fight, lots. I have never seen a TMA school that fought, lots.

Reply]
Then you have never seen a traditional school. all you have seen ar schools that "Claim" to be traditional

"And you say all hybryd MA is Practial and realistic"

No I don't, I said a lot of MMA gyms train more effectively than a lot of traditional kwoons. Because they fight a lot.

Reply]
Like I said, you have never seen a Traditional school. This is not suprisisng, and most Kung Fu schools are NOT Traditional, but they have to claim to be so for marketing purposes. Kung Fu is now like a new age health fad, and the people who frequent the average Kung Fu club want to do a Traditional art, but they don't want to train like they do a traditinal art because it's hard, ego briuising and difficult. So you get all these modern "only does forms and air drill" schools that "Claim" to be traditional, nad very few actual traditional schools.



I would venture that there are more boxing/MMA gyms that train effectively and realistically than there are 'proper' Kwoons.

Reply]
Yes, I believ this is true. for some reason the MMA's seem to have captured the hard core fight crowd, and it's harder for the Kung Fu schools to compete now. I think the problem stems from all of the Shaolin Do's out there. People want to fight and get good, but the local Shaolin Do is all about memeorising 30-40 forms that are really all the same thing just strung together differently. So in come theMMA's to fill the void, and now it's hard for a Kung Fu school thatWANTS to be truley traditional because most people that want to fight have already bee to the fake traditional school, and think that traditonal means "In effective", so they go strait to an MMA. This forces the traditonal school to conform to the sheeple's desires and then they become modern wussy schools to keep the doors open for the very few who actually want to preserves the hard core functional tradition of the art.




I for one would like a definition of what everyone thinks are traditional and modern training methods, according to the Royal Dragon (well, history too).

Traditional MA's
one and two man Forms , sparring, two man drills, ancient battlefield weapons

Bag work, pad work, sparring/rolling/throwing, drills to practice technique,

Modern MA's
Same as above, only forms are replaced with Shadow Boxing, and ancient battlefield weapons are repaced with military style knife fighting and gun controll.


I don't think the argument is so much traditional vs.modern as effective vs. crap.

My list above is only what I could think of in 2 minutes based on my experience, which is not much, so please feel free to point out any shortfalls and/or massive differences in what you think is 'traditional' and 'modern' training.

Reply]
done, look above----/\

As far as forms go, one thing everyone over looks is that they are a REALLY efficient way do build your cardio because you get the cardio, AND gross motor skills used in your self defence techniques at the same time. Where as with many modern methods, all you get is the cardio, and then you have to drill the motor skills seaperately, unless you shadow box alot, or do Tae Bo in which case your doing forms anyway, just not pre arranged ones.

[red_fists]

MA.

I agree with modern methods as long as they do not violate the principles on which the Martial Art is based.

Weight training in a Gym can impact for example an Internal Martial Artist.

Western nutritional experts are not that glued up on Yin & Yang foods and their rule in TCM & Body balance.

For me MA go way beyond being tough, strong and fit.That is my Opinion, and people can disagree with it.

My Sijo at 76 has NEVER seen the inside of a Gym, or a nutrition expert and I wouldn't wanna fight him at any time of the day.

From personal experiene TCC has given me some physical attributes I could never achieve in a Gym.

That is my opinion and experiene after 23 yrs of multiple TMA study.

[red_fists]

MP.

How many Years do you have training in TMA methods??
I hope more than at least 10yrs.
Which I doubt after reading your profile.

You like MA are into Competitions and Sports, those are way different to TMA and cannot even compare as the goals are way different.

But than I guess you will never see that and keep insisting on your point and your superior methods.

Nuff said.

[scotty1]

Royal Dragon - you're right mate, all the 'TMA' schools I've been to have not been real TMA schools. If they were, I would not be going to a kickboxing class now!

And that is kind of the point, isn't it? To expand on what you posted, take an average joe (me). Wants to learn KF, wants to learn to fight. Walks into 3 local Kwoons, walks out of all 3 and into a local kickboxing class because that is where he will be taught to fight more effectively. Sad But True. It is a self perpetuating pattern.

So, would you draw the same conlusions from your comparative list of 'modern' and 'traditional' training methods? ie. that they are more similar than they are different?

And Red, I hear what you're saying also. People must pick and choose wisely which modern tools they wish to incorporate, if any.

Whoever said that there was no decent conversation on KFO? :)

[red_fists]

Rant on.

What REALLY irks me is not that modern day methods might be better.
We will see in 200yrs which methods are still used.

But that most proponents of them never or hardly trained in TMA Methods and thus don't really have a good knowledge
base to found their Opinions.

Most of them I think simply rehash what they have heard as the Gospel truth.

Personally, I think we got to thank Bruce Lee among others for starting this trend.

Rant over.

[Merryprankster]

If weight training in a gym impacts an internal artist negatively, then I would suggest that their understanding of the body isn't as good as people seem to make it out to be. It seems that if the goal of internal styles, w/respect to the body is to master its energy in all aspects, then weight training wouldn't harm it... after all if you've mastered the body's energy, what's a little exertion in a gym? There is nothing fundamentally different about lifting rocks than weights or working in a field.

Oh, there it is again--the old "If only you KNEW what I knew argument."

I love that argument... so comforting and religious. Must be nice to have that kind of faith rather than keep an open mind.

God forbid I challenge what Sifu said.

Hey, I'm willing to admit that the methods of internal KF have merit, but that western understanding has something to offer too--and that they are probably both applicable, in balance, across the field.

I don't understand why YOU aren't willing to question. Heck, I used to be suspicious of chiropractors, and I'm not now. I also used to be suspicious of ginger's "warming qualities," but then I added too much to a couple of bowls of chicken soup over the course of a couple of days and came down with night sweats and a mild fever. (I'm a bit of a foodie, so I happen to know a little more than you think about Yin and Yang foods. Can't name em off the top of my head, but I have printed resources at home. Curse of having chinese cookbooks.)

If you want to know the truth, it's the unwillingness of MMA'ers to simply "accept," that seems to divide TMA and MMA right there.

Bah.

[David Jamieson]

Just want to make a quick comment regarding the observation that TMA are "forms, drills, techniques thrown in the air"

There is plenty of "force" training in TMA.
I don't know what training a "modern" school has that a traditional doesn't.

Traditional has weight work,bag work, focus mitts, kung exercises, regular calesthenics and all the other stuff that so called "modern" training has.

