hours upon hours, years upon years

[kungfu cowboy]

It seems a general consensus in MAs, CMAs in particular, is that it takes one heck of a loooong time to actually become proficient in them. But even then, it's not like you would be invincible. So, why spend that time when one could instead train in a simpler system that you can use almost from the beginning?

Getting hit by an arm thrown about by someone having a seizure is able to injure as surely as a punch from someone with a months training or a Hoo Ha Poo master's death blow is. Granted, training increases the odds you will be effective, but even an untrained spaz can whup some arse.

So what is to be gained in learning a difficult system?

[rubthebuddha]

well, if you learn to do a sidekick from the seventh floor, you can easily get chicks.

honestly, much of it is confidence not just in your ability to clock someone, but in yourself in general. plus, the more aware of the realities of violence, dislike of it usually overcomes the fear of it, so you can go through life knowingly avoiding violence while being apt to defend yourself rather than hiding from it because it may be around the next corner.

that, and it can be a **** good workout.

is good for immediate and long-term health.

is good for disposition (unless you just can't get your ****ing bong sau to work :mad: ).

is good for a lot of things. but i think a lot of us are still expecting the chicks. :)

[Shadow Dragon]

KFC.

If your goal is solely to fight than yes, I would agree with you.
As RTB pointed out there there are also other benefits (confidence, fitness. alertness, etc.)

Not matter what you train if you wanna use it over a long time, you need to keep training and maintaining your skill.
How quick you can use and apply what you learned also depends on you and how your train.
This of course after the initial attributes have been trained and become part of you.

I have seen many MA that studied for 10yrs considered themselves advanced and skilled but still were fairly low-level, why because for 10yrs they trained low-level.

It all depends on you and what effect you train for.
Good MA training is hard and takes more effort and dedication than most People are willing to put in.

Look at Zhang Zhuang for example:
I know plenty of people that do so while watching TV and similar.
By doing that their minds are on other things, and they have wasted their training.

As I was once told you do everything 100%:
100% sleeping
100% training
100% ****ting
100% ****ing
100% eating
etc.

Cheers.

[SevenStar]

It depends on what the individual wants out of his training. Not everybody trains for the sole purpose of learning how to defend themselves quickly. Some people are in it just for general fitness, some for philosophy and history, some for the various methods of training - iron body, chi kung, etc.

RTB, get it right man - it's the 11th floor

[MightyB]

I think that the "Years upon Years" thing has been a little misconstrued.

A "normal" person should be able to be trained to effectively fight in about 6 months time no matter what style of MA that person is learning. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick, a throw is a throw, a lock is a lock... Besides, perfection of a few moves is way more effective than mediocracy in many. It's the magic and mysticism that boggs things down.

What needs to happen is that people have to either take responsibility for how they are training or how they are training other people. I use the "simpler" styles as benchmarks. I constantly ask myself, if I were to fight a person with "?"months "?"years of Thai boxing (fill in fighting style of choice), how would I do? Would I be a chump or a champ? Depending on the assessment, I modify my training. I know that that assessment would work when teaching too. You must constantly assess the basics of your students and rate them against proponents of other styles. Then drill the pi$$ out of them until they get it right.

Put the Fight first, the super mental crap comes with time, experience, and confidence.

[Tainan Mantis]

"Put the fight first."

That's what I was thinking.

[MightyB]

rant

I absolutely HATE the lame "not everybody studies the Martial Arts to learn how to fight" excuse. What the F*** are you studying MA for? Study painting, Yoga, Tae Bo, ballet, who the heck cares because that's utter BS. It's a crap excuse for inneffectiveness in a crap style. The teacher's crap, the style's crap, the school's crap, everything about it stinks.

Take for example Tai Chi. Real Tai Chi isn't Kwai Jai Kang Kung Fu grasshopper nonsence, it's fighting. Why the F*** do you think that it's called the Grand Ultimate Fist style?

I remember watching a guy shake like an epilectic whilst performing tai chi because he didn't know what the f*** he was doing. He thought (and was telling people) he was exerting extreme chi, that's why he moved like a Parkinson's patient. If you asked him "how do you apply that move?" he would look at you like you were from Mars and say, "this is Tai Chi, not fighting". :confused:

Martial Arts especially traditional CMA follows a very linear A to B to C to infinity process. First, you condition and strengthen the body through exercise (so you can be physically able to fight). Second, you learn to fight. Third, you develop the internal powers. Why do people believe that they can start at C? I don't know the answer but it's killing CMA.

rant over

[MightyB]

Saw the vids on the other Forum... The ones that I seen were all good. I liked them all, not sure which was my fav., but they all were good.

