attn: mafuyee

[apoweyn]

mafuyee,

you mentioned that we'd gotten off topic, so i thought i'd just start a thread.


oh crud. - you're right. - it was cuesta, not canete. - i got it mixed up. - i did take a seminar in that school with some canete or other. (my memory ain't what it used to be.) - that was all years ago... and they never seemed to stress lineage much, and i never really thought too much about lineage either. - i always felt it was the knowledge that mattered.

that's true. they didn't emphasize lineage that much. i knew various members of the community who were currently active. and there were passing references to figures like lapulapu. but it was never charted the way you often see in chinese arts.

i know the lineage of ciriaco canete mostly because i interviewed him for a magazine article years ago (which the magazine promptly lost). it's an interesting read.


as far as an escrima tai chi combo style, i don't think it makes a whole lot of sense.

each is good on it's own, but i don't think it would mix well. - kinda like 2 foods that taste good alone, but not eaten together.

i'm inclined to respectfully disagree with you there. well, in all fairness, i've not studied taiji really (beyond a seminar years ago). so 'disagree' is probably too strong a word. but the article's point was that the relaxation and flow taught in taiji is very compatible with that taught in eskrima. of course, taiji has weapons work, and there's no real reason why the broadsword form couldn't simply be performed with a stick, with similar benefits.

which brings me to your next point.


when i see people that feel the need to mix styles, i ususally think it's because they don't understand either system well enough. - i think if they would delve more fully into one system they would want for nothing.

this i genuinely do disagree with. i just think it's a difference in learning styles. and that there's nothing inherently wrong with that. i've known martial artists that remained in one system all along. and granted they have insights i don't (as i have mixed styles quite a bit over my 'career'). but i have insights that they don't as well.

i think this discussion is always problematic because a given person always has a predisposition. and they always have a set of experiences. i can't say whether i would currently understand more deeply if i'd stuck with one style. nor can you say with any authority that you'd be more impoverished had you mixed styles. likewise, i can't reliably say that my knowledge of martial arts is more complete than yours based on my experiences. or vice versa. i learned in a way that seems to work for me. presumably you did likewise.

anyway, that's not really an argument i'm trying to have with you. like you said, these are just opinions. :)


- i think for stick and knife fighting escrima is heads above tai chi, but when going to empty hands (which i was most interested in) it's not as developed as tai chi. - i'm sorry, but guntings, while very effective with a knife, become only minor annoyances when using empty hands. - (just my opinion.)

i'm not sure i'd argue this with you. i think taiji, as an established body of knowledge, is probably more highly developed for empty hand. but i'm not sure that anyone in the FMA community would claim otherwise. there doesn't seem to be that sense of belief preservation (however warranted) in a particular style. i've never once heard someone say that pangamot is better than karate, for example.

it's almost as if terms like pangamot and mano mano are acknowledgments rather than claims of having an empty-hand component. acknowledgments that empty hand happens, and that you'd better have some grounds for dealing with it.

cacoy canete, for example, learned boxing, karate, jiujutsu, etc. and he refers to that as pangamot (empty hand). not really as a style. but referring to a need that is addressed by a study of these things.

as for gunting, it's certainly not a fight ender. but it's not designed to be. not with empty hand, anyway. (in that way, you're right that it's far more compelling with a weapon.) but it is a good entry into something else. that something else may well come from muay thai or boxing or... and, again, i don't think FMA teachers really bemoan that fact. they see that empty hand is an issue, and they address it without too much thought about whether the answer is filipino, pure, internal, external, etc.


- boy, is this thread off topic now!

not anymore. ;)


* btw, i think that by 'uncle', your teacher most likely meant that in a non-blood relation kind of way. (a cultural thing.) - but, that's just my guess.

i suspect that you're absolutely right though.


stuart b.

[red5angel]

sorry to drop in on your thread here but I just wanted to input something.

On the taiji and mixing it...Some people get really sensitive to mixing arts but I found that taiji, even just learning the forms properly, wil go a long way towards helping just about ayone with body unity. While the combat applications may or may not pix, the practice of the forms, really just a few times a day really helped me when I was studying wingchun, and wingchun and taiji have almost nothing in common except at the very basic level.

[apoweyn]

good point, r5a.

and for god's sake, don't apologize. if i didn't want people piping up, i'd have emailed mafuyee.

by all means, turn this into an actual thread. :)

[red5angel]

It's something I have never really seen discussed here. for me it was dramatic, I am pretty clumsy when it comes to body co-ordination etc... and so I picked up Taichi to help me a little bit. after about 6 months doing most of the 76 movement form in Chen taichi I had dramatic improvements!
Sounds like a cheesy infomercial but I would swear by it. The form just a couple of times a day might make a big difference!
I think that while most MA styles will teach you some form of body unity, and some of us are born with it, some arent, taichi seems to be at the top of the heap for helping to train your body to work together in a lot of different ways. I guess if I had to say why to me I would think because it is so thorough in getting your whole body involved in each movement.

[MaFuYee]

apo,

well, getting back to the point of my "less and less" thread; how much does one really need to know in order to fight well?

i believe that any style has more than enough material to make someone a great fighter. - and going even further than that, i believe that in many cases, the material contained in just ONE form (in the case of many cma's) is more than enough for that matter.

re: "the relaxation and flow taught in taiji is very compatible with that taught in eskrima."

a style like escrima has a way of handling just about any kind of attack (jab, cross, hook, uppercut, kicks, etc.) - so does tai chi.
now, when someone throws a 'cross', do you use the escrima method, or do you use the tai chi method? - do you sometimes use one, and then other times use the other? - they both work effectively... so why the need for the redundancy?

either you are discarding perfectly good techniques from one system, or you need to spend double the time, training 2 different methods of doing the same exact thing. - why?

- in the article, did the author substitute tai chi hand techs for those of escrima? - or did he just throw on more techniques on top of the pre-existing curriculum?

* if you train the stick and knife stuff; the hand techniques are derrived from the stick and knife stuff; in effect training and developing your empty hand technqiues. - why throw that away and try to adopt another method that would require a different set of training methods?


re: "this i genuinely do disagree with. i just think it's a difference in learning styles."

i guess what i said was not exactly fair. - i think it is fine for a beginning 'student' to try different m.a.'s, and mix and match this and that to get different insights into what is out there. - that is what i did, and i think it was beneficial; not necessarily to my fighting ability, but just to give me an idea of what i like best, and what is best suited to me.