I think the only difference is the structure of TMA vs Modern.
TMA for the most part encourages and practices the "Master/Student" heirarchy. Modern does this to, but it does it without the trappings that are culturally associated with TMA.

modernists go to the gym, work out with a group of peers, never bow to each other and every thing is done in a "buddy partner" atmosphere.

In TMA, there is usually a rigid heirarchacal structure, questioning things is frowned upon quite often, disagreeing with an idea put forth by a senior is also grounds for ostracization and there are many dynamics to the traditional training path that are often construed as power tripping. This occurs in modern as well, but it wears a different guise.

In the end, definition offers no proof of effectiveness. Sport is sport, art is art, and combat is combat. You can train all three in the modern or traditional venue. It is completely up to you as a person to develop Kung Fu in what you do.

peace

[dezhen2001]

this is really getting interesting guys :) Some good information is coming out.

i agree that being successful in ANYTHING requires perseverance and dedication, no matter what it is. You really have to train hard to do well, period.

But to me there are different types of training. I did boxing and muay thai for around 5 years, and in that time did a lot of weights and conditioning, all the usual stuff. Now i train only in Qigong and Gong fu, and that has made me (personally) feel much lighter, faster and stronger than anything else i have ever done. I don't understand the nutrition and training methods you guys use, just like you don't understand what we do. BOTH of them work though, just a different way of doing things, and different goals. I really can't understand why ppl can't accept BOTH methods as a valid way of achieving certain goals. BOTH are science.

I do know that Internal training is very different to working out in the gym, and has different principles involved. My Sifu and even my Sigong have never been in to a gym at all, and both their bodies are the densest and strongest i have ever met. Not in the fact that they can lift heavier weights or whatever, but when training with them, you can't even move them (if they don't let you). During demonstrations they get things broken on them and members of the audience to strike them full power and it literally has no effect. Not boasting or anything, just trying to let you see what our type of training can do.

The problem to me, is that maybe most 'traditional' schools of CMA, perhaps are form factories like RD and the others have said. Me personally, i have to train around 4 hours a day for the next test i am sitting. Usually it absolutely kills me, but i can really feel the benifits. I'm sure you guys are the same. Not many places or people train that hard or even harder.

I also think that the training methods are very similar in some respects, but very different in others. I used to try and understand CMA training with respect to 'modern' training methods, but really that undermines all the research that's gone in to them before. Now what little i do understand makes perfect sense as i'm using the native theories and principles. Kinda like trying to learn a new language. You shouldn't always try to find exact translations for words, as something is ALWAYS lost in the translation.

anyway, just some thoughts,
david

[Merryprankster]

Denzhen,

Almost every one of the "broken object," things that I have ever seen can be reproduced by somebody who has little training. ALL of the ones that I have witnessed can be explained in rather mundane ways that have nothing to do with special training. More akin to physical parlor tricks.
The only one I was mildly impressed with was seeing a steel slab broken over somebody's head. But my experience as a shipboard engineer has also taught me that it's nothing to get particularly excited about. Plenty of different steels behave in different ways. Get a nice soft one and I bet it just "clonks."
Finally, why is it that context is completely ignored? I never said that internal training would make you capable of lifting very large loads. I never even hinted that I thought that was the purpose of internal training. What I said was "if weight training causes problems, then perhaps the 'mastery of the energy' isn't nearly as complete as one might think because there is nothing fundamentally different between lifting weights and doing farmwork.

[red_fists]

What I said was "if weight training causes problems, then perhaps the 'mastery of the energy' isn't nearly as complete as one might think because there is nothing fundamentally different between lifting weights and doing farmwork.

Actually MP that is where you are wrong, and naturally are so as you don't know much about "Internal Martial Arts".

Power generation is very different from external Martial Arts that you do, but in order to understadn you that you would need to feel and experience it.

Your definition of Energy is Muscle Power, ours is not.

Stop comparing apples with oranges and stop telling us that we are wrong and you are right.
I will accept your opinion after you have experienced both sides.

Nuff said.

[Merryprankster]

Red,

Yet again, choosing to ignore context. Nice straw man. Did you ever take a rhetoric class?

I never said "energy," and "muscle strength," were equivalent terms. That's what you SAID I said.

What I'm asking, although I didn't phrase it precisely this way, is why weight training would inhibit internal training whereas something like farmwork wouldn't when there is nothing DIFFERENT between lifting weights and farmwork.

Very different things.

[dezhen2001]

Hi MP, this is getting us all thinking, which is good.

I didn't mean to include the demonstration part so you could pick it apart, just to show that through hard internal training you can do a lot of things. I agree that many people do these demos by using trickery, but some are real skill. Getting an 10 inch thick stone block straight from a quarry broken over your body by a sledgehammer isn't something that can really be 'faked'. the forces involved really need a lot of conditioning or you will get damaged. Even being able to lie down with something that took 4 ppl to lift on top of you takes a lot of skill, otherwise you will get hurt. Likewise somone jumping on top of your stomch from the height of 6 feet+.
Like i said, i have seen some demonstrations that even i could do - and i've only been training aorund 18 months. In fact, as you said anyone oculd do if they were shown how to do the 'trick'.

Also, i never said anything about the context being ignored. There are different types and definitions of 'strength', that's all... What i was trying to get at, is that many people try to understand Internal training methods through western science. It can't explain some things so dismisses them etc. But why do you need to do that? TMA has it's own explanations for Internal training. Using these theories you can get results, that's FACT. Also like TCM - western science can't explain how it works, but yet it still does. They say things like 'placebo effect' - who cares, at the end of the day it still works! It's not some mystical thing, but a science. It takes years of study to understand TCM, just like western medicine.

david :)

[scotty1]

Kung Lek, you are right. A GOOD traditional school should have all the aspects of a GOOD modern MMA type gym re. resistance training.

Unfortunately people judge something on the majority of it that's on display. Hence, people think TMA training is ineffective, not realising that what they are seeing is in fact just sh!t training done in the name of a traditional art.

Of course, we know different, and that is that there is more in common between so called traditional methods and so called modern methods than there are differences as far as external training goes.

As far as internal training, well, I think DZ said it best, you perhaps cannot put Eastern concepts into Western terms, so for internal training maybe it is best not to try, eh?
That is not to say that one cannot use Eastern and Western methods side by side, IMHO. They may use different, linguistically non-compatible concepts but they are both ultimately methods of developing the same human body. Why must they be mutually exclusive?

I do Qigong for 15 minutes a day and weight training once a week, and while a purist may state that my Qigong is harmed by weight training, I feel, or believe I feel, the benefits of both.

I also use a Shaolin conditioning technique for my legs as well as going running. East meets West, old meets new, all being used to develop my body, mind and skill.

To coin MA Fanatics phrase, is the 21st century really "The Golden Age" of Martial Arts?

(Ignore the Mckwoons):D

[Merryprankster]

No time to respond now... end of shift :)

I'm not knocking TMA internal training--if it works, run with it. I'm absolutely sick of asking questions that in my mind are reasonable and getting the "you wouldn't understand," answer. It's a bull**** copout. You are not part of the problem though, just so you know.

[dezhen2001]

MP - good discussion anyway, helped me understand what i do more :) thx,

david

[red5angel]

I am sure this has been said already a few times in this thread but I would like to say it again anyway, the human body hasn't changed drastically in the last few hundred years. Although some trianing methods have improved our health, toughness what ever, most of it is just a different way of doing the same thing.
The problem with martial arts in general is that some guy goes out, finds something that works for him and decides to incorporate it into training, whether it really helps everyone or not. Much like the fad diets that are now popular, they work for certain people, but everyone is looking for that secret technique, the special way of doing something that works for them. sorry guys, its not out there, whether you are trianing TMA or "modern" you are still training in the martial arts.
There are only so many excersises you can do for each muscle group, most are redundant. You can take drugs that enhance performance, you can train harder, whatever.
some people are mistaking the way some schools train as representative of what is TMA and what is modern.

Bottom line, if it works for you, then it works for you. But dont make the mistake of comparing a teapot to a teapot, just because your teapot is bigger, has a different color, or works a little differently, it is still a teapot.

[red_fists]

MP.

I'm absolutely sick of asking questions that in my mind are reasonable and getting the "you wouldn't understand," answer. It's a bull**** copout.

It is not a copout. I am a non-Christian, can you explain to me what Faith, a Soul is like, how it motivates you.

Problem is that our reference frames are different and thus we can NEVER come to an answer that would satisfy us both.

And thus you will never understand what we are saying as you don't have our frame of reference,

Plain and simple logic, nothing else.

Peace.

[scotty1]

Forgive me Merry if I take the liberty of re-phrasing your post into a direct question, as I would like to know the answer myself, as I do both.

"Why would weight training inhibit internal training whereas something like farmwork wouldn't when there is nothing DIFFERENT between lifting weights and farmwork? "

Seems like a fairly sensible question to me.

man, this discussion is going all over the place isn't it?:)

[dezhen2001]

i think we are all trying our best to explain where we are coming from, but as Red said, neither of us has experienced the other to any high level, so don't know enough about it.

Many of us at any one time could have said "You don't understand" but we are all trying to explain things so each other can grow.

It's a very difficult area, as do any of us have enough experience to conclusively say things one way or the other?

Remember science is just a collection of theories and data that CURRENTLY explain things. It can always change. Even Chinese Medicine is always advancing and incorporating new things, but the principles have always been the same. It's not all some 2000 year old mumbo jumbo, but a science. Just the same as physics, chemistry etc. all have a framework that they work from, so does this form of science...

more thoughts,
david

[red_fists]

"Why would weight training inhibit internal training whereas something like farmwork wouldn't when there is nothing DIFFERENT between lifting weights and farmwork? "


Ok, let me answer that one.The Power generation differs, and thus you will develop a different mix of muscle fibers.

Now if you train weights using internal principles, you will benefit.

But than you aren't weight lifting but using weights with internal principles.

That is already part of your IMA training, namely weapons training and so on.

Just my Opinion.

[HongKongPhooey]

I've just read through this whole thread and I'm a bit confused, not to say a little squared eyed from 6 pages. So far the only things that are different between traditionial training and modern are forms, specific weight training, and dietry suppliments. If I have this wrong please tell me.

Thanks

[dezhen2001]

also there are differences in PRINCIPLES for things like power generation, strength, posture etc. i think that's where the main part of the discussion lies. Also the difference between how we explain how to do things ;)

david

[red_fists]

HongKongPhooey.

Those are the things on the surface, that are easily visible.

It is like trying to judge and understand a System from a Video.

Tough to do, but you will need some proper training and knowledge to really be able to judge.

How can I explain the benefits and sensations I get from doing "Zhang Zhuang"(standing medidation) for 40 minutes.

It might look strange seeing me doing it as what matters is happening internally.

I can't it is a personal feeling and experience.
Just my Opinion.

[scotty1]

"Now if you train weights using internal principles, you will benefit. " Care to expand on that?

Are you talking about different exercises, or doing them in different ways? For example, a bicep curl or a bench press. How can these be done using internal principles?

Or are there exercises using weights that can be done using internal principles that would not be recognised as a traditional western weight training exercise?

Is it your opinion that traditional Western weight training hinders internal development?

I didn't know you do Zhan Zhuang, so do I. I can only hold Lohan Embracing Buddha for about 7 minutes though, is this the posture you are talking about holding for 40 minutes?

[Royal Dragon]

There is nothing wrong with lifting and practicing internal arts. The issue is HOW do you lift?

For martial arts, we need to be following the principlas of modern strength training for sports performance, and NOT traditional body building, that's all. It's not that complicated.

Internal arts genrate power with the core body, as oppsed to the limbs. There is no reason why you can't take modern strength training for sports performance, and apply those principals to the core internal mechanics. I submit that if you did, your internal power would improve much faster than not doing so.

There is also no reason why external wieght training can't be done with an internal art. Strenght is strength, and so long as your not "Bulking Up fast", and getting really tight your going to be fine, if not greatly improve. The human body IS capable of doing both internal and external activitys, one does not need to exclude one to do the other. Infact I submit that it's a mistake to do so. The human body does not change it's requirements just because we learn Taji Quan, we still need to run, stretch and lift heavy things to be healthy. Taji Quan or internal practice cannot replace that, so it MUST be done in addition to your internal training. And yes, that includes wieghts.

Royal Dragon

[dezhen2001]

we still need to run, stretch and lift heavy things to be healthy

why do you need to do that? What about people who have done nothing but Qigong, but are still supple and flexible as well as healthy even in to old age (70+)?

david

[red_fists]

Are you talking about different exercises, or doing them in different ways? For example, a bicep curl or a bench press. How can these be done using internal principles?


Different way.
Standard weight training will often shorten your muscles.

You can train weights, but should apply the internal principles like breathing, slow movement & relexation to name a few.

Internal Martial Arts rely more on Tendon than on muscle fiber strength.


Or are there exercises using weights that can be done using internal principles that would not be recognised as a traditional western weight training exercise?