[KC Elbows]

So, do six month to one year boxing neophytes beat 8 year boxing veterans all day? I don't think so.

[MightyB]

No, well, Maybe...

That's not the point, the point is that those boxers should be able to fight well against another boxer with 6 months to a year of boxing experience, and, they should be able to effectively deal with a self defense situation.

The 8 year ring experienced veteran is already on the path to a higher level. He didn't get there by meditating though.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by MightyB
No, well, Maybe...

That's not the point, the point is that those boxers should be able to fight well against another boxer with 6 months to a year of boxing experience, and, they should be able to effectively deal with a self defense situation.

The 8 year ring experienced veteran is already on the path to a higher level. He didn't get there by meditating though.

I'd say the same thing about a kung fu fighter, or any kind of fighter. That's my point. However, to become a really good fighter takes more time, and even the so-called 'naturals' often have experience with contact before they started fighting.

And your veteran didn't get any sort of life by just boxing. Heck, he might even meditate on the side for a little quiet.

So, what's the point of this thread again?:D

All of these new and fresh perspectives are just what I need.:p ;)

The problem with any general consensus is that you cannot assume that a single person you are addressing holds it to be true, and so you end up in conversations with people where you make assumptions about their beliefs and practices. That is my summary of the entirety of the MMA vs. TMA argument.

[apoweyn]

mightyb,


Originally posted by MightyB
rant

I absolutely HATE the lame "not everybody studies the Martial Arts to learn how to fight" excuse. What the F*** are you studying MA for? Study painting, Yoga, Tae Bo, ballet, who the heck cares because that's utter BS. It's a crap excuse for inneffectiveness in a crap style. The teacher's crap, the style's crap, the school's crap, everything about it stinks.

Take for example Tai Chi. Real Tai Chi isn't Kwai Jai Kang Kung Fu grasshopper nonsence, it's fighting. Why the F*** do you think that it's called the Grand Ultimate Fist style?

I remember watching a guy shake like an epilectic whilst performing tai chi because he didn't know what the f*** he was doing. He thought (and was telling people) he was exerting extreme chi, that's why he moved like a Parkinson's patient. If you asked him "how do you apply that move?" he would look at you like you were from Mars and say, "this is Tai Chi, not fighting". :confused:

Martial Arts especially traditional CMA follows a very linear A to B to C to infinity process. First, you condition and strengthen the body through exercise (so you can be physically able to fight). Second, you learn to fight. Third, you develop the internal powers. Why do people believe that they can start at C? I don't know the answer but it's killing CMA.

rant over

i'm sorry, mightyb, but i have to disagree with this rant. who are you, i, or anyone else to tell a person that they're doing what they do for the wrong reasons?

i do think you have a good point that if someone is using that as an excuse, then it's pretty feeble. but if that's genuinely how they feel, that they want to practice martial arts for some reason other than actual combat, then why on earth shouldn't they?

this isn't a question of semantics. we all know what 'martial' means. we all get the implication of 'chuan', 'kwon', or 'fist.' but there are droves of martial arts that presumably have to be practiced for some reason other than combat. take kendo for example. unless you're including sparring as combat, that is. yes, it's conceivable that someone would train in kendo for combat. but it's just as likely that they do so for the cultural experience, the exercise, etc. and i'm not going to tell them that they're wrong to do so.

how about archery? clearly has its origins in combat. does that mean that every archery enthusiast is training to shoot someone?

why should other martial arts be any different?

people do this because they like it. why they like it is a largely individual thing. as it should be.


stuart b.

[General Kwei]

KFC - I would say that it takes years to "master" any particular form, becoming proficient in it may come much sooner.

[Former castleva]

I think that in personal level,internal development of you should start from day one.
Besides that,does somebody really want to just learn self-defense for the rest of one´s life? It is OK to do so,but there are more in arts,if one says "so what the hell do you learn MA for if not fighting?"
I think these all things,including "fighting" should be there.
I´ll hijack just a bit but another thing I´ve been slightly depressed in reading is those occasional complaint´s on why does not your average MA practitioner eat nails for breakfast and breathe fire even though he does MA.
Why prove something?

:)

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by MightyB
rant
I remember watching a guy shake like an epilectic whilst performing tai chi because he didn't know what the f*** he was doing. He thought (and was telling people) he was exerting extreme chi, that's why he moved like a Parkinson's patient. If you asked him "how do you apply that move?" he would look at you like you were from Mars and say, "this is Tai Chi, not fighting". rant over

This is interesting to me. I've seen people say that Tai Chi for health is nonsense because you have to learn the applications of the moves.

My Tai Chi class is billed as Tai Chi for health. We still learn the applications. Even if you are just doing it for health, you still have to learn the applications in order to do it right. Teacher says to keep your head upright not to improve your posture but because you want your range of vision as wide as possible when fighting multiple opponents.

The eighty year old man in my class recovering from a stroke isn't going to use this to fight multiple opponents. He is learning it as a martial art but is doing it for health reasons. His balance has improved so much that he threw away his cane.

So I'm with apoweyn on this. "Who are we to mandate why?"

[GGL]

Can you fully learn to play the piano in a couple of months?

Can you encompass the full art of playing a guitar in a couple of year?

Same as any other art..

Now the kazoo may be a different story :)

[David]

I have absolutely no interest in any of the simpler MA's.

1. Their curriculums are limited.
2. They are usually sports.
3. You can't do them effectively into old age.
4. They don't promote health into old age.
5. They have no gestalt/holistic knowledge of the human condition.

-David

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by MightyB
I think that the "Years upon Years" thing has been a little misconstrued.

A "normal" person should be able to be trained to effectively fight in about 6 months time no matter what style of MA that person is learning. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick, a throw is a throw, a lock is a lock... Besides, perfection of a few moves is way more effective than mediocracy in many. It's the magic and mysticism that boggs things down.

What needs to happen is that people have to either take responsibility for how they are training or how they are training other people. I use the "simpler" styles as benchmarks. I constantly ask myself, if I were to fight a person with "?"months "?"years of Thai boxing (fill in fighting style of choice), how would I do? Would I be a chump or a champ? Depending on the assessment, I modify my training. I know that that assessment would work when teaching too. You must constantly assess the basics of your students and rate them against proponents of other styles. Then drill the pi$$ out of them until they get it right.

Put the Fight first, the super mental crap comes with time, experience, and confidence.

I disagree. I know someone who, for their fist year in xingyi learned but one stance and one punch. It wasn't due to mysticism, but due to perfection. He wanted his student to fully understand everything he possibly could about the punch and stance. I know we've all heard about the days of old where students for the first several months did nothing but horse stance. It's not the "wrong" way - just slower.

[MightyB]

You said you disagreed, but you actually agreed... :eek:

I said:

"Besides, perfection of a few moves is way more effective than mediocracy in many."

and:

"It's the magic and mysticism that boggs things down."

You said:

"I know someone who, for their fist year in xingyi learned but one stance and one punch. It wasn't due to mysticism, but due to perfection. He wanted his student to fully understand everything he possibly could about the punch and stance."

I betcha he could apply that punch too. :p

[kungfujew]

It is truly simple.

Kung - Fu.... the definition of which is Time & Energy.

We learn/practice over much time and expend a lot of energy for the purpose of HEALTH. The motions we use help us keep an overall "shape" in our health. CMA helps us use muscles that are not used in ordinary activity. The cross-legged stance for example.
This allows us to have a more solid stance.

This helps not only our fighting ability, but as we age, the fact that our "support structure" is stronger BECAUSE we've trained all those unused muscles, we should better able to prevent a fall in the first place. Then, if we do fall, we've been trained HOW to fall.

Did you know that 80% of elderly women who fall and break their hip(s) DIE within 3 years?.

So, MA and especially CMA is really for health first.

YES,, if your goal is Self Defense, take some crash course or seminar to learn a dozen techniques, practice them well until they become instinctive.... and THEN learn the long-term stuff for health.

In the end, the long term stuff KUNG-FU (TIME & ENERGY) will refine and perfect your motion. It will make you more efficient in motion. More power less energy. Better balance. These are all very important,,, yet require the dedication and timelessness to acquire.

Sifu Z

[ewallace]

So, MA and especially CMA is really for health first
Totally disagree.

So, MA and especially CMA is for health first for some people, and is for fighting first for others.

That would be more accurate. :)

[MightyB]

It's amazing on how many of you wish that you could disagree with me but actually reaffirm everything I said. This is probably because most of you are learning the real $hit, which is good.