HOWEVER, when it comes to teaching, i don't believe that styles should be mixed into a "mutt" style; at least, not by just anyone. - which i see is the case, in increasing numbers. - right around where i live, there is a school, 'filkenjitsu' - philipino, kenpo, jiu-jitsu. - that's nice, but, i bet his philipino isn't as good as cuesta's, i bet his kenpo isn't as good as <insert good kenpo practitioner here>, and his jiu-jitsu isn't as good as <ditto>.

if you want to learn X. - would you rather have a teacher with multiple bachelors degrees, or a doctorate?


*** substituting a stick for the tai chi broadsword can be done; however, due to the different nature of the weapon, a person who just learned broadsword techniques would be at a distinct disadvantage. - major example: those who only learned broadsword would not be familiar with the abaniko (fan) techniques, which are such a big part of the stick fighting. - also, they wouldn't have that same wrist action going. - and a lot of broadsword techniques wouldn't apply, such as 'pressing'. - not to mention reach and weight differences between the weapons.


i don't know. - i still say, keep them separate. - let the individual do his own mixing if he likes.

[red5angel]

Me again! MaFuyee, I can see your point about doubling up on arts, especially if they cross over a bit.
However, my impression of taichi is this, taichi takes a long time to get down to an effective level. Would you both say escrima is this way?
I just think Taichi is a subtle art, some MA arts recquire more practice and some arts recquire less training to be effective and it just seems to me taichi is one of those that takes a while.

The other thing about crossing arts I would think is how similar or disimilar they are. In my opinion, if they are very similar then why bother right?
If they are too disimilar it may take you that much longer to soak up both of them.

[apoweyn]

mafuyee,


well, getting back to the point of my "less and less" thread; how much does one really need to know in order to fight well?

not a lot, on paper. some basic tactics for dealing with (and dishing out) striking, weaponry, and grappling would be a promising start.


i believe that any style has more than enough material to make someone a great fighter. - and going even further than that, i believe that in many cases, the material contained in just ONE form (in the case of many cma's) is more than enough for that matter.

well, i can't attest to the assertion about forms, because my experience with CMA is very limited. but i do agree that enough thought and practice applied to a style will probably yield the ability to use it's techniques in most situations.

but here's the thing: i think there's a danger in getting hung up on the idea of styles as entities. when i went from taekwondo to eskrima, the sikaran kicking tactics didn't replace my taekwondo background. they weren't redundant. they were... influential. one informed the other. sikaran made me aware of different potential targets and different concerns in defense, provided me with better footwork from which to launch kicks, and put me in a different environment, where the consequences of various decisions were different. and from that experience, nothing was replaced, nothing was repeated. but something was filtered. my kicking style was something not completely like the taekwondo i'd learned at first. nor like the sikaran of my classmates (my kicks were generally stronger and more sound, because of my early concentration on them). it wasn't a question of one style over another. it was the effect of one set of experiences on the effects of a previous set of experiences. and that's an evolution. not a replacement.

but let's be clear about one thing: i'm not suggesting that it's any more effective or intelligent than sticking with one style. only that it's as viable. and that, bottom line, the relative worth of either approach is ultimately determined by the person using it.


a style like escrima has a way of handling just about any kind of attack (jab, cross, hook, uppercut, kicks, etc.) - so does tai chi. now, when someone throws a 'cross', do you use the escrima method, or do you use the tai chi method? - do you sometimes use one, and then other times use the other? - they both work effectively... so why the need for the redundancy?

it doesn't work like that. not for me, anyway. look at the scientific method. scientists learn two closely related bodies of information. one, when tested in experiments, yields one result. the other yields a similar result. the results of one test don't replace the other. the scientists don't make a choice as to which results to acknowledge and use. they figure that both sets of results reflect something about reality and figure out how to isolate the common variables, figuring that's where the truth must lay.

that's how i try to look at this stuff. do i choose to counter a hook with eskrima or taiji? neither. i try to look at how eskrima and taiji address the idea of energy absorption (jamming it or dispersing it with footwork, blocking, covering, etc.) what i know undergoes scrutiny and modification based on what i'm learning. and things change.


either you are discarding perfectly good techniques from one system, or you need to spend double the time, training 2 different methods of doing the same exact thing. - why?

again, i don't see it that way. training the same basic thing from two different frameworks lends more insight on that thing. it's that simple. and really, it's not that much different that studying two ways of dealing with a hook punch within the same style. certainly, some principles differ from one style to another. but that's not really proven a problem. a hard, damaging block is different from a yielding redirection. and in that case, both approaches are worthy of investigation. two variations on a yielding redirection, on the other hand, are worthy of consideration that might result in some synthesis of the two.


- in the article, did the author substitute tai chi hand techs for those of escrima? - or did he just throw on more techniques on top of the pre-existing curriculum?

i don't honestly recall.


* if you train the stick and knife stuff; the hand techniques are derrived from the stick and knife stuff; in effect training and developing your empty hand technqiues. - why throw that away and try to adopt another method that would require a different set of training methods?

nothing gets thrown away. only filtered through another lens. take the stick and knife stuff. if i'm using a knife, not a lot of force is required of me. things like hip torque are less consequential. if i can draw the blade across a target, the damage will still be severe. take that weapon away, and the need for those things increases. so taking the background in eskrima and filtering it through another style exposes that empty-hand theory to more ideas on power generation, commitment, guard, etc. and i personally believe that if a person is diligent and thoughtful (which is a must, regardless of the approach you take), then the framework will be stronger for that interaction.


i guess what i said was not exactly fair. - i think it is fine for a beginning 'student' to try different m.a.'s, and mix and match this and that to get different insights into what is out there. - that is what i did, and i think it was beneficial; not necessarily to my fighting ability, but just to give me an idea of what i like best, and what is best suited to me.

and, again, i can find no fault with that approach.