Yes, there are .
Using Steel Balls in your Hands during Forms practice. using oversized or over heavy Weapons in your Forms.

You bassically do your standard IMA training and add weights.


Is it your opinion that traditional Western weight training hinders internal development?

Yes, it can, and I have heard this echoed from a lot of Internal MA and Sifu.


I didn't know you do Zhan Zhuang, so do I. I can only hold Lohan Embracing Buddha for about 7 minutes though, is this the posture you are talking about holding for 40 minutes?

I think we call it "Holding the Tree", standard training in most IMA.

The 40 minutes is my Goal not there yet though.

But than I have multiple exercises I do for internal Development, like "Yang turning Body Palm", etc.
Peace.

[red5angel]

HKP - this is essentially the issue, the human body is limited in range of motion. Within those limits options are finite. The argument is an old one that stems back since the beginning of martial arts, is the new way better then the old way. At a certain point, there is now new way, just a different way.

Dezhen - I do not believe the principles are different, the principles are the same, the way is different.

[scotty1]

I can see how trad weight training can hinder your develpoment both internal and external if your form is bad.
But I can't see how increasing the strength in your limbs and muscles via weight training can really hinder you internally, IF your form is correct.

[dezhen2001]

how do you mean the principles are the same but the way is different?

All my previous training in boxing, muay thai and karate have really hindered me developing the correct structure and power generation in wing chun. and that's not even something like Taijiquan or Xing Yi etc. The methods to me are very different. Instead of developing the legs doing squats etc. we practise SLT for a long time (40 mins for 1 completion of the form). The feeling is totally different form doing weights and squats. The connection you develop with your body and to the ground is very different to anything i have ever done before...i've spent the last 18 months trying to unlearn everything i've done in the past, which is no easy task.

david

[dezhen2001]

like i said, i'm just starting to learn the theory and understand pieces now. maybe someone who has more experience can explain better than me :) But training internally to me seems to use the tendons and natural body structure much more than muscles. How else can you explain a 79 yr old man who weighs around 100lbs (45kg) dealing with person after person without breaking any sweat. There's no muscle there, so what else can it be?

david

[scotty1]

Good technique.

[dezhen2001]

hi scotty :) i know good technique, but like i said, it's just something i am beginning to find out about. I can't really explain as i don't know enough about it.

Correct body mechanics yes, but again, they are different to those from boxing etc. But like i said, how can someone with no real 'muscle' do that? When everyone else trains with weights etc. to become 'stronger' and yet he has never trained them in his life?

david

[scotty1]

Yeah I think you've answered your own question mate. Superior body mechanics, experience, technique, timing etc. You are saying he's strong but saying that you've seen that through his fighting. But his fighting does not show superior strength, it shows superior figthing ability.

I lift weights to benefit other areas of my life than martial arts, but the benefits of weight training carry over well into MA, if you lift with the right intent.

I think part of the problem is that if you don't do it right lifting weights can make you 'tight', contract your muscles, which is obviously not good for an external MA or an internal MA, or Wing Chun, which is both! But if you stretch your muscles and learn to relax when you're lifting then I can't see how the increased strength could not benefit your body, whether or not you need that strength for your MA.

[Royal Dragon]

Just lift first, and then do your forms and the worries of becomming tight and stiff are aleviated as the forms will keep you loose. Just don't try to do 20 sets o 3 reps as heavy as you can, keep the weight light enough to do between 12-18 reps, or someties even 30-40 reps (I go back and forth) and wieghts will benifit both internal and external arts.

as for the 70 year old man with no muscle power? WRONG!!!!!

Muscles move the body, there can be no movement with out muscle. If he is exibiting lots of strenght, he has great muscle development. It may not be in his arms where you can see it readily, but it IS there. As an internal styleist that generates power from the torso, he's got to have a WELL DEVELOPED muscular structure of the core body. THAT'S where he genrates power from, THAT'S where his muscles are most developed. End of story.

Rember, chi does not move the body, Chi Moves the muscles, and THEY move the body.

Just because you can feel your Chi, does not mean you don't need good muscle structure. Infact with out it, your not going to be able to do much. Put your 70 year old master up against Ken Shamrock, and lets see who does better. (I'm betting on Kenny)

[dezhen2001]

hey mate :)

ok - a bad example i guess... but like i said, i'm not so good at explaining what i mean :p

I guess it's just 2 very different ways of achieving what you want. I think the goals are very different between these methods of training, althought there is some crossover. The intent is also different...

david

[dezhen2001]

hi RD :)

i wasn't stating anything about fighting skill, it was just a made up scenario. All that i was trying to convey is that someone who does not have 'big muscles' so to speak or lift weights can still generate a very high amont of force. I was asking - why is this???

Like i said before, because there are different body mechanics and principles involved.

Sorry if it wasn't clear,

david

[GinSueDog]

red5angel,
I have got to agree with you there. There are only so many ways the human body can move. The principles and theories aren't really that different, just the methods.-ED

[red5angel]

ED - I believe if everyone were to go to a good school that was not what they are trianing in, for example, a TMA guy goes to a 'modern' school, they would find things are much more similar then they appear to be.

I am not saying that either has anything to offer over the other, some will find one way is better for them then the other, but this runs parelell to the argument about which style is better........

[shinbushi]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
If weight training in a gym impacts an internal artist negatively, then I would suggest that their understanding of the body isn't as good as people seem to make it out to be. It seems that if the goal of internal styles, w/respect to the body is to master its energy in all aspects, then weight training wouldn't harm it... after all if you've mastered the body's energy, what's a little exertion in a gym? There is nothing fundamentally different about lifting rocks than weights or working in a field.

I don't do any ki/chi arts but, lifting can be detrimental to fighting.
I was a bodybuilder (entered the Mr. Tokyo 65 Kilo class) and when I quit lifting for size and appearance, by movement got better. If you lift wrong it will make you very stiff. Several of my stutens have improved after swictching to either combat conditioning or Scrappers routine. I still lift but for functional strength only. Most people also don't lift with full range of motion (Especailly the Japanese, lived there saw it) and thus become rigid.

[Royal Dragon]

You said
"i wasn't stating anything about fighting skill, it was just a made up scenario. All that i was trying to convey is that someone who does not have 'big muscles' so to speak or lift weights can still generate a very high amont of force. I was asking - why is this???"