I said: "Martial Arts especially traditional CMA follows a very linear A to B to C to infinity process. First, you condition and strengthen the body through exercise (so you can be physically able to fight). Second, you learn to fight. Third, you develop the internal powers. Why do people believe that they can start at C? I don't know the answer but it's killing CMA."

I would have to repeat all of KungfuJew's (quite possibly one of the coolest names on KFO) post, but you get the point.

First, Health (to fight). Second, Fighting. Third, Longevity, greater insight, Chi, personal development---Yada Yada Yada...

The original poster was asking about the length of time to get any proficiency to be able to fight. I say, in a real school, 6 months to a year.

[norther practitioner]

So, MA and especially CMA is for health first for some peope, and is for fighting first for others.

Well, as my Shirfu put it, if you get your arse handed to you, are you in good health? No, you just got beat up and probably have some bruises, scrapes, and maybe more injuries..... So, when people ask me why I study CMA, I tell them for my health.
Mental, physical, etc.

[ewallace]

if you get your arse handed to you, are you in good health?
I knew that would come up. However, that is arguing semantics. I am arguing mindset. If you could fight better your health would not be questioned. Take this statement for example:

I take vitamins, eat right, and visit my physician for health. I take martial arts classes to learn to fight better.

That is a mindset. That is true to the person that said it (thoretically...stay out of this Braden:)). And not all styles focus on health. So to say that all martial arts focus on health first would be inaccurate.

[apoweyn]

mightyb,


The original poster was asking about the length of time to get any proficiency to be able to fight. I say, in a real school, 6 months to a year.

and i'd probably agree with you, if that were their priority.

what i disagree with is the assertion that this should be their priority.



stuart b.

[kungfu cowboy]

Teacher says to keep your head upright not to improve your posture but because you want your range of vision as wide as possible when fighting multiple opponents.

I think he made this one up.:p

[MightyB]

Even the elderly and the handicap learn to punch and kick, and then how to defend against a punch and a kick...

How else can you teach kung fu?

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by MightyB
You said you disagreed, but you actually agreed... :eek:

I said:

"Besides, perfection of a few moves is way more effective than mediocracy in many."

and:

"It's the magic and mysticism that boggs things down."

You said:

"I know someone who, for their fist year in xingyi learned but one stance and one punch. It wasn't due to mysticism, but due to perfection. He wanted his student to fully understand everything he possibly could about the punch and stance."

I betcha he could apply that punch too. :p

Yeah, I agree - I half read the post. I'm sitting in an ALL DAY SQL class and I read bits and pieces of it while I was on break. :)

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by MightyB
Even the elderly and the handicap learn to punch and kick, and then how to defend against a punch and a kick...

How else can you teach kung fu?

that doesn't necessarily equate to actually fighting though. if you started introducing more intense self defense drills, with padding, more contact, practice weapons, etc., many of those same students may not be interested in taking part.

so is it the movement and exercise they enjoy? or are they truly looking for combat?



stuart b.

[MightyB]

"that doesn't necessarily equate to actually fighting though."

In the ol' days, it did. You wouldn't learn otherwise. It's only in our pansified 21st century that we've lost site of what it means to be a martial artist. :D

[CrippledAvenger]

Originally posted by MightyB
Even the elderly and the handicap learn to punch and kick, and then how to defend against a punch and a kick...

How else can you teach kung fu?

What about 120 easy installments of $19.99 each?:cool:

anyway, I'd just like to reiterate an earlier point made that sports such as boxing don't bestow a degree of mastery upon the practicioner within a short time frame-- they just seem to drill the basics into you that much faster. I'm by no means a golden glove boxer, but after a few months of instruction, you start to get the hang of the basics-- hands up, basic combos, etc... But there's a lot I didn't learn-- counterpunching, clinch strategy, so on and so forth.

So, I think (for an outsider looking in) this idea that Kung-fu is more complex than other types of fighting is a fallacy. Almost any fighting art is complex, and requires a lot of dillagent study before you begin to approach any kind of mastery of it. However, I see no reason why I wouldn't be able to take what I'm learning and apply it within a few months.

Just my canadian nickel.

[MightyB]

Preach on,

Can I hear a little--

AAAAAhhhhmen,

Listen to ya,

Oh Lord,


Got to getcha,

Preach On...

[Daredevil]

Why the F*** do you think that it's called the Grand Ultimate Fist style?

You just stepped on something that I've waited to comment on a long time ...