HOWEVER, when it comes to teaching, i don't believe that styles should be mixed into a "mutt" style; at least, not by just anyone. - which i see is the case, in increasing numbers. - right around where i live, there is a school, 'filkenjitsu' - philipino, kenpo, jiu-jitsu. - that's nice, but, i bet his philipino isn't as good as cuesta's, i bet his kenpo isn't as good as <insert good kenpo practitioner here>, and his jiu-jitsu isn't as good as <ditto>.

you're right that teaching presents a special problem. and, as always, there's a basic question over whether the teacher in question is good. if he's not, then his attempts are going to be half arsed, whether he's traditional, mixed, whatever.

that said, you're measuring this guy according to what you want to see of those three styles. if he's mixed them, presumably he doesn't care to be as good at FMA as cuesta, as good at kenpo as speakman, or as good at jiujutsu as... albert jiujutsu(?). if he's a good mutt, what he wants is a working synthesis of all three. and he should be judged on that basis. on the viability of the end result. not on how much it still resembles any of its components.

of course, if he's just looking to cash in on his 'expertise' (name dropping) of three different styles, then he's a bad teacher. but he'd be a bad teacher regardless. that's a question of character.


if you want to learn X. - would you rather have a teacher with multiple bachelors degrees, or a doctorate?

depends on what X is. i think i pushed the university analogy pretty hard a while back, so it's only fitting that it come back and bite me on the arse now. :)

if i wanted to learn counseling psychology, for example (and i do, as it happens), then i would absolutely be interested in learning from people with degrees in psychology, religious studies, and philosophy for starters. why? because i believe those areas of study ask many of the same questions. and i believe that the answers carry common themes, so that one expert's answer informs another. why study how children model themselves on their parents? why ask whether i exist outside my own senses? why study genesis? because all of those questions are groping after the same basic idea. who am i?



*** substituting a stick for the tai chi broadsword can be done; however, due to the different nature of the weapon, a person who just learned broadsword techniques would be at a distinct disadvantage. - major example: those who only learned broadsword would not be familiar with the abaniko (fan) techniques, which are such a big part of the stick fighting. - also, they wouldn't have that same wrist action going. - and a lot of broadsword techniques wouldn't apply, such as 'pressing'. - not to mention reach and weight differences between the weapons.

true. abaniko wouldn't be much use with a broadsword. but then, it's not much use with a machete either. so the same considerations exist within the style as without.


i don't know. - i still say, keep them separate. - let the individual do his own mixing if he likes.

but if an individual does his own mixing and believes in the result, how is teaching that any less valid than teaching an older style?


stuart b.

[apoweyn]

p.s. i had to chuckle at your use of the word mutt because it's precisely what i call myself in my profile. did you read that first?

:)

[yenhoi]

I agree with ap.

When it comes to fighting, you are the sum total of all your experiences, you wont be able to pick a small portion of your experiences to apply to the moment, they all apply, no matter. Which means if all you have is tai chi experiences, then your response to certain things will no doubt be tai chi flavored. If you have a healthy mix of experiences then your responses will be mutt flavored. For this reason I think its impossible to have a tai chi technique vs a cross or a FMA technique vs the cross - you will react to that kind of motion, that kind of movement, that kind of energy. Any art will recognize that energy, that threat and respond to it, each arts training mindset usually have some differing idea about what to do with the energy once the threat is no more.

There are 'principles' underneath why you do what you do in each art. At the end of the pot, they all end up being based on the same exact stuff. When you start paying attention, all the "arts" have more of these in common then not. The principles are what you are training when you drill, basic motions basic movements - when it comes time to fight, it doesnt matter what you call yourself.

All Training is Training. When you correcfully study an art for so long, the only thing you uniquely gain from that study, is that you are better at study-ing that art. Not to say that is a bad thing, but it is not the ultimate concern - fighting. Having experience in multiple martial arts gives you not only experience and time in, but multiple refrence points as opposed to only having one.:confused:

[apoweyn]

man, that was much more succinct than my post. and about twice as compelling. well said, yenhoi.


stuart b.

[MaFuYee]

red5,

i believe that the stereotype that it takes a long time to get good at using tai chi, is a fallacy.

if you are not taught how to properly use it, then it may take you 10 years to figure it out, (if you are really dedicated to practice) or you may never get good with it.

however, i believe that if you are taught the right stuff, from day one, you can learn to use tai chi, just as fast, if not faster than most other arts out there. - i feel that tai chi is a martial art that is really stripped down to the most essential, most effective technqiues, with everything else left out; (my impression.)

in fact, i would say that it would initially take longer for a person learning escrima to get proficient at the basics of fighting than someone studying tai chi. - i think that the basic escrima techniques require a higher level of hand eye coordination than the basic tai chi technqiues. - also, the escrima student would have to learn a lot more variations to begin with, because a lot is done in the 'trapping' range. - where as tai chi doesn't focus as much on the 'trapping' range.


yenhoi,

re: "When it comes to fighting, you are the sum total of all your experiences,"

i don't agree with this. - if you don't practice something for a while, you lose it. - i used to study aikido; but i don't think that comes into play into my sparring today. - i did tkd. - you'll never see me throw a high kick ever again. (bad things happen when you do that.)

re: "I think its impossible to have a tai chi technique vs a cross..."

what could you possibly mean by this? - it seems to be a nonsensical statemnt. (not a personal attack, but, it is VERY possible to have a tai chi technique vs a cross. - or fma teq. vs cross.)

- saying 'you will react to that kind of energy' does not nullify that you reacted using a certain technique. - i find it very common, this kind of tactic, (not saying that you are trying to take part of some devious conspiracy, or anything...) to just start bandying about the term 'energy', that way, you can try and sound profound, without actually saying anything, or needing to make sense. - i think this mechanism has filtered down from bad m.a. teachers who would do that to answer questions they could not; to the general consuming public. (wow, that sounded really harsh. - please don't be too offended. - i'm speaking more in general terms, than specifically about you, because this is the topic of one of my pet peeves.)

* a lot of arts have a lot of 'overlap', and share things in common. - esp. principles. - but, many times, how those principles manifest can vary greatly. - like if you look at nature. - predators have the same general goals, and the principles of killing their prey are the same. - however, tactics and methodologies differ, from the tiger, to the heyena, to the cheetah. etc. etc.