I say, because they are strong. They DO have well developed muscle structure. Especially if it's an internal guy. The difference is WHICH muscles are well developed. In the case of the internal guy, it's the muscles of the core body, and THAT is where thier power generaton comes from. They may "Look" weak, but if you stripped them naked, and watched thier core body during a movement, you would clearly see wher all the power was comming from. Now, if a guy with that level of development in his core body, had the size of Ken Shamrock elsewhere, he'd be vertually impossible to beat so long as he practiced real lif combat skills along with his body development.

Now that i'm doing some internal stuff, I'm hittng at least 3 time harder, just by applying the powere genration methods of the internal styles, and i'm not really that well developed. From a mechanical stand point, the core body can genrate much more power than just an arm or leg, and this can have a multiplying effect when added to arm and leg power, hence your real little 70 year old man with semmingly super human strength.

For a live example of a rather normal looking guy with this kind of hidden power, check out Wai lun Choi in Chicago, he's the example come to life, and can SHOW you the how's and why's of whats going on. Plus, he has weight lifting routines specifically designed for internal principals.

As for the lifitng being detrimental to fighting arrts, I think many guys (specifcally Keith Hackney and Ken & Frank Shamrock)will tell you MUCH different. It's not the lifting that's bad, its HOW you lift. Body building is BAD for Martial arts, strength training for sports performance is what we need. There is a difference.

I lift, and I have had no problems at all, infact only benifits. I'm faster, I can hit harder, and controll better. I'm not going for size mind you, but strength and power. If I get obsessive, and tighten up a bit, I jsut don't lift again until fully recovered, that's all.

[dre]

"Dre - I won't debate the pros and cons of boxing with you, Black Jack has already done that (thankyou Black Jack)."

OK

"I do realise that you train in a hard and realistic manner, and did actually say as much in my posts. But that is not the majority."

I agree with you, but in a larger picture. The majority of people train for Fun/SelfDefence/Heath (mental or physical) not to practicipate in hard contact fighting sports. I think this is true for both MMA and TMA. I'd say most (western) Boxers in the US are in it for health ,not to go fight for awards. There is nothing inherently wrong with other goals, it's just that they require different standards.

Also I think that self-defence and sport are very different things. Sport can greatly, greatly add to self defence skills ,but it isn't the whole thing (will a hihgly trained MT guy know how to get out of some mugger's bear hug? No, Not will out some self-defence drills ,but once he gets out of the Hug he can beat the living s*** out of his attacker).

"You talk about MMA and TMA as if they are seperate. The dirtly little secret is that (Darth Vader Voice of TMA) *MMA , I AM you father."

That may be true, but doesn't stop the fact that the son's training is now (in many cases) more realistic and effective than the Fathers."

I don't think traning methods are necissarily partial to "modern" or "traditional" although you are more likely to find some types of traning in those systems. I think there are some tradtional drills that are kind of overlooked (but highly usefull) to the Modern fighter (I'm thinking of Iorn Plam) but aren't put into the more eclectic systems. I mean , think of it, how is hitting hard stuff not going to make you a better fighter? There are of couse MMA drills that aren't included in many TMA schools too , but I think they'll get there.

"MMA fight, lots. I have never seen a TMA school that fought, lots"

I agree , generally, but the learning curve on TMA is usually longer , and TMA dosen't begin with a focus on Fighting Sports like lots of MMA does.

"No I don't, I said a lot of MMA gyms train more effectively than a lot of traditional kwoons. Because they fight a lot."

I think I remember you saying like 99% of Boxers/MMA Etc train for full contact , I might be wrong about the quote. But the idea of my statement was that that iws untrue ,becuase there are lots of "Heath-ers" in MMA , one becuase it's physically demanding, and two becuase of self-defence benefits.

"There probably are yes, but they are not what we are talking about, and even including those, I would venture that there are more boxing/MMA gyms that train effectively and realistically than there are 'proper' Kwoons. "

Hard to say, there aren't that many Kwoons. It wouldn't be hard for there to be "more" since there are so few Kwoons to begin with. KF is kinda on the rare side . . .

[red_fists]

Looks like, a few People didn'T read some of my Posts.

So I will repeat.

TMA has Weight Training in it, it is specialised and totally geared towards that specific System.

All the methods are contained within the System.

Problem is that this often only becomes a factor after many years of study and is often not apparent to an outsider.

Internal Arts use muscle strength, but only the minimal amount needed to overcome the Opponent, most of the power comes from correct Body structure/Alignement and optimized execution of the movements with coordinated Breathing.

Most external Arts at a higher Level will strive for the same .
Nuff said.

[Merryprankster]

dehzen,

Just so you don't think I'm a complete jerk, I really do think that there's way more similarity than differences between good training and good training :) What I'm trying to say is that the argument isn't over internal and external or TMA and MMA...it's over good and bad. Categorically denying the benefits of certain ways of training because "sifu said," is what sticks in my craw. I don't deny that "internal methods," whatever they may be, might be effective. I am skeptical of some of the more outlandish claims, but I don't dismiss it outright. Lack of confirmation doesn't mean "conclusively wrong." It means "We cannot demonstrate that it's either 'right' or 'wrong'." I deal with this in the intel world all the time.

I do, however, subscribe to occam's razor--the simpler explanation is the one you run with. If I can describe something in the very mundane and concrete language of biomechanics and physics, rather than discussing the somewhat ill-defined concept, of "internal energy," which has a definition that varies even from practitioner to practitioner, then I will.

What I am TRULY frustrated with, is the unwillingness of many people to apply critical thinking skills to their methods of training. This doesn't mean you have to reach the same conclusions as the next guy, but it does mean you have to actually think about what you're doing. It also means--and this is the very FIRST step in critical thinking, that you have to decide if "there is enough evidence," to support the assertions of your "argument."

For instance--take George Dillman and his pressure points. I know some people who have personally been knocked out, gotten sick, gotten wobbly, etc. However, I do not think this is enough evidence to say that what he is doing is interrupting the flow of chi through certain meridians, or even disrupting neural pathways. Why? Because the people who attend Dillman seminars are EXPECTING some kind of consistant "negative," result to their bodies. Even the skeptics (Meaning those who can be swayed by evidence) who are there KNOW who he is and what he claims to do. He will also say that these points don't work on everybody, and that makes me wonder if the people who think it's all crap are the ones it doesn't work on.

So what do you do? You conduct a double blind experiment in which the people getting "pressure pointed," don't know anything about what's going on, other than "this guy is going to touch you in some spots and we're going to record the results." The people who will observe/record the results will have absolutely no idea what the results are supposed to be either, so their observations aren't tainted. Dillman will NOT be allowed to talk about what he's doing. Observers would be allowed to talk to the subject only after he/she gets poked around. A unique observer would have to be used for each unique subject to avoid tainted results.

Now, if you get a hundred or so people who get poked around in this scenario, and 75% of them are knocked out by a particular combination, then Dillman's on to something.

But, if 75% don't or if the results vary wildly, like extreme happiness or calm in several person and nausea in others, then you can say that in all likelihood, he's probably not, and there are OTHER reasons behind the effects that manifest themselves at this seminars.

For those of you here who are dense--this is an EXAMPLE of a way in which you might try and verify a claim that is considered to be somewhat fantastic by many. I don't equate "internal training," with Dillman's pressure point techniques.

Or take your quarry stone and sledghammer example. If you tense the muscles in your body and take the impact off your hard tissue, the largish area of the slab, and inelasticity of the slab of stone means that the pressure is drastically reduced. The effects of this can be dramatic-- a force of 100 newtons on 1 sq cm-- 1cm on each side--results in a pressure of 100 (is it pascals? I can't remember). However, if I double the length and width to 2cm on each side, I've just QUARTERED my pressure. Breaking the slab dissipates a tremendous deal of energy that will never make it to your body, and anything that DOESN'T break the slab isn't going to be enough to actually hurt you, thanks to the reliance of pressure on it's inverse relationship to surface area. I'd be much more impressed if he took the shot from the sledgehammer by itself in the same place.

If it's explainable, easily, by physics and some biomechanics, I don't need to talk about internal energy--occam's razor.

I'm willing to bet that a knee to the stomach hurts more than somebody landing on it from six feet up---but I'll save that for later, because I"m strapped for time.

For years, football coaches told you not to drink water at practice because it would give you cramps. Don't lift weights because it will make you slow and tight, etc. Boxing coaches used to say the same thing about lifting.

There isn't a coach in the country that will tell you that now, and Holyfield had a successful run in the HW division after "bulking up." How you lift is rather important, as is stretching

Bodybuilding--the way it is now, is an example of a good thing gone wrong. Look at pictures of Frank Zane, and I think you'll see what I mean. His level of muscular development certainly wouldn't have inhibited any sort of activity. Plus there's nothing healthy about GH, massive amounts of steroids and gonadotropins, and synthol.

But this isn't the only way to lift. Look at high level wrestlers and olympic weightlifters (not the superheavies...c'mon!)--phenomenally strong, hard and dense-looking musculature... and yet, they also are simply "athletic."

In other words, lifting rocks or lifting weights doesn't matter--you're working against resistance, and I fail to see how internal energy could be hampered by one and not the other.

[dezhen2001]

you explained things far more eloquently than i could red :p

MP: don't worry mate, i know ur not an ogre :) I understand exactly what you're saying. None of the things i mentioned were meant to be taken as examples of 'mystical qi powers' or anything (I'm not rich mooney :D), just skill developed by hard training. I'm sure that there are other ways of achieving the same effect, but what i was trying to show was that Internal training CAN develop this. It doesn't matter if you subscribe to the way things are explained or not - results are achieved, if you put in the time and effort.
Again, what i said were mearly examples, not to be taken that they were the greatest thing (re. your knee comment). I also find the way my Sifu explains things to me far easier to understand than physics and biomechanics etc. so that's how i understand things...

david

[red_fists]

Here are some things I observed at my Kwoon in regards to newcomers.

We have a few ex-external Guys traning with us, in the beginning they were awfully stiff and tried to "muscle" all the movements.
It usually takes them about 2~3 months to get over that and START to relax and loose their ego.

Also lot of the muscle bound Guys really struggle with our slow forms execution and standing meditation.
And are often out of breath, sweating at the end of those.

Most of our new students mention rubbery/shaking legs the Day after training and this usually disappears after about 1 month, at which time most realise that their Legs/Thighs have grown some muscle and have firmed up.

After about 1yr most students have greatly increased in flexibility, lung capacity and are more relaxed and stress free.
Most of our students do not practice any form of sport activity besides TCC.

Just some observations, to show some differences.

[Merryprankster]

dehzen;

Nope--I didn't think you thought the demonstrations were end all be all. We're working from different frameworks of understanding... THAT is just fine. Just so long as we both understand we're talking about the same thing in different terms. The problem, I find, comes when nobody is willing to discuss "what do you mean when you say..." That's where it starts getting ugly. Different explanations work for different people...but when they start saying something like "it's NOT proper mechanics and structure it's (insert word here), THEN, I start taking issue."

I will agree that good training methods produce results. I've yet to see a school that does the same exercises the same way as any other, but that doesn't mean it's bad training :)

Red_Fist,

What you are describing isn't internal vs external. It's good vs bad. The biggest problem we have with brand new people in BJJ is learning to relax. They want to POUND AND FLAIL like maniacs rather than "flow wid de go," as Rickson once said.

That same problem extends to boxing--people who muscle their punches don't punch as hard and wear themselves out immediately. New guys do it all the time. Loose=speed and speed + structure= power. People who try to muscle MT kicks rather than just letting them happen experience the same problem.

And it extends to wrestling--the "fish," will flop around...do ANYTHING that somehow seems appropriate and it's all stiff and knees and elbows. UGH. You always get hurt going live with the beginners :)

Ever seen a stiff Judoka? They usually get thrown a lot and get tired REALLY fast.

The rest of what you describe is simply "getting used to new stresses." A large weightlifter hasn't been training to do static stances or standing meditation and is going to have problems with it. It's called "specificity." Give a marathoner a sprinter's workout and he'll be having the same problem, and vice versa. My mat endurance didn't transfer over to boxing, and vice versa.

Basically, being relaxed is about energy management--as well as speed and fluidity.

A powerlifter won't run a marathon with anything resembling a decent time, and the marathoner probably can't deadlift 400 lbs for reps. Specificity of training. They can't stand in those stances because they haven't trained for it.

Now, get somebody who does wall sits all the time in there and I bet you see a much quicker adaptation!

[MA fanatic]

Someone, I believe it was MP, mentioned 'critical thinking.' Another individual mentioned questioning the sifu. Should we as students question our instructors and the level of instruction. In modern day, YES OF COURSE. Should teachers, who claim to be an authority on the subject they teach be open to students asking, probing, inquiring and challenging? SURE. THEY HAVE TO BE. I recently spoke to a friend of mine who had been training under a local Hapkido master for many years. The Hapkido master is pretty good, but certain techniques he stresses as "highly effective" have a small possibility of working. I showed my friend how quickly these techniques may fail. I actually had him, and other blackbelts from that school attempt various joint manipulations on me which could be easily defended against. Yet, all still said that "master would not teach us something he thinks will not work." NO ONE is saying to be RUDE. RESPECT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. That master could truly believe that what he teaches is the absolute truth. He is not a bad person or a con artist (in a business where there are more cons than decent teachers). But, he is a human being who could be wrong. I was lucky, and still continue to be lucky, that all my instructors encouraged student's critical thinking. Most, even enjoyed debating effectiveness of techniques, training drills, training equipment, and even which fighter is most likely to win a given NHB match. Think of it this way; if we live in an age when we can question our doctor's treatment, often seeking second opinions, why can't we question our Sifu? We should, and it should be permitted. I would stay far away from any master, sifu, sabunim, sensei, guru, etc. etc. who requests blind loyalty.
MA fanatic

[scotty1]

My teacher said to us the other day when he was showing us some self defense moves, something along the lines of this:


"I'll show you these techniques, which I have used in the past successfully, but I am not saying that they will work 100% of the time, and you should think about them yourself.
I am not telling you 'if you do this this will happen'. Always think to yourself 'what if this doesn't work, what position am I left in?'

Good advice I think.

[dezhen2001]

hey Scotty, MA Fanatic and MP: good advice guys. But i don't think everyone blindly follows their teacher - i know i am expected to question whatever he says and work things out on my own. I feel bad for people who don't have that ability within themselves. I always 'prepare for the worst, but hope for the best' in everything i do, not just MA training :)

MP: you made a good point about 'specificity' <--- didn't know that was an actual word but there ya go :D

Maybe that's where the difference lies between training methods? Training posture and stances are something you're going to use every time you practise martial arts. So i was just thinking about weight training... Why do you need to train that if you're not actually doing anything that resembles it in actual martial arts? Is that very good 'specificity'? I'm fumbling for words again...

anyway, i need to think what i mean and then post properly,
david

[Merryprankster]

dz--

About weight training--you don't NEED to do it. The reality though, is that beyond a certain point, you aren't going to get any stronger without resistance work--whether it's chunks of iron or stone or farmwork.

Now, that doesn't matter much to most of us. I'm as strong as I'm going to get from boxing/wrestling/BJJ. I'm not going to get any stronger, no matter how many push ups I do, I'm not actually going to be able to physically move more weight.

Now, the reason that high level athletes engage in weight training is because they are looking for an edge--same reason they are in very good shape. I could be the most highly skilled Judoka in the world and lose tournaments because I can't go the distance or I'm just not strong enough to pull it off.

Plus, you have the issue of diminishing returns. Realistically, is a 20 year practitioner of Judo going to get THAT much better with his or her technique? He'll learn some fine tuning, and work to improve, but is practicing the same thing for 3 hours going to issue the same rate of return as it did when he was only a 2 year practicioner? I'm guessing not. So he can afford to invest some time in weights.

Now me... I'm just a purple belt. I've got, best case scenario, around another 4 years before I get my black in BJJ. Time constraints set in--do I increase my returns by working on my game 5 days a week or lifting 2 of those and training 3? I think it's pretty obvious :)

The other thing is that getting stronger is beneficial across the board, however. Marathoners today weight train--not as much as an olympic weight lifter, but the mild improvement in strength translates into slightly better times.

Another example, and more relevant, might be the throwing events. These are VERY skill-oriented events...but there is a real limit to how strong you are going to get throwing an impliment. In order to generate more force than your optimum level of technique allows NOW, you have to get stronger, and that means resistance training of some sort.

[MA fanatic]

Merryprankster: Just a purple belt? For bjj that pretty darn good. Who do you train under? It takes most guys about 3 years of regular deligent practice and none stop sparring to reach blue belt. Most other arts hand out blackbelts while bjj guys still try to earn a blue. Purple is very high, considering. I live in a city with close to a hundred martial arts schools, only several teach legit (under qualified instructors) grappling (shooto, bjj, pancration and catch as catch can wrestling). I think there are only 3 or 4 purple belts in bjj in the entire state. There are abot 3 black belts that I know of. Actually, I'm pretty sure there are 3 bjj black belts total in IL. And, those guys are good with experience in sport bjj, no gi grappling, and nhb. Good for you.

MA fanatic

[Merryprankster]

MA Fanatic,

I'm a Purple under Lloyd Irvin.

3 years of constant practice? That seems excessive. I know many 2-3 year whites but they had erratic attendance. I know that different instructors have different standards for belts though.

However, I've found our belt ranks seem to hold up at tournaments, so I guess it doesn't matter much, eh? :)

[omegapoint]

Hmm, the old MAs forum standard: What is the usefulness of traditional m.a. training (versus modern martial sport training)?

Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I have trained both ways my entire life, but recently I have been leaning in the traditionalists direction. Then again I lift weights, do plyometrics, run wind-sprints and do traditional boxing type-conditioning like heavybag work, double-ended bag work and jump rope. The thing is I did similar things when I trained almost exclusively through the 80's and early 90's, but while I was training in Shorinkan Shorin Ryu.

Muay Thai shin kicks are hard to accomplish when you are a 70 year old with arthritis and osteoporosis. A lot of traditional senseis/sifus can fight very well into their 60's, 70's and 80's. The moderation helps to preserve the body for life's battle with senescence (old age). Most of us will never have to fight, but if we do, who's to say that it will be when you're 22 and in your prime? Of course you could always enter tourneys and such to "test" yourself, because you lack some faith in your ability to assess these things or something, and defeat the purpose of learning to fight- ONLY for self-preservation. Don't worry about a real adversary doing it for you, do it to yourself and fight a losing battle.

Our dojo in the PI was a cooperative effort with everyone from Kajukenbo to Muay Thai training there. We often had interdisciplinary sparring sessions with Goju, Hung Gar, Judo, Kuntaw/Kali, Kenpo, TKD and Shotokan. It was fun and some could squab' (regardless of style) and some didn't have the foggiest. Most were very mediocre.

The Muay Thai guys didn't do as much Hojo Undo (supplementary training-weightlifting, etc.) as the Kajukenbo, Boxers and Shotokan cats. They really knew how to push a bag around (penetrating power is the aim not pushing power), but I've seen good players from each camp represent themselves welll against them. A lot of traditional Okinawan and Japanese Karate styles employ devastating leg kicks, grappling and in a lot of instances, a wider array of hand techniques.

With the exception of Goju, almost all the styles had no prob with TKD at all. Their instructor was the last to teach at the school, and thought that the training would be like it was in the States (he was Korean and did train in Korea, too), but the level of kumite skills was broader than he had ever seen before. It took him a while to acclimate.

My point is that nothing exists in a vacuum. I have always known people who have lifted, run, did bagwork, cross-trained (after attaining some proficiency in a good fighting system) and sparred real hard. When the weekend came, and it was time to go off-base into the mean streets of Angeles City, in a 3rd world country, many of 'em got their arses handed to them in a chaotic fighting scenario. No intros, taping of the hands, working up a sweat anticipating something. Just "Hey, Stupid Kano" or "Friggin' SP wannabe cop" and "Bam"! One second laughing, maybe a little inebriated (or lots) and the next Thai Boxer, or TKD guy getting a beatdown from every conceivable direction. Sometimes one-on-one sometimes not.

You know who won a lot of those fights though? Guys who trained in a good solid, gross-mechanics, simplified fighting system, with lots of practical forms training, for a long time. Their wealth of imperturbability, perseverance and strong mental conditioning saved them a lot of the time. Then again I knew boxers, grapplers and thai boxers who were awesome street fighters.

Again I reiterate; nothing exists in a vacuum. The traditional masters were fighting people of similar knowledge, physical build, technological advancement and so on, as the people are now. We ain't talking about sending Rickson Gracie, Cung Le or Alex Gong back in time to fight these masters. There are traditional martialists these days that could hang with them (well maybe not Rickson). Usely scrubs or journeymen enter MMA, not real Black Belt level fighters. It's almost against the traditional credo to fight for no reason. To secure people self-gratfication, fame, riches or to prove a point, are not valid reasons to harm someone. Ever..

Additionally, the techs learned from a traditional style are just as effective now as they were 100 years or 1 month ago. The human body has changed very, very little since about 100,000 years ago. Now traditional techs are employed by bigger, stronger, more technologically advanced folks, and in many instances with modern anatomy and physiology to make it even more effective. All the smart karateka, jujutsuka, judoka, thai boxers and chuan Fa practitioners are cross-training, too. A prime example is Chuck Lidell who uses a base art of Hawaiian Kempo as his foundation. After all how many tens of thousands of years does it take for people without firearms and other advanced weapons, to formulate an effective empty-hand or weapons based combat style? Without guns the need to protect yourself in other ways was a prerogative. Remember, nothing is new under the sun. Everything is just a modern interpretation of ancient human precepts- from government to MAs.

So dowatchyalike, if the intention and your ability to deduce practicality are there then you can't go wrong. BTW, TKD players can probably take care of themselves, but in the end I guess everything is subjective and based on actual real world, real time observation. Ain't it?

[MA fanatic]

Merryprankster: Hey, if you can last against a purple in a purple devision, you must be a purple. Its the quality of time not the time you put in. That is what i like about bjj, the ranks few, but those who get them from qualified instructors have definitely earned them. A friend of mine had been training in TKD for pretty much close to 10 years now. He got his black withing 2.5 years. Basically just came to class a couple times a week for one hour. My old instructor only gave 6 black belts in 12 years (most have trained with him for over 8 years and were required to keep attendance, and regularly spar and compete in either TKD and/or Judo...some did some kickboxing as well). All depends on the teacher and requirements I suppose. I just started under Gracie Bara. Before did some shooto where we had no belt ranks. Presently we also have some white belts with as much as 4-5 years grappling experience. After being around the martial arts for many years, it is a pleasure to see a school where rank is taken very seriously and students feel that obtaining a rank would take years of hard training. In most (not all) other schools I have seen students just walk through their monthly promotion tests knowing before they even step onto the mat that they will pass.
MA fanatic

[MA fanatic]

Omega:
I don't think anyone, at least from the posts I read, is actually argueing that traditional training is "useless." A lot of training actually remains constant and will always remain constant (heavy bag work, some focus mit or focus glove work, running, some form of lifting, in many schools hand conditioning, etc. etc.). However, what I'm saying is that many (not all) traditional instructors don't even accept the possibility of there being other approaches to training. The human body itself didn't change, but from new research into anatomy, physiology, nutrition, etc. etc. we now have state of the art equipment, newly designed drills, and methods of reaching peak performance faster than before. This has nothing to do with tradition Vs. sport. Even traditional styles should want their students to be in peak physical form. Just look at the shear number of high ranking black belts who are completely out of shape.

A funny side story: I once asked a Kenpo instructor why all his black belts were at least 35 -45lbs overweight (don't worry the guy was my friend, I wouldn't be this rude to someone I don't know). He told me because "our technique is so good." What?
MA fanatic

[dezhen2001]

i think that sucks when ppl get grades for just turning up and things... i seen it a few times here in the UK, but luckily not so much.

Now the school i'm at has no grades whatsoever - just teacher and student. There are seniors and juniors of course, but that's easy to see anyway. You get tested when ur ready, and either pass or fail there and then... for me it works better :)

MP: good work on your ! Training hard deserves respect no matter what it is!

MA Fanatic: that last paragraph cracked me up :D

david

[dezhen2001]

MA Fanatic: i think that there are just different ways of training to do different (and in some cases the same) things... I mean i don't do any weights, running, nutrition etc. and can keep up easily with my friends who are in the Uni athletic team when we go running. They go running 3 or 4 times a week, while I just train in Qigong and Gong Fu - that's it.

Like Omegapoint said, i think there is merit in doing anything with perseverance and dedication (that's what Kung Fu means: skill earned through hard work and practise). It's just our methods differ :)

david

[Merryprankster]

Omega,

I note what you say about the MT/Boxing/Wrestling--hard to lay shin kicks in when you're 80. Well, that's true.

But you have to remember something--these guys engage in "live combat." It's full blast.

I'm not saying that "traditionalists," don't. What I'm saying is that 20 or 30 ring fights will take a lot out of a person. A lot of training time...a lot of injuries. I know that many people don't ever step into the ring and fight--but every person I've met that trains with ring fighters, or even in a training hall where they just beat on each other a lot, is messed up in some way :)

If there were a high-profile, accepted, fighting circuit for TCC, I bet you people would walk away with the same kinds of physical problem you see in the combat sports.

dz--what you are talking about is a general level of "fitness," and it's good that you posess that--but if you wanted to keep up with a "runner," you might have a hard time. I have a friend who is a runner, and she can post a 5:00 mile. Unless you are blessed as a runner, that's a hard time to get for most of us. :)

Of course, a certain amount of natural ability goes into any of this :)