It's not called (Taiji) the Grand Ultimate because the name intends it to mean 'the most kick ass', but it is called (Taiji) the Grand Ultimate because it refers to the most basic principle of existance, the grand ultimate principle as it were.

Taiji does not mean "absolutely kick ass". Taiji is a philosophical thing. Look at the yin/yang symbol and you see Taiji. Taijiquan is a martial art 'derived' (or at least incorporating/being inspired by the Taiji philosophy) from that.

That stuff said, I entirely agree with the point made, though. Taijiquan is about kicking ass and busting skulls, just like all MA. Geez. The folks who do this stuff for other reasons, .. blaah. I'm tired of hearing that as well. However, I don't say one cannot find meaning beyond combat and benefit beyond fighting potential from martial arts. They can also be a spiritual pursuit. Just .. please .. learn to fight before you get there. Learn to fight, or go take yoga, which is perfectly fine and made for that kinda stuff.

[KC Elbows]

Old people are all about fighting.:D

I think there's room enough for all groups.

I will mention that I've seen good fighters learn to fight in styles under teachers who were more teachers than fighters. However, that requires that the teacher knows the specifics of the art, and the fighter knows how to train for fighting, as some teachers who are into the arts for the love of the style as opposed to fighting don't run their schools to turn out fighters. That does not mean that they couldn't, they may be perfectly capable of it, but are not inclined to do so.

As a fighter, I would like to be an effective one.

As a teacher, I would like to be able to help others become effective fighters in their own(not my) way.

What can make me an effective fighter cannot make me an effective teacher of anyone but those exactly like me.

What can make me an effective teacher does not necessarily make me an effective fighter, as I must be proficient enough with moves that don't favor my build to teach them, even though I do not use them in fighting, and therefore I have more moves to deal with, and thus less training time for my core fighting moves.

[CrippledAvenger]

Originally posted by MightyB
Preach on,

Can I hear a little--

AAAAAhhhhmen,

Listen to ya,

Oh Lord,


Got to getcha,

Preach On...

Momma said, I always did look good in a collar.

[apoweyn]

mightyb,


Originally posted by MightyB
"that doesn't necessarily equate to actually fighting though."

In the ol' days, it did. You wouldn't learn otherwise. It's only in our pansified 21st century that we've lost site of what it means to be a martial artist. :D


i think you're over-romanticizing the olden days, my friend. back then, perhaps martial arts were the state-of-the-art for combat. in that case, they were trained by soldiers. soldiers fought and soldiers died. even in a time when combat was literally sword vs. spear. and now you're suggesting that here, today, a person is pansified because they don't like those odds. gun vs. empty hand.

to my mind, training for something other than combat is at least as reasonable as training for a fight. getting fun, exercise, coordination, etc. out of it are realistic goals. expecting to survive a shooting, gang fight, knife attack, etc. using anything resembling martial arts are considerably less so.

so... who's the pansy? the person that takes on a new hobby because it's physically, emotionally, and mentally challenging? not by my definition.


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

daredevil,


Learn to fight, or go take yoga, which is perfectly fine and made for that kinda stuff.

is it so difficult to let other people make up their own minds? live and let live? all that?

me? i want to be combative. i want to be capable of that. so that's what i keep in mind when i train. but i'm not going to tell the guy next to me that his training is invalid because it simply makes him feel good. i will tell him (assuming he asks) that he's not ready to defend himself from blah, blah, blah. i do think people should be informed by others and honest with themselves about what they're doing. but if they're doing it with open eyes, i don't see the big problem.


stuart b.

[MightyB]

Boxing fits your description.

Judo,

BJJ,

Fencing,

TKD,

and Possibly CMA, Possibly

I'm not going to debate the old soldier-vs-MArtist. It's been done to death, and I agree with you on that issue anyway. The debate here is TCMA losing fighting as a focus. Without the fighting, you are studying Contemporary Wushu. Actually Wushu still teaches applications. Without the fighting, you are learning to dance my friend. And it's not even a dance that you can take to the disco. I'd hate to quote Ralek, but there's a reason why people think like him when he equates TCMA to Traditional Chinese Folk Dancing. Forms without the Fight is the reason. If you are being taught to punch and kick, you are being taught to fight. Where you take that depends on you. Without an emphasis on fighting, at least in the beginning, you are Nothing But a PAPER TIGER doing useless routines that lead to nowhere. To develop Jing, to develop Chi, to cultivate everything that a Martial Artist strives for, you must develop the fighting ability FIRST. You may not know this then you probably aren't with a good Sifu. Tough Luck. How many of you want to learn from an eighty year old cripple who started kung fu at the age of 70? No one no matter how cultivated they pretend to be.

All great GrandMasters were Great Fighters, in retrospect after a career of fighting, they placed emphasis on cultivation. Name the Lineage.


There's an old saying "You can't get there from Here". If you don't learn the fighting, the applications, then you can't get there because your not starting in the right place.

The original poster wants to be a fighter, he questions TCMA as an artform. If I teach someone who wants to be a fighter, they WILL be able to fight in 6 months if they put in the effort with what I teach. Fighting first, cultivation is the byproduct of TCMA. It's not the other way around. That would be Yoga.


I gotta go, Work gets in the way of a good discussion, I'll be back later.

Peace out,

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by MightyB
The debate here is TCMA losing fighting as a focus. Without the fighting, you are studying Contemporary Wushu. Actually Wushu still teaches applications. Without the fighting, you are learning to dance my friend.

i think you and i are closer to agreement now. much closer. personally, i'm all for drawing a distinction between fighters and hobbyists. i don't know what the proper terminology should be. but i don't think that the solution is to tell any noncombative martial artist to 'get out', 'study yoga', etc. artists take a subject (in this case, combat), interpret it, and express it in a way that appeals to them. personally, i don't have a problem with that.

that said, i think people need to understand when what they're doing isn't going to work in reality. if they're okay with that, then i'm okay with it too. we don't all have to do this for the same reasons. in my opinion, learning martial arts for the same reason that you might learn to dance is perfectly acceptable. it doesn't make you a fighter, mind you. and as long as everyone concerned understands that, all's well.

if some guy learns point fighting and then waxes tough guy, claiming he could take my head off at will, i'd be all about him getting enlightened with a clue-by-four. but if he wants to practice point fighting because he likes point fighting, then that's cool.


Without an emphasis on fighting, at least in the beginning, you are Nothing But a PAPER TIGER doing useless routines that lead to nowhere. To develop Jing, to develop Chi, to cultivate everything that a Martial Artist strives for, you must develop the fighting ability FIRST.

that's assuming that your final destination is combat effectiveness. if you're honest that this isn't your final destination of choice, that changes things a bit. a paper tiger, yes. and a paper tiger pretending to be a real tiger is a problem in need of shredding. a paper tiger who's happy being a paper tiger is just fine though.

to my knowledge, developing qi might be valuable to a martial artist. but it's also valuable to non-martial artists. and there are many interested in its benefits without combat. consequently, there are qigong exercises only peripherally related to martial arts at all.


All great GrandMasters were Great Fighters, in retrospect after a career of fighting, they placed emphasis on cultivation. Name the Lineage.

right. but you're looking at a segment of the population that isn't interested in fighting or in being a grandmaster and telling them to get out. and i don't see any need for that. the fighters will fight. the grandmasters will... grandmaster. and the hobbyists will do their thing.

that's partly why i don't think mcdojos are necessarily a bad thing. they provide the majority of martial arts students with precisely what it is that they're looking for. the trick is for everyone to be honest about what it is that they do.


There's an old saying "You can't get there from Here". If you don't learn the fighting, the applications, then you can't get there because your not starting in the right place.

again, you're talking about a population that doesn't want to get where you're describing. if someone does want to get there, then by all means strip them of their misconceptions. they'll need that.


The original poster wants to be a fighter, he questions TCMA as an artform. If I teach someone who wants to be a fighter, they WILL be able to fight in 6 months if they put in the effort with what I teach. Fighting first, cultivation is the byproduct of TCMA. It's not the other way around. That would be Yoga.

agreed. it would be the martial arts equivalent of yoga. it's just that i don't have a problem with that sort of martial artist. if they know that they're about as combat ready as they would be with yoga, and they're still happy, then game on. if they have delusions, cure them. that's it.


I gotta go, Work gets in the way of a good discussion, I'll be back later.

you're a better man than i. :)


Peace out

amen.


stuart b.

[ewallace]

I'm sitting in an ALL DAY SQL class
SevenStar, I am truely sorry bro. No one should be subjected to that type of inhumane treatment.

[kungfu cowboy]

The original poster wants to be a fighter, he questions TCMA as an artform. I do want to be able to fight if necessary, I don't question the art aspect. I think it developed tangentially, but is valid as such nonetheless. In many ways, I feel the focus on improving all aspects of the individual from physical to spiritual are far more important existentially than the more mechanistic beauty of intricate and subtle (and not so subtle) fighting methodologies. Cool stuff! But I do feel that it was not the main intent. But I guess it can be if you want it to be. All things evolve, I guess.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by ewallace

SevenStar, I am truely sorry bro. No one should be subjected to that type of inhumane treatment.

agreed. at least if I was at work, I could pose here all day :D

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by SevenStar


Yeah, I agree - I half read the post. I'm sitting in an ALL DAY SQL class and I read bits and pieces of it while I was on break. :)

That being said though, from what I've seen, the avg school is just beginning to spar after 6 months.

[MightyB]

This is just a great saying:


a paper tiger pretending to be a real tiger is a problem in need of shredding. a paper tiger who's happy being a paper tiger is just fine though.

You know, I don't mind the McDojo's either since the ones that I've come in contact with don't pretend to be anything different. I imagine that there are some bad ones though.

I can see your point Apoweyn. If a person doesn't want to be a fighter, they don't have to be and the Martial Arts can be a valid outlet for them to express themselves. I personally don't get it. I can think of tons of other things that I'd do instead if I didn't want the fighting thing, but to each his own. I don't like it when the nonfighters go on to spread "the art". That's where the problems as I see them come in... the whole trying to start at C thing and then getting a lot of people lost along the way.

I liked this thread. It's good to get at least one thought provoking thread once in a while.

------

You think SQL is bad, try SAP!

[SevenStar]

SELECT ename, sal FROM emp WHERE sal > (SELECT sal FROM emp WHERE empno=7654) AND job='SALESMAN';

[apoweyn]

thanks mightyb.




yeah, absolutely. and the misrepresentation makes me ill. honestly. there's a genuine problem here. i'm just thinking of a different 'solution.'

[quote]I can see your point Apoweyn. If a person doesn't want to be a fighter, they don't have to be and the Martial Arts can be a valid outlet for them to express themselves. I personally don't get it. I can think of tons of other things that I'd do instead if I didn't want the fighting thing, but to each his own. I don't like it when the nonfighters go on to spread "the art". That's where the problems as I see them come in... the whole trying to start at C thing and then getting a lot of people lost along the way.

well... i wonder about this myself. and i'd guess that it's like this: many of us get into martial arts because of the mystique of the combat. right? certainly, images of beating the snot out of warehouses of bad guys went dancing through my head when i signed up. or the image of the stoic philosopher warrior, perhaps. but something drew each of us to the martial arts. and part of that appeal had to be related to the combat. otherwise, you're right. why wouldn't they just do yoga? or dance? or any of a hundred different activities.

but once they were in, some people (most people) weren't up for the more heavy combative angle. they liked a little of that in their lives. just not the meal deal. know what i mean?

i think martial arts probably provides people with a venue for addressing questions about aggression, conflict, etc. in a fairly innocuous setting. some settings are less innocuous than others.

my feeling is that a guy that goes to class twice a week and does one-step sparring drills has been given a tool to deal with feelings of aggression, conflict, fear, etc. that he didn't have before. the exercise, however much a simulation it is, is just that. a cathartic simulation. it addresses an idea that we all deal with all the time. but it doesn't necessitate a huge lifestyle change.

obviously, the rewards will match the investment. that guy may feel better after class. he may have let off steam. he may have developed some self confidence. he may have achieved something as small as not flinching when someone punches at him. and that's as much of the combat as he really needs in his life. he's probably not ever going to be able to defend himself with it. but on a day-to-day basis, he got what he wanted from the experience.

someone who's truly combative, though, will get all that and more. because they've invested more.

anyway, i agree with your identification of the problem wholeheartedly. guys who pass on the arts but can't fight is a big problem. but it's a problem related to what we want, what we think we want, and what we claim. joe mcdojo claims that he can teach you to defend yourself in three easy lessons. but he's prompted to do that because he knows that such promises sell. and why do they sell? because we think we want to learn to do that. but we don't. most of us don't want to do what that would require of us.

so who's to blame? pretty much everyone involved, i think. the answer, to my mind, is education. so that new students honestly know what they're getting into and so that there's no space for deceitful instructors.


I liked this thread. It's good to get at least one thought provoking thread once in a while.

me too, mate. it was good talking to you.


stuart b.