** multiple reference points is good from a tactical point of view, and can help you, if you are familiar with many different strategies; however, having multiple reference points will not necessarily translate to skill. - for that you need to put in the training time.

e.g. bjj - you can be aware of their strategies, and therefore be better prepared to defend, but, if you study, for example, boxing and bjj, and someone only studies boxing. - lets say you get 10 skill points to distribute. - boxing: 5 skill points, bjj: 5 skill points. - the second person gets boxing: 10 skill points.

... now, theoretically, you should lose. - someone with 5 bjj skill pts should not be able to defeat a boxer with 10 skill points. (lets not argue theories, or semantics.) - do you get where i'm trying to go with this?


* anyway. - in the end, it's to each his or her own. - i have no interest in telling others what they should or should not do. - everyone's got free will, and in the end, we're all worm food anyhow. - i'm just expounding my rationale.

peace outside.

[yenhoi]

Id give 3 to boxing, 3 to bjj, 2 to wits, and 2 to karma.

By energy I mean angles of threats pertaining to my centerline, your centerline, and the centerline that connects them. So now I wont say energy.

Even if you can choose to 'use' taichi. or 'use' fma, you might decide to 'use' a technique vs another so-called technique, - its the angle, and more importantly the opponent, in combat that you are reacting to or attacking. Calling motions techniques and styles is convient, but doesnt apply in actual fighting.

The point to my post was, actually training is what matters, not what you call yourself when it comes to fighting. Styles and arts are things you can 'use' to train yourself for combat, you dont 'use' them or any such corresponding techniques in combat.

[Merryprankster]

I might point out that people with graduate degrees in any field frequently have undergraduate degrees in related, but not identical fields. My girlfriend has a journalism degree, and is a lawyer. I have another with a degree in economics and a graduate in some computer science type thing. I have a degree in government, and will likely be obtaining a degree in strategic intelligence sometime in the near future. Never mind the business major I know with a Naval Architechture/Marine Engineering masters.

So, quite frankly, the idea that you learn from a teacher who has a "straight line of knowledge," ie, english, British literature, and 16th century British literature, is not quite accurate. Most people have a graduate degree that is informed by their previous degrees.

Besides, who would you rather learn from--the guy who knows all about literature but nothing about how or why it relates to the time period it was in, or the person who was a history major, and has a feel for what literature means or does not mean in a cultural context?

I do BJJ. My knowledge of BJJ is informed by my knowledge of wrestling. Even my boxing is informed by my wrestling--when I worked infighting I was better than most because of how used I was to tactile combat--and infighting is all about feel.

[MaFuYee]

yen,

you're losing me...

you said: "...I think its impossible to have a tai chi technique vs a cross or a FMA technique vs the cross - you will react to that kind of motion, that kind of movement, that kind of energy. Any art will recognize that energy, that threat and respond to it,..."

and, by "energy", you really just mean 'angle of attack'...

so, you respond/react to the angle of attack; but, the response is impossible to be a tai chi or fma technique? - why can't your response be a technique??

if someone throws a hook, and i 'duck and weave', to avoid the hook, as is very common in boxing, didn't i just use the 'duck and weave' technqiue?

if someone punches, and i cover up to block, didn't i just use another boxing technique?
(yes, it is in other arts, but since the art i trained is boxing, it is convenient to call it a 'boxing technique'.)

if someone throws a punch, and i catch, and throw in a limb destruction... why is that not a fma, technique? - that was my reaction. - a fma technique.


you see, the second part of your statement,

"you will react to that kind of motion, that kind of movement, that kind of energy. Any art will recognize that energy, that threat and respond to it"

is fine, taken alone. - yes, you react to attacks. - every art will recognize and respond to any attack.

BUT, that does nothing to explain why,

"I think its impossible to have a tai chi technique vs a cross or a FMA technique vs the cross"

do you see that the second part of your statement does nothing to explain why it's impossible?

because there is 'overlap'? - because what on does in wing chun, is simmilar to tai chi, or fma's? - that's what makes it impossible??

if a w.c. guy does tan sao, bil jee, against a punch. - that is almost the same as tai chi's 'repulse monkey'. - does that make it impossible to have 'tan sao, bil jee', or 'repulse monkey'?

...

anyway... i am dragging this on much further than it needed to go.

it really doesn't matter.

so, i won't even touch this one:

"When you correcfully study an art for so long, the only thing you uniquely gain from that study, is that you are better at study-ing that art."



merry p;
you get beatdown much as a kid?? - hahahah!!

[apoweyn]

mafuyee,

i think what yenhoi is saying (and what i'm saying) is that when someone throws a cross at you, it's not the living embodiment of taiji or FMA that responds. it's you. and your technique will be a product of every experience you've had.

say i respond to the cross by angling to the side and applying a gunting. but my gunting is a downward diagonal elbow, characteristic of muay thai. the targetting and intent are gunting. the position of the elbow is muay thai. so what is it? and when does it become less counterproductive to just say, "that's me. i've done these things. and this is what i came up with"?

whatever the answer, look at the styles. two striking styles from southeast asia that like to use their elbows. but one didn't supplant the other. it didn't replicate the efforts of the other. it influenced and, with any luck, enhanced the other.


stuart b.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
My girlfriend has a journalism degree, and is a lawyer. I have another with a degree in economics and a graduate in some computer science type thing.

You have two girlfriends? When on earth do you find time to train? :eek:







:D

[Merryprankster]

LOL!! Nice catch. Oops! :D

Mafuyee--I don't really understand your point, but nah. I held my own pretty good. I had the joy of fighting a kid who took a swing at me with a baseball bat once. I used to fight a lot when I was a kid, actually...

It didn't go well for him :D

I haven't had a real fight since I've gotten old enough to actually do some damage, and I prefer to keep it that way.

[red5angel]

Mafuyee, I have to disagree. Most people believe they are proficient in what they do but most haven't trained enough to get 1/10th of the skill they could have. That small amount might be enough for some but in my opinion that is also the reason why CMA or TMA has really lost some of it's credibility. Alot of people look good doing it, but in my experience, most people don't use it half as well as they believe they do.
In Taichi, it isn't a matter of skill level, Appreciable Taichi skill can probably be attained by just about anyone, but it takes time and more time to get your body to work the way taichi recquires it to. I expect of course you will disagree :) This has also been my argument in wingchun but most wingchun guys disagree, and yet most of them still don't have any appreciable skill. ;)

Do any of you guys think that cross training can be taken too far, or that having so many different ways to approach and attack or defense muddles the issue?

[apoweyn]

Do any of you guys think that cross training can be taken too far, or that having so many different ways to approach and attack or defense muddles the issue?

yeah, absolutely. i agree with mafuyee's point to some degree. some of the clubs i've seen have turned into 'style of the month' type arrangements.

techniques are embraced because they're diverse rather than because they fill a need. but if they're too diverse, you begin to loose the ability to integrate them into a working whole. and i think that's a large part of mafuyee's logic. (hope you don't mind me hypothesizing on your behalf, ma.)

take burton richardson for example. he trained in zulu stickfighting a while back. and that's cool. i really do appreciate that people go out and, in effect, grant the rest of us access to information i wouldn't have even thought of otherwise.

but given the opportunity, i would decline learning zulu stick fighting, simply because it doesn't, to my mind, gel with what i want to do. just like, when my teacher introduced grappling with the sarong (as taught in silat), i didn't devote much time to it. if the sources are too disparate, my training could become a grab bag and not a synthesis.


stuart b.

[yenhoi]

What I am saying is that techniques in the first place do not exist in the manner you are using them in your typing, same with styles, same with arts, etc. They are not 'things' you can pickup and smash your opponents with. You use your arms and legs and head and shoulder and shin, etc etc, to strike and bash and choke and impede your opponent, not crosses and hooks and rear nakeds.

Someone might punch at you, and you might react to what you think looks roughly like a cross, and your reaction might in your mind resemble some sort of textbook bob and weave, but once all the variables of a real life violent confrontation are calculated, that cross and your bob and weave were just very rough, VERY ROUGH classifications of motion and movement.

Sure, using those rough classifications and so-called definitions are an effective way of training yourself or others for **** really hitting the fan, but when it comes to actually fighting, thats all it is man, two or more people trying to smash each other with arms and legs and chairs and knifes and **** - not crosses and bobs and weaves or monkey steals the masters peach, or even tan da.

If you are 'good' enough that during a fight you can determine if a full speed moving 'technique' is really a cross or really the start of a straight blast (so its NOT a cross, its a cross with a vertical fist, OM MY A DIFFERENT TECHNIQUE) - then not only classify the technique and style of the attack coming your way, but also classify the responses you might give it, figure out what might happen afterwards, and then DECIDE to 'use' taichi or to 'use' fma vs an arm, then you are the best martial artist ever.

Otherwise, martial arts, fighting, and the like are no different then any other part of what humans "do" - experienced based, you will do what your experience dictates, regardless of what you are calling yourself today.

[MaFuYee]

wow! lots of stuff... where to begin.

i know...

yenhoi,
are you a pothead, yenhoi? do you do drugs?

you killed your whole argument.

- 'someone punches at you with something that may very roughly resemble a cross'

so... joy jones jr., doesn't throw crosses. - the way his fist just moves very roughly resembles some sort of 'textbook' cross. - he uses his arm and fists to punch you in the face. - crosses don't exist.

what purpose does it serve to argue semantics?
(what is, "IS"? - hello??)

... are you trying to say that when it comes to actual combat, because of panicked circumstances, people's brains tend to shut down, and all training goes out the window?

if so, i would say that for some people this may be true; but not for all.

- i got into a 'fight' at a slayer concert a few months back, and i can tell you exactly what technique i used. - it was 'fist under elbow'. - i just punched him once, medium hard, and he apologized, and shook my hand. (go figure!)

* as far as required mental calculations go; that is why simplicity is best. - whether cross, straight blast, tiger claw, palm strike, etc, i'm using the same defense. - you don't have to think. - if you're eyes are open, you'll see where the movement starts from, and without 'thinking', you'll naturally feel like flinching. - high, if the percieved threat is high, and low, if it's low; same with left or right. - and, hopefully you've trained yourself to react with an appropriate defense; otherwise, it'll just be a 'natural' untrained reation.

when you have too many options, it slows your reaction time, definitely. - to the point where some people just freeze, or try to do a mix of things, and just generally botch their opportunity.

... and, just a bit of trivia:
in order for you to simply catch a ball, your brain has to do fifth integral calculus.


apo,
actually, according to yen, no one can throw a cross at you. - it's impossible.

... and no one is talking about 'living embodiments' of anything.

as far as responses being a product of every experience you've ever had. - ok. i'll grant you that. on some esoteric level, every life experience (not restricted to m.a. experience) up till that moment has an influence on that response. - and, following those lines, you can never do the same thing twice.

* as far as the downward elbow gunting; that is a technique that you trained. - wether you learned it as a '*******' technique, is irrelavent. the technique is what it is. - certainly you can't be implying that every technique you do is a hybrid ******* mix?? - if i do a muay thai round kick; i'm doing a muay thai technique at that moment. - not tai chi.

re: 'too diverse'.
the question is, how much time does one have to train?? the fewer things you focus on, the better you can get at them.

in either art, escrima, or tai chi, there is too much for us mere mortals to master. the people who have 'mastered' an entire art are few. - those that we may consider really good, mastered just a few things, and maybe just learned the rest for posterity(?). - even chang tung sheng wasn't a master of every shuai chaio throw(?) he could probably do them all; but i don't think he ever claimed to have mastered every throw.

burton is a great example. - he's learned a ridiculous amount of stuff, and loves to go through every permutation of every technique. - however, he's not too great at fighting. - he has natural ability, yet people who seem to have less natural ability, and have trained far less, can whup his butt. - when it comes down to it, burton relies on a few basics, which he doesn't have too much time to work on, what, with everything else he's got to practice.


red5,
yeah. lots of people suck. - so what? - that has no relevance to the statement that people can relatively quickly get good at the fighting aspect of tai chi.

what does that mean to me? - that means that if someone is attacking, and you can, based on what you were taught, handle that threat, and emerge the victor; hopefully without any harm to you, then - mission accomplished.

you can argue all you want that the person wasn't doing 'textbook tai chi, according to red', but, that so isn't a concern of mine. - if it worked, it worked. - will you really care, if your weighting wasn't just so, or if you had a little too much tension in your shoulders when you did it; or if your head wasn't held erect? - lighten up.

if you think it takes 10 years for someone learning tai chi, to be able to get in the ring against a san sao fighter of 1 years training... then, that's too bad.

i say, that given the proper training, a person with 1 year tai chi training, can match or beat a person with 1 year san sao training.

* most of you w.c. classmates have no appreciable skill? - that's too bad. - perhaps you think fighting should look like chi sao? - or perhaps a shaw bros movie?

if a w.c. guy can pull off a lop sao, to chain punching, against the average sucker punch. - that's something. - what? no one in your school can do that? - or, it's not wing chun, because it was sloppy? - too simple?


merryp;
my point was, that i think you took the degree analogy a bit too far. - i get the impression that your brain is like a raging river, and can sometimes overshoot a curve, sending you off into the proverbial left field. - the natural result of which could take the form of 'biffs' to the back of the head from one's peers.

some of my friends do that too. - that's when i have to smack them around a bit.

[Merryprankster]

Actually, I don't think I took it too far at all. Your suggestion was that you would want to learn from a "specialist," who had followed the linear chain to the top.

What I was pointing out is that in the PhD world, your analogy doesn't hold water because these people are undeniably expert in their field, that expertise is informed, oftentimes, by experience or education in other arenas.

And so it can be with Martial Arts. I don't want to learn "linearly." I want to learn from somebody who has knowledge informed by a variety of sources, not just "sifu said."

I think I can sum up Yenhoi's point--you know, the one you dismissed as inherently contradictory?

He's saying this--take a bob and weave. Doesn't matter if it's a cross-like attack, a hook to the head, a roundhouse swipe a hammerfist, knifehand or ridgehand. These vaguely similar motions can all be countered by a bob-and-weave approach. You're not identifying an attack, and assessing it and responding with the appropriate counter, you're using a principle (bob-and-weave) to counter another principle (attack with the hand to the head.) The ways to apply that principle are quite diverse. A "techinque," is just a neuromuscular drill to get your body to move the right way to apply that principle.

Lastly, I know enough about me that I'm not the right guy to try and kick around. ;)

[red5angel]

Mafuyee, I am going to take a guess here and say thta you dont have much experience in A.)fighting, B.) Taichi, and C.) Wingchun. Why? Well let me explain...

"yeah. lots of people suck. - so what? - that has no relevance to the statement that people can relatively quickly get good at the fighting aspect of tai chi."

It's relevance is the very point, if you suck at taichi you wont use it effectively and can't fight with it or any of the skils you learned and like many will probably just get trounced unless, fighting in th kwoon/dojo. You might pull of something that resembles a taichi technique and it might just work once, but don't fool yourself into believing you understand or do taichi well or even well enough to fight effectively most of the time.
It's not about lightening up Muyafee its about understanding the art. If you are overweighted or out of alignment, you arent doing it correctly and probably will most likely just get yourself in trouble. Also, Yenhois example then falls into place you are just flailing away and some of it may or may not resemble the art you are studying.

"if you think it takes 10 years for someone learning tai chi, to be able to get in the ring against a san sao fighter of 1 years training... then, that's too bad."

You can study taichi for two months and get into the ring with a sanshou fighter :rolleyes: but you are not going to be doing taichi, and you are probably just going to get yourself killed flailing away. ;)

"* most of you w.c. classmates have no appreciable skill? - that's too bad. - perhaps you think fighting should look like chi sao? - or perhaps a shaw bros movie"

I'll make you a deal, you grow up and I will lighten up?


I can buy into what Yenhoi is saying, mostly because most martial artist don't train enough to get past their natural reactions and start really fighting. Like you they believe they can go out and learn taichi from a videotape or in just 6 quick weeks start fighting like a pro :rolleyes: . What really happens is that these guys go out and get themselves beat badly by people who are seriously training, don't believe? Go check out some of the video footage at Mcdojo.com. Your going to see your atypical CMA/Karate guy getting his ass kicked by someone who is putting in blood sweat and tears to learn how to fight.

What do you think is going ot hapen when some guy who puts in 3-4 hours a day training his butt of goes up against someone with your attitude, "Hey, I have been studying taichi for a whole year, I should be able to take this guy!" Watch the videos and see....

It's not about the art, its about the people, and most people are fooling themselves. Sorry Muyafee but you have to try harder and my guess is work harder as well ;)

As for yenhois point, my guess is that as anyone knows, or should know, things go badly when you get in the $hit, it gets messy and nothing is clean and "shaw bros" as you so quaintly put it. You may be bobbing and weaving but you watch the videotape afterwards and you will probably cringe. But Wait!!! Joy Jones Jr knows how!!! Hmmmm, I wonder if he has only been doing what he does for a year or so? Maybe he just does a couple of hours a week, but since its a fighting art he probably got it in about a year and after that another 6 months he was able to get in the ring with the big boys? :rolleyes: Mayeb you should talk to Joy Jones jr and explain to him your theory and see what he says....;)

[apoweyn]

mafuyee,

well, i feel like i set you up for a debate you weren't really looking for. and for that, i apologize. it wasn't my intention.

with that in mind, i'm just going to have to accept that we disagree here. and respectfully bow out.

sorry.


stuart b.

[TkdWarrior]

ok i found something intresting for u...
it's might related with thread or not but echo's my sentiments about MA fighitng

One day a martial art school signed up a new student. As usual the head student gave the new guy a "welcome" fight, yet he couldn't convincingly defeat the new comer . "Do not be discourage," the teacher comforted his head student in private, "give him some time to train in our system!" Half a year later the head student beated up the new guy without breaking a sweat.

-TkdWarrior-

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by red5angel
"if you think it takes 10 years for someone learning tai chi, to be able to get in the ring against a san sao fighter of 1 years training... then, that's too bad."

You can study taichi for two months and get into the ring with a sanshou fighter :rolleyes: but you are not going to be doing taichi, and you are probably just going to get yourself killed flailing away. ;)

Please note, I'm not really taking a position on the cross-training debate...

But Shooter's gym up in Edmonton has been fielding fighters that go into NHB events and do quite well after a year or so of training nothing but Tai Chi. So, the idea that it takes years and years to become an effective Tai Chi fighter is demonstrably fallacious.

[red5angel]

Fatherdog, My contention is not that you can take taichi for a year and fight, my contention is that you cannot learn taichi in a year and fight effectively with those skills.
If you throw some mediocre fighters into mediocre tournemants with othe rmediocre fighters they might be successful but that doesnt change the fact they are still mediocre.

Ultimately ANyONE, can fight and ANYONE can learn an art, but not ANYONE can learn to fight using an art successfully.

the other distinction to be made is this Muyafee states that as long as "IT" works then that is fine by him. Well, if you went to the garage with your buddy and just screwed around for a year straight, you might get "IT" to work. What I am talking about is using the skills precisely and effectively as they were designed ot be used.
My specific exmaple was with wingchun because its what I have been training in for a few years and I have had the oppurtunity to see quite a cross section of wingchun artist. almost all of them mediocre at best.

Fatherdog, does shooters Gym have a webpage or something I could go check out? I would like to see some footage of some of their 1 year taichi fighters as well.
You see, For somepeople, just being able to fight successfully is fine with them, and that's fine with me as well, if that is your goal, no problems. What bothers me is when you start to claim you can fight using your system effectively when really you can't.
It's sort of a disease floating around the MA worl din my opinion right now, a cross between the desire to want to be good at it and the laziness of your average human being. Even in the distant past when you get all these legendary stories of these guys who had incredible skill, you dont get dozens of stories, they are few and far between, becaus emost people don't have what it takes to get really good at a style, although they may get good at fighting.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by red5angel
Fatherdog, My contention is not that you can take taichi for a year and fight, my contention is that you cannot learn taichi in a year and fight effectively with those skills.


And, as I said, his fighters are entering tournaments and doing well with just a year or two of training nothing but tai chi.



If you throw some mediocre fighters into mediocre tournemants with othe rmediocre fighters they might be successful but that doesnt change the fact they are still mediocre.

I think that making that statement without knowing anything about Shooter's gym, the tournament involved, or the fighters involved is both ignorant and insulting to both of them.



Fatherdog, does shooters Gym have a webpage or something I could go check out? I would like to see some footage of some of their 1 year taichi fighters as well.

I don't believe they have a webpage, no, but they've posted extensively on these boards in the past. Do a search on the usernames "Shooter" and "beautifulvaley".



You see, For somepeople, just being able to fight successfully is fine with them, and that's fine with me as well, if that is your goal, no problems. What bothers me is when you start to claim you can fight using your system effectively when really you can't.

If they are fighting successfully, and they have trained in nothing but Tai Chi, I'd have to assume they're using Tai Chi effectively.

[red5angel]

And, as I said, his fighters are entering tournaments and doing well with just a year or two of training nothing but tai chi.


I think that making that statement without knowing anything about Shooter's gym, the tournament involved, or the fighters involved is both ignorant and insulting to both of them.

Fatherdog, you are more then welcome to your opinions, however, whether it appears to be ignorant or not I don't believe that if these fighters were set before one of the acknowledged Taichi masters in china, they would impress them much. taichi isn't set up to be learned in a year or two and I highly doubt that if you watched those tournemants you would see much real taichi. Of course like Muyafee says, if it works.......

Its the same response you will get form the wingchun community but I have personal experience with them and whether its insulting or not it still stands. In the past I have seen posts from beautifulvalley but I was under the impression he also had more experience then a year or two.
The other question that begs to be asked is what sort of tournemants are these? Puch hands touneys? MMA tourneys? How are the levels of the fighters involved, are these 1-2 year fighters mixing it up with people of different levels or are they competing with individuals with equal experience?


If they are fighting successfully, and they have trained in nothing but Tai Chi, I'd have to assume they're using Tai Chi effectively.

I have to disgaree with this. There was a video going around for a while an old black and white of two supposed kungfu masters, guys who had been training for years, who fought a few rounds as a benefit or something. You see very little of anything but these guys flailing at each much like Yenhoi describes most fights to be. It actually looked alot like that vidoe of the two bikers fighting that comes around from time to time. their punches were connecting, and there was a "winner" but that doesn't mean he did his art any justice.

Like I stated before just because one can fight and one studies a martil art doesn't make one good at the art he studies, just fighting.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by red5angel
Fatherdog, you are more then welcome to your opinions, however, whether it appears to be ignorant or not I don't believe that if these fighters were set before one of the acknowledged Taichi masters in china, they would impress them much.

I never said you could learn all there is to know about Tai Chi in a year or two. I said that you could learn enough to use it to fight effectively, which you should be able to do with just about any martial art. After two years of training, I doubt that a BJJ stylist would look very impressive to Rickson Gracie, but I'd expect him to do okay using BJJ in a fight.



taichi isn't set up to be learned in a year or two and I highly doubt that if you watched those tournemants you would see much real taichi.


That is your opinion. I haven't studied Tai Chi, so I'm not about to declare what is or isn't Tai Chi. When several people all study nothing but Tai Chi, all fight in tournaments, all discuss using Tai Chi principles and techniques in those tournaments, I'm inclined to accept at face value that they're using Tai Chi.



The other question that begs to be asked is what sort of tournemants are these? Puch hands touneys? MMA tourneys? How are the levels of the fighters involved, are these 1-2 year fighters mixing it up with people of different levels or are they competing with individuals with equal experience?

They were open MMA tournaments, with fighters of varying levels of experience in open competition. In the specific tournament I remember details being posted about, beautifulvaley (who at the time had a year of Tai Chi and no other training) fought and won against a relatively accomplished kickboxer with some BJJ/wrestling background.

[red5angel]

Well, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I find that sometimes it is a matter of how you percieve what is considered good use of or not.
For example, I have only met 1 Martial artist who I feel could use his art with as much confidence as any one ever could have, effectively and at a high level.
There are several levels of distinction in my mind, but maybe not in others. My wingchun is a good example, I have met plenty of people who some would consider good, but I have only met one I consider good. The rest were mediocre at best. This is definitely not a statement of their ability compared to mine however, but there are subtle tricks of the trade in each martial art. Some are easier to learn then others. I know its practically heresy to say that but I believe it to be true.
For instance, one could become quite proficient in Boxing much quicker then in my opinion one could reach an equal level in say Taichi. Some of the basics are there in both arts, structure, power delivery, etc... but each chooses to do it just a little differently.
I might be willing to say the differnece is low skill and high skill but to me there is little difference. If you are using an art at a low skill, sure you know a few tricks that might get you through but you arent good at the art.
I don't know if this is making any sense FD, I have been arguing this very issue with wingchun guys for a while now but they don't seem to get it either, in general. All I know is that in my beliefe, it takes a little more to be good at an art then being able to pull of a few of its techniques and in my experience I have met very few people who are at a high level of skill. I don't believe most people have what it takes to get that high level of skill. They are normal people living normal lives, it's not necessarily a bad thing, until these people start claiming they are more then they are.

[FatherDog]

Originally posted by red5angel
I don't know if this is making any sense FD, I have been arguing this very issue with wingchun guys for a while now but they don't seem to get it either, in general.

No, honestly, it doesn't. To me, an art is A) a set of techniques, that B) are applied based on a coherent set of principles. If you are using nothing but the techniques from Tai Chi, applying them according to Tai Chi principles, you're doing Tai Chi. You're certainly not doing it as well after a year as the guy who's been doing it for 20, but that's true of anything. I don't really understand how you can say that, just because they've only been training a year, the Tai Chi that they're winning MMA fights with must be bad Tai Chi, or not Tai Chi.

If this means we must agree to disagree, that's fine; I've never taken Tai Chi, so I'm not really going to argue the point. But conversely, since I've never taken Tai Chi, I'm more inclined to take Shooter's word that he and his fighters (who train nothing but Tai Chi) are doing good Tai Chi than to take your word (a Wing Chun stylist, currently studying MMA, who has taken a little Tai Chi to supplement his kung fu, and has never seen Shooter or his fighters in action) that they're not.

[yenhoi]

MP and AP have me all figured out.

Red5: I didnt mean to imply that fights are just flailing matches and fater fate and his pal experience roll dice with us. I also think it is possible to be a capable fighter in 1 year or less ( 6 months ) in nearly any art. Its how an art is trained, now how you spell its name. From my experience with Tai Chi, it would be entirely possible to train hard for a year and become a capable fighter, and then when you fight "look like your 'using' tai chi" or not "look like your 'using' tai chi." Tai chi, since we are still on specifics, is probably the least technique bound style of fighting there is.

Techniques do not exist. Just familiar, handy names and labels. Techniques are really small training methods. You use a technique to train your body to do certain things all at once. You use some other techniques and training methods to train your body in small parts and in large complicated parts, all little segments like tactics, agility, speed, raw strength, power, explosiveness, etc, etc - they add together to make up whatever fighter or lack of fighter you have in you. Kinda like the power rangers, but with more or less asian stuff.

You cannot use a cross on your opponent, you can however, train the cross, and have wonderful results when it comes to fighting. You cannot use tai chi on someone (except yourself), but you can train tai chi, and have great results when it comes to not only fighting, but many other so-called benefits that come along with diciplined balanced study.

Mafuyee: im not sure how to respond to you anymore. I thought at first we were agreeing, and I was just making fun of your use of 'techniques' and 'style.' But I guess not. My loss I guess. FYI I do _do_ drugs, that must explain it all. In the end, regardless of how you think ABOUT fighting, its how you train, and how you train that make the real difference.

[MaFuYee]

apo,

i think we were just describing 2 sides of the same coin. - it's really just a matter of personl philosophy. - there isn't so much a 'right and wrong'.

personally, my tai chi teacher has studied other arts. - tkd, escrima, northern shaolin, etc. - and he teachs forms from other systems. e.g. tung bei, tam tui, hsing-i etc. (if you care to learn them.)

but, when it comes down to it, he always resorts to using tai chi techniques. - it's just what he trained the longest. (he used to be good at tkd; but, ask him to do that stuff now, and he'll just laugh and shake his head. - his years of tkd training are not really reflected in the way he fights now.)

if you train in 2 arts concurrently, i've found that you will have a hybrid fighting method.
(i took hung ga and tai chi at the same time, for like 2 years. - my hung ga was soft, and my tai chi was hard. :D doh!)

i think a cultural differences may be part of the equation as well. - well, you know how some cma's can be about lineage, and whatnot. - the pillipino's are probably more flexible in their views. (which is cool. - neither way is really right or wrong.)


fatherdog;
i thought your post was perfectly clear, and understandable. - it's like pulling teeth, isn't it?


red5;
i see the problem.

let me try to clarify; - lots of people have no fighting skill with tai chi, or any martial art. - but, with the right training, a person can get good at tai chi in a relatively short period of time. - they can go from sucky to pretty good, pretty quick. - the fact that a lot of people 'suck' has no bearing on the fact that one can get good at tai chi pretty quickly.

if you disagree that people can get good quickly; perhaps it's just because you haven't been exposed to that before. - but, if you keep an open mind, surely you can imagine that it could be possible, that that is true.

* and, actually, in a way, i do know what you mean. - saying that most guys out there really don't have a lot of skill. - i would have to agree with that. (i don't think i have much skill either.)

BUT

here is where our thinking differs.

i think that lots of people out there aren't any good, not because they didn't learn enough; but rather, they've learned too much. - but they don't know any of it well enough.

you may think that with years and years of piling on more and more 'knowledge', one day 10-20 years from now, you'll be good.

... well, maybe if you're lucky. - if you're waiting for something to just 'click'... you may have a long wait.

but, if you really want to get good; learn one technique.


yenhoi,
which came first? - application or form?

* how will you use the 'cross' you train, in a fight? - confused? it's not a trick question.

- in football, there is a 'technique', called a 'tackle'. - can one football player tackle another football player? - or would you say, 'there is no such THING, as a tackle. - you can crash into another player, and take him to the gound, but, you're not doing a tackle...'

** i see now what you are saying. - that the tai chi postures are not applications, in and of themselves. - they do not represent methods of defense or attack, but rather are like mini exercises meant to build up and develop something or other. each posture of the form are like individual music notes and applications are composed of various notes in unison, and fighting is like an unrehearsed free flowing jam session. - groovy.

i don't think 100 years of training with that paradigm could turn anyone into a good fighter.


p.s. - yes, you doing drugs does explain it all.