a little bit of this, a little bit of that

[weightvest]

Just one small question...

How can someone take a bit of this and a bit of that and create a new system, then say it contains, for example, (www.yaukungmun.com.au) "external influences of Bak Mei".

MA just doesn't work that way. you are either studying the style or you aren't. the moment you change it or take bits, it's no longer that art anymore!

Bak Mei for one doesn't have "internal" or "external" influences. It just "is".

Then you've got the fact that to actually "get it" (the style) you have to study it for yeeaaaarrrrrs! Bak mei (again) takes AT LEAST four years just to get the Jik Bo (first form) right, if you are incredibly dedicated! I mean the only legitimate way of taking anythng from any style is to have completely utterly become grandmaster of it, so you "own" it. Otherwise you aren't going to understand it for freddy.

It's like going "Oh, this form of Jiu Jitsu contains Aikido". No it doesn't. Aikido is Aikido, it can't have bits taken from it, added to something else and then still be called Aikido. That's just nuts!

That's like writing a book on religion and adding the first page of the Bible, then saying "This book contains inlfuences from the bible".

[joedoe]

From what I understand Yau Kung Mun is a legit art. It is basically Pak Mei with some qigong thrown in. You should address this to Fiercest Tiger as he is the sifu of that website/school. He should be able tog ive you a lot more info.

[weightvest]

My point is, I do not understand everyone's obsession these days with "blending" arts.

Even the highest Grandmasters in China are weary about making changes to their style for fear of collapsing the system. i mean each raw kungfu style has been carefully crafted and expressed over years and years by true Masters of the arts, then we westerners come along and just knock the whole thing to bits.

Not one kungfu style can be understood unless you have mastered it, and I think it is a downright insult to our forbears, the true masters in China who spent generations building and refining these arts, to have some big-headed westerner come along and pull it all apart, and then try and claim they have "blended" multiple styles to try and make people think "Oooh, wow, this guy is a genius".

You cannot blend an art with another to make a new art form, then say it contains these other expressions. You can, however, master an art or two and blend them in your fighting (as in switch from one to another). But to actually splice them is nonsense.

[Ravenshaw]

Well, I don't know of many systems like that (pieced together from bits), but I know that a style can, in fact, incorporate certain elements of another into its own repertoire.

Bak Sil Lum grandmaster Ku Yu Cheung exchanged both students and techniques with a prominent Choy Lay Fut master (Tan Shan? I forget if that's his name...). Sun Lu Tang created Sun Tai Chi from the three main internal styles (Yang Tai Chi, Xingyi, and Bagua), though I suppose that falls under the "grandmaster" exception...

A martial brother of mine once related these (paraphrased) words to a prospective student who asked a similar question and it made a lot of sense to me:

"Mixing elements of styles is difficult. It's like mixing a drink; mix the wrong elements in the wrong amounts in the wrong way and you get something that really tastes bad. There are so many more ways to get it wrong than to get it right."

I suppose I agree with you, though: Only drink something new if it comes from an experienced bartender :D .

[weightvest]

I am talking mre about these arts that say thing like

"I have blended Shaolin, Karate and Aikido togather to create ShaoKaratikdo)"

In close collaboration the masters, yes, can exchange such things. Obviously it is one expert working on things with another expert, and is done so under very, very carfeul experimentation.

But even then, if these things are incorporated, they are no longer the same expression and so cannot be called Choy Li Fut or Pak Mei.

Ueshibo, for example, was a very, very skilled martial arts master. he in fact learned many styles, and took what he leaned from each, creating Aikido. yet not once in his entirity did he ever say "I have blended this this and this to create Aikido." In fact, he never once himself said "I have changed Samurai Aikijutsu and made it into this". So again this idea of Aikido being evolved from Aikijutsu or whichever art is was, is a big misconception and a load of rbbish. Aikido is his own expression, Aikido is Aikido and can only be Aikido.

Ueshiba undertood that his mind learned and found an equilibrium, and that once bits were taken from these other arts they were no longer their original expression.

Even these chinese masters who shared knowledge with one another never once said "Oh this contais this art and this art". No, they say "This art is a new expression in itself".

[Shaolinlueb]

a lot of old systems are combined systems these days. when master trained together, they would exchange forms and sometimes blend some of the moves into their system. the modern eagle claw system is a mixute of the 108 locking techniques and another system. took the guy years to do, but he did it. its been done for centuaries and will continue to be done.

[GeneChing]

..."absorb what is useful"

[mantis108]

Well, I certainly hear you, Weightvest. The problem is that people seldom distingush the matter like you would. If I understand you correctly you are basically saying there is a difference between giving credit where credit is due and outright free ride on the fame of one or more great system(s). Respect and retail are not the same thing. I also agreed with you that labeling one system being 'ex' this and another 'in' that and by blending them you got yourself the ultimate system is like you said "nonsense".

Regards

Mantis108

[joedoe]

Have you checked out the history of YKM? It is not just an art that was thrown together by some dude who learned a couple of different arts 30 years ago. It is an old and established art with a basis in Pak Mei. Many arts are like this - a synthesis of various other arts. This is how many MAs have evolved. Even arts such as Hung Gar have borrowed from other arts.

[weightvest]

joe doe,

I guess where I am coming from is that kungfu is art in every sense. It is about the srtist expressing something and then manifesting it into the world.

I understand that many styles can and often do find inspiration from other arts, perhaps the master seeing Choy Lay Fut and going "Ah, that expression might help my art flow better" or something. But to say then that he has added Choy Lay Fut is the wrong way to look at it.

For example, if I were to create an art that was quite circular and flowing, then observed the directness of Pak Mei or Hsing-I, and then said "Ah, that would make my system better" it is not right way of thinking that I have added either Pak Mei or Hsing-I.

The art is only the art as a whole, and to some this may seem like splitting hairs, but it is not at all because otherwise we end up with this idea in our minds that the single elemnts are still the complete picture.

Take Ueshiba again. He was greatly influenced by the circularity of Ba gua and studied Ba Gua for a long period of time. And much of Aikido contains similar expressions to Ba Gua, did he ever at any point say "Aikido contains ba Gua"? No, because he undestood the expresssion has now different.

Thus you cannot ever be correct in saying "This art contains pak Mei". It doesn't. Unless every element of Pak mei is in there then it is not Pak mei.

The other thing is, if you do say things like that, you mislead people into thinking they then know what these other arts entail.

Think of it like this: the Mona Lisa contains all different pigments and colours. If a painter saw the Mona Lisa and went "What a great use of green and red blend! I shall do that in my painting." he would be an idiot to go around saying "My painting contains The Mona Lisa". It's the same thing.

[Laughing Cow]

Weightvest.

AFAIK, Ueshiba NEVER studied bagua or any other internal art.

His art is based on Daito Ryu, no aikido practicioner at the hombu ever acknowledged influences from any other art. Said that Daito Ryu and Ba Gua seem to share a few things.

When does ones MA study result in having developed a new styl?
When does a style cease to be a style?

More than what styles and systems were studied I think you need to look at the underlying principles that govern the "new" style/art.

Sun Lu Tang mixed TJQ, Ba Gua and Hsing Yi to form a new form of TJQ.

Why is it a new form of TJQ and NOT Hsing Yi or Bagua?

Cheers.

[weightvest]

Well, what you are saying about the TJQ is eactly the point I am making.

Has Sun Lu Tang himself stated that TJQ is a blend of Hsing-I and Ba Gua? From what you are saying, he has simply said he has found inspiration from them (like the painter being inspired by colouring used in the mona lisa) to improve on his own art. But does his TjQ contain Ba Gua or Hsing-I? No.

BUT how many plcaes do you see say things like:

Master Lee's School of Wing Chun - proclaiming he has added T'ai Chi and Jiu Jitsu to it.

Sorry, but that's not Wing Chun anymore, it's something completely different. many Wing Chun schools do things like this, and I am sure Yip Man is rolling in his grave!

Wing Chun is Wing Chun
Pak Mei is Pak mei
Hsing-I is Hsing-I

Even the highest Grandmaster of T'ai Chi in Chin a(or one of) is herald lineage of Ba Gua and Hsing-I, a Grandmaster of all three styles. yet has he ever blended them into one big art? No. because he knows you can't.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by weightvest
Hello,
Without getting into a debate about Ueshiba, he did actually study many styles, one of which was Ba Gua. In fact he himself found it a bit insulting whenever anyone suggested Aikido evolved from anything.


I don't know I spoke to a direct student of him and was told different.
Aikido according to him is a blend of Kendo, Iaido & Daito Ryu JuJitsu.
Nor have I ever heard differently from Aikido practicioners.
Also I never found a record of Ueshiba being a MA student while in China



Again, I don't believe these arts have been blended to form TJQ. He may have found inspiration in the techniques, but once you take an art and change it, it's no longer that art.


Hmmm, I will ask my Sun TJQ Teacher what he thinks about it.



To really, truly understand the art, you have to have mastered it. Even then creating a "new" art by picking the others to pieces is a very delicate and near impossible matter.


I thought that SLT was a recognised master of all 3 arts and that his teachers told him that they had nothing further to teach him.



One of the highest, if not THE highest T'ai Chi master in China is direct lineage Ba Gua, Hsin-I and T'ai Chi. He is a Grandmaster of each, yet has he "blended" these three arts together? no, because he understands that once you pick any of them apart they lose their structure. Sure he may chop and change throughout during a fight, but certainly has no intention of "blending" anything.

Not sure who you are talking about here.

Cheers.

[Laughing Cow]

weigthvest.

Out of curiosity what is your style?

[weightvest]

It hard trying to express what I am trying to say...

Okay, what SLT has done is exactly what I am saying is good.

Let me explain:

The worst thing I think anyone can do in kungfu is have one teacher, and one art. It is virtually impossible to see life from exactly the same perspective as another person.

SLT has a desire to understand what kungfu is. He follows a main way, TJQ, yet to get a better understanding and perspective of it, he uses Ba Gua and Hsing-I as different platforms from which to look at TJQ.

Kungfu is a house, if we are inside how do we get a good overall picture of it? well, we go outside. we have alook at it from diferent angles, every room, get different opinions on what makes good lighting, good layout. Then we make up our own minds.

It's the same for an acedemic studying Christianity. he won't just go buy the Bible and be done with it, he will go and readd all kinds of books on similar religions: buddhism, moslem, even self-help books. This way he can get to see all the different view of the same thing and learn just what Chrsitianity truly is, to get a better overall picture of it.

This is good, and the only real way to learn kungfu.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by weightvest
[B]Ask SLT himself, he will tell you that each of the arts has filled in a gap where the other has missed. It is always good to learn a few arts as certainly no one art has all the answers.
{/B]

I would love to ask him, but since he died in 1934, I would need more psychic powers than I got.

IMO.

You can study multiple arts, but to keep them 100% seperate is a skill that not many have.

or

You can study mutliple arts and make them all your own in which case they will blend and merge into a new (YOUR) art, in this case you will most likely find principles of one art dominating.

Example:
I studied Sun TJQ, but am studying Chen TJQ now. If I am currently playing Sun TJQ it will look closer to Chen TJQ as this is where my focus currently is.

What does that make it?

Cheers.

[Shaolinlueb]

i get what your saying with WC is WC and such. and if you combine two you cant say well it has pak mei moves in it.

why dont you jsut say we have moves influenced byu pak mei. I see a lot of the same moves in different styles. its just influence. take out the flaw and add something better.

[weightvest]

yeah, i should have, was writing lots to work things out for myself too ;)

[weightvest]

Laughing Cow

But that's the thing. As I said it is good to learn various styles that compliment, ba gua, hsing-i and t'ai chi are often practised together because they are complimentary.

your sun and chen aren't so much a blending of styles in the way i am talking about, becaue they are both t'ai chi. you're learning within t'ai chi, well, within the same area of kungfu (the internal system i suppose you could call it).

what i am saying is if you take two COMPLETELY different kungfu/MA elements, and try to belnd them, it will collapse, or really be a collage of basics.

so i mean it's fine to practise pak mei within other teacher's versions of pak mei. but remove pak mei from itslef and it dies.

If i took sun t'ai chi, added karate, and then claimed i taught an improved version of Sun T'ai Chi, I bet you yourself would have a few things to say about that.

so there is a big difference between playing kungfu to learn it's entirity, and just slapping together a bunch of different martial arts 9whic was more the point i was trying to make).

[Laughing Cow]

weigthvest.

I get what you are saying.

FWIW, there is quiet a difference between TJQ styles even within one family.

Lets look at it from another angle.

What makes WC to be WC or TJQ to be TJQ, it is the expression of the principles of the style, NOT the forms or postures.

IMHO, if you can perform WC moves using good TJQ principles it will be closer to TJQ than WC.

Cheers.

[weightvest]

yes exactly!

but in that case, you aren't really improving on wing chun itself, you are improvng on your own limitations, nothing to do with either t'ai chi or wing chun as kungfu.

But kungfu is exaclty like wine. you get all different kinds, sharp, sweet, dry, smooth, cabernet's, chardonnay's etc. Just because I've bought a $150 bottle of red does not make it Sun T'ai Chi. No, I have to research, what is it that makes Sun T'ai Chi such a unique red wine? Where is it from, what is it about those regions of grapes? Unless I really really reserach it and spend years learning to refine my art of making that style of wine, all i'm doing is ripping other people off by selling them a second rate alternative, because I don't undertand the CRAFT.

This is why masters learn these arts seperately, they are trying to find what makes these styes so unique, so refined, to really get a grip of the craft. But if you try to make them quickly, and then blend them all together without knowing what you are doing, you'll just end up with a putrid mix of off tastes and flavours.

Finally, you do have those that have mastered the refinement and craft of each wine. then they make their own unique blend. BUT the only way to teach people how to finally derive at this new blend is to teach every single craft seperately so they know how, and why, that new craft is so unique.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by weightvest
yes exactly!

but in that case, you aren't really improving on wing chun itself, you are improvng on your own limitations, nothing to do with either t'ai chi or wing chun as kungfu.


Isn't that the purpose of MA study, to overcome your limitations and be better tomorrow than today?



if i came to you and asked you to teach me t'ai chi, and you said "have you don it before?" and I went "I studied T'aKarateChun, and that had T'ai Chi in it." you'd probably say "Oh, well, youll find out soon enough." then after a while if i ever went back to T'aKarateChun, I'd be like "that's not T'ai Chi at all , this is nonsense!"


Actually you would learn my interpretation of the T'ai Chi I learned.

Same way I learn my teachers interpretation of what he learned/studied/researched.



i strongly believe that "blending" has to occur in the mind only, not as the seeds of what we are learning.

Agreed. The goal is to go beyond the style/s you learned and make it all your own.

Cheers.

[Okami]

This reminds me of a discussion I participated in once about the difference between a "system" and a "style."

I think it ended up with a conclusion something like:

A system is more or less a way of training with specific techinques. Much like the "unblended" styles.

A style is a personal way of expressing one's self either inside a system or outside of systems or among systems.

Syntax and Semantics. Oh the woes of the modern philosopher.

[weightvest]

how do you do quotes?

"Isn't that the purpose of MA study, to overcome your limitations and be better tomorrow than today?"

Yes it is, but how is that acheived? Through patience, practise, careful study, a lot of time, and refinement of the craft.

To just go and change an art by haphazzardly adding this and taking away that is nothing more than vandalism. So by just going ahead and adding Karate to Aikido, are you really improving anything? I would think in the majority of casing you are actually de-evolutionising the art and making it even less.

MA always needs to evolve, but this process has to be just as controlled and carfeully done as nature does for our own evolution. The key word here is subtelty.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by weightvest
how do you do quotes?


I simply hit the "quote" button over the "post reply" button and edit or hit the quote button in the test entry screen and cut & paste.


To just go and change an art by haphazzardly adding this and taking away that is nothing more than vandalism. So by just going ahead and adding Karate to Aikido, are you really improving anything? I would think in the majority of casing you are actually de-evolutionising the art and making it even less.


I wouldn't do that, but I have studied multiple styles due to circumstances and found that they will blend naturally into one style that suits me best.

Some moves are kept, other fall naturally by the wayside.

Example:
I found a few moves in Sun Tjq that I got probs applying Chen Tjq principles to.

Cheers.

[weightvest]

yeah, i didn't mean you personally, i was just saying that this is what many people do do.

i think you are absultely right in learning different styles, because no one thing has all the answers. and it's a perfect example of how kungfu is being used as a catalyst find and bring down your boundaries. I myself will learn t'ai chi next to pak mei.

You know how you were saying you would teach your own interpretations? Well that's the only thing we can ever do.
If I ever got to teach pak mei, I would teach it in the way I understood it, i mean that's the only way we can pass on our arts.

But I would never change it to such an extent and just go "I have added Tae Kwon Do kicking techniques to the Pak mei system because it needs high kicks." That's just wrong!

Yet just about every martial arts school does that these days, where they've completely changed a system to include another system mashed into it.

i think what we need to realise is that these arts that we study are merely catalysts to our own development. if we go and start playing around with these catalysts, they may not work for our next generation and so on. . then in 100 years time, we'll begoing "Where'd it all go? Where did all that hard work Cheung Lai Chun did go to?"

We are trying to fix things that aren't broken.

[No_Know]

"How can someone take a bit of this and a bit of that and create a new system, then say it contains, for example, (www.yaukungmun.com.au) "external influences of Bak Mei".

MA just doesn't work that way. you are either studying the style or you aren't. the moment you change it or take bits, it's no longer that art anymore!

Bak Mei for one doesn't have "internal" or "external" influences. It just "is"."

The way I read it, the topic wasn't Bak Mei having influences. It was more that YKM had the influence. And that YKM was influenced by Bak Mei. Which could be something as simple as YKM uses a Phoenix eye fist. Which might be considered or percieved to be an external influence on YKM of Bak Mei. This does not comment on Bak Mei. Basically

"Then you've got the fact that to actually "get it" (the style) you have to study it for yeeaaaarrrrrs! Bak mei (again) takes AT LEAST four years just to get the Jik Bo (first form) right, if you are incredibly dedicated! I mean the only legitimate way of taking anythng from any style is to have completely utterly become grandmaster of it, so you "own" it. Otherwise you aren't going to understand it for freddy. "

There is some truth to what you are thinking, even if you are going about saying it in a wrong way. I can do a technique from a System. It might be mis leading (not untrue) to say I know that System (meaning in it's entirety) because I can mimic a technique. As that technique is of That system, I did represent that system. However there might be Other systems which use that technique. I would therefore be doing/representing those systems too in some respect. One should not necessarily brag nor be loud about doing the semblance of a few techniques. Nor being aware of a System which contains the technique(s).

"It's like going "Oh, this form of Jiu Jitsu contains Aikido". No it doesn't. Aikido is Aikido, it can't have bits taken from it, added to something else and then still be called Aikido. That's just nuts!"

By saying that form og Jiu Jitsu you are Not calling it Aikido. And if I blend with my opponent and use joint manipulation/balance and momentum while keeping my center I've done Aikido. Aikido is a concept as well as all the techniques that make it up.

"That's like writing a book on religion and adding the first page of the Bible, then saying "This book contains inlfuences from the bible".

But the book does contain the actual words of the first page of the actual bible. That's a Fact How it's worded doesn't remove it's bible authenticity of that first page. However a book on religion would likely not contain influences of the Bible as much as Aspects of. If it was a novel it could contain influences of the Bible as far as plot or theme or writing style...

"Ueshibo, for example, was a very, very skilled martial arts master. he in fact learned many styles, and took what he leaned from each, creating Aikido. yet not once in his entirity did he ever say "I have blended this this and this to create Aikido." In fact, he never once himself said "I have changed Samurai Aikijutsu and made it into this". So again this idea of Aikido being evolved from Aikijutsu or whichever art is was, is a big misconception and a load of rbbish. Aikido is his own expression, Aikido is Aikido and can only be Aikido."

Doing it is O.K. not saying it? Sure Aikido is Aikido. But Akido theoretically was made with other stuff in mind. Whatever could overcome them would go into Aikido. Without arts to beat, there would perhaps not be Aikido.

"Ueshiba undertood that his mind learned and found an equilibrium, and that once bits were taken from these other arts they were no longer their original expression."

How do you validly claim to Know a dead man's thoughts?

[No_Know]

"I understand that many styles can and often do find inspiration from other arts, perhaps the master seeing Choy Lay Fut and going "Ah, that expression might help my art flow better" or something. But to say then that he has added Choy Lay Fut is the wrong way to look at it. "

Then look at it as having added the aspect of Choy Lay Fut, of its flow. While for accuracy's sake, saying Choy Lay Fut's flow would be better. For communication's sake, usnig the name and meaning aspect(s) of this to not be too complicated and to get interest-up and general thoughts across. Although it could be innocent attempt at simple~ communication, some might use it to mislead.

"Take Ueshiba again. He was greatly influenced by the circularity of Ba gua and studied Ba Gua for a long period of time. And much of Aikido contains similar expressions to Ba Gua, did he ever at any point say "Aikido contains ba Gua"? No, because he undestood the expresssion has now different."

Commercialism? He wanted to promote his stuff not another art. At his location Bagua might not have been as well known as it is today. So saying Aikido contains bagua or the such would not be beneficial. Someone just said Ueshiba didn't put bagua in aikido. But you saw the curves/circles and thought what you knew and projected that? Thinking there was not anything else or since it was done some where no one else could find it on their own?


"Thus you cannot ever be correct in saying "This art contains pak Mei". It doesn't. Unless every element of Pak mei is in there then it is not Pak mei.

It might be a matter of wording (English understanding). T'ai Chi Ch'uan is used only to get T'ai Chi. The Systems are not solely the forms, but concepts. Certain concepts done certain ways makes the System. An art can contain aspects of Pak Mei and still be that system and not be Pak Mei. Hung gar Has Crane. Hung gar is not Crane but it does contain aspects of Crane. Yet it is not Crane. It is Hung Gar.

"Think of it like this: the Mona Lisa contains all different pigments and colours. If a painter saw the Mona Lisa and went "What a great use of green and red blend! I shall do that in my painting." he would be an idiot to go around saying "My painting contains The Mona Lisa". It's the same thing."

One might call such a person an idiot. Perhaps it was someone with good things to say but a lack of comprehension to communicate it best. Sticking close to the topic the person might more correctly state that their painting contains an attempt at the greem red blend of The Mona Lisa. Some might distinguish the painting, from all the different pigments and colours. The painting being more a whole with parts that might be considered as all the different pigments And~ colours.


"Sun Lu Tang mixed TJQ, Ba Gua and Hsing Yi to form a new form of TJQ."
"Has Sun Lu Tang himself stated that TJQ is a blend of Hsing-I and Ba Gua?"

Your thinking is smashing together. Stay within a thought of the thinking speed limit. Distinguish. According to what was said~Sun Lu Tang did not change Taijiquan universally nor everywhere. Nor likely is he authorized nor would it likely be his place to. However, he May blend what his extensive experience of Taijiquan With Hsing-I and with Ba Gua. When you were told, this was said. When you repeated it back (in heated defense of your concept?) you did Not repeat it. What you missedin what you put was that it was not the two mixed to become the third (anyone with theories relevant, please, not here not now-ish). It was actually three things. Taijiquan is actually pretty broad and would have been Some of Taijiquan and some of Ba Gua And some of Hsing-I.

From what you are saying, he has simply said he has found inspiration from them (like the painter being inspired by colouring used in the mona lisa) to improve on his own art. But does his TjQ contain Ba Gua or Hsing-I? No.



"Master Lee's School of Wing Chun - proclaiming he has added T'ai Chi and Jiu Jitsu to it.

Sorry, but that's not Wing Chun anymore, it's something completely different."

The School is Not the Art. As The Church is Not God. Perhaps you can accept that the School (the location) has added classes, not that System. And Having studied and gained instructor level in these others Ma Add them to the School. Yet Not proclaim that they are Wing Chun nor added to Wing Chun.

"This is why masters learn these arts seperately, they are trying to find what makes these styes so unique, so refined, to really get a grip of the craft. But if you try to make them quickly, and then blend them all together without knowing what you are doing, you'll just end up with a putrid mix of off tastes and flavours."

According to that you think They can be blended, just not in the extreme/harsh fashion you mention. You're saying here there can be O.K. System mix (however you probablly would be worried what they would call it. you would get your bak-up if they kep the same name as either of the systems. One thing at a time.

"But I would never change it to such an extent and just go "I have added Tae Kwon Do kicking techniques to the Pak mei system because it needs high kicks." That's just wrong!"

Giving extreme examples seemingly does not make you More convincing. As to the literalness, The Chinese systems are so honorable that they likely would change the name and keep the history if it was as drastic as your example. But that example would not occure. The Chinese Systems as they are are set well enough that No drastic change is likely.~

"You know how you were saying you would teach your own interpretations? Well that's the only thing we can ever do.
If I ever got to teach pak mei, I would teach it in the way I understood it, i mean that's the only way we can pass on our arts."

However, this contradicts what you observed before. Your grand masters exception would not include masters nor Authorized appointed School/System learders. You might not be awre that there might be Authorized individuals who may alter the System at their school and branch schools who are not Necessarily Mastered every form. Yet these people are responsible to Care for the System. And not all ways of success can be found being loud, Proud, prideful and unwavering. Seed to plant takes nurturing, but it does grow.

"i think what we need to realise is that these arts that we study are merely catalysts to our own development. if we go and start playing around with these catalysts, they may not work for our next generation and so on. . then in 100 years time, we'll begoing "Where'd it all go? Where did all that hard work Cheung Lai Chun did go to?""

When my arm gets knocked hard and the top scoop of icecream hits the ground that fallen scoop become stereotypically unrecoverable. Do I go buy another scoop. And should that fall, another? And so on? Resources permitting. However, every replacement scoop is still not the first fallen scoop. Replacements are replacements. I cannot ever have the original untainted. But to bad sad And live the loss detracts from my present-could be living..the Now. I prefer to enjoy the rest of the icecream that I Do have or the tastes that I got before the loss. Keeping This passed While exploring the Current potential seems O.K. As long as one is aware, And continues being-ish.

"We are trying to fix things that aren't broken."

What you've been talking about and what you seem Actually bothered by are not the same. The adding stuff seems a business thing that is not actual sincere attempts to improve the Art as it is to broaden appeal of the school to increase student base.

[weightvest]

What you've been talking about and what you seem Actually bothered by are not the same. The adding stuff seems a business thing that is not actual sincere attempts to improve the Art as it is to broaden appeal of the school to increase student base.

Exactly my point, and this is why I think kungfu is in such a sorry state. If we take a look at the entire spectrum of kungfu throughout the word, it's an absolute mess, with bits added and taken away haphazzardly.

I don't care if people think they are trying to "improve" on a system, and would shed blood over this belief. All they are doing is not only deterring from the fact they don't understand the style, they are also altering its sincerity and purity for other people.

You look at Eagle Claw for example. Nearly all version of Eagle Claw use Tam Tui as their fundamental style, yet not one of them has ever said "We have blended Tam Tui with Eagle Claw". They are seperate things, yet are used to improve one another.

That is not the same as someone pulling apart wing chun and its elements to incorporate jiu jitsu (as examples). Bollocks I say. Yip Man is rolling in his grave going "But you don't even understand wing chun, why are you adding other styles to the learning system???"

We all want to get to the top of the mountain, but we can't start people at the top, we have to teach them the exact paths we used to get there so that they can understand the journey as a whole, and why the top of the mountain is so important.

This style that claims to be influenced by Pak Mei has nothing to do with Pak Mei. pak mei is regarded as the most difficult style to master because of its complexity. The pak mei stances and movements are designed to support and unleash the "gin jak ging", they are designed only to house pak mei. If you watch pak mei and go "Oh I like that stance I'll use it in my style" then foolish person who claims their style came from pak mei. It has nothing to do with it, because the moment they remove even one gink, the nature of the stance is totally lost. How can you legitimately say that you have been influenced by another style if you don't even understand what that style entails? Even Pak Mei "Masters" all over the world may not even understand pak Mei fully, so how can anyone just go and start changing this and that?

[No_Know]

Little children see dancing and start moving. Are they doing the dance as a practiced person of that dance might? Not likely, but they might be doing the dance as they understood~ it. When learning a form one does the best as one understands. One can see movement and copy that movement. Even understand the essence of the movement. Masters have something about them when they demonstrate. Their energy~ can be perceived. Seeing the energy and seeing the movementor understanding the essence of the movement. Someone Can, not Master that System, and yet do parts of it.

[David Jamieson]

There is not one single style of Chinese Martial arts that is in the same form that it was at it's inception.
THey have all changed adapted modified and mutated through influence over time.

There is no such thing as a pure and untainted style. I would challenge anyone to prove it that says so.

Even the state of the arts today is in a state of rapid change.

For the past 100 years or so, many styles of CMA have been changed and changed again at their very core. Some systems adding, others losing, some stripping away that which is no longer effective because of current weapons technology.

Martial arts must change and absorb from other examples to survive. Those fuddy duddy's who want to take their style to the grave can do just that! Let them, it's the ultimate statement that the style cannot exist anymore. It has become useless when a master does this and he has done a great disservice to his precious art. Even to save 1 piece of it would have done more to preserve a system than to drag the whole style down because of some foolish and single minded ego driven person. I always get ticked at this.

A master who wants to protect and preserve the system without giving it to a single individual would be better off handing it to several people in pieces. Then the whoel art would survive and no one of the people who held it could destroy it in it's entirety. Anyway, That's just a rant of mine. :D

Anyway, in short, there is no such thing as a 'pure' and 'unfettered/uninfluenced' martial art. THey are all ever changing and ever in a state of flux, like the Tao. If they are not, they are simply not Kungfu but rather empty pages of an unread book.

cheers

[HuangKaiVun]

Like it or not, the world has changed.

When you get into a REAL fight, people don't fight the same way they did hundreds of years ago.

It doesn't matter how much a man has mastered old school Bak Mei Quan; a guy who doesn't know how to fight against a modern day grappler is going to be seriously injured in a real fight. The same thing will happen if he goes up against a US war veteran who knows how to tear a person from limb to limb.

The most combative martial traditions adapted themselves to whatever they faced in their day and were NEVER afraid to steal from other systems to augment their knowledge. After all, how does one defend a BJJ armbar if he's never faced an armbar from the ground position in his training?

Adapt or die.

[drunken_master]

Any Art form changes a little with each generation. A great pianist will learn the essence from a good teacher and apply their own emotional content. A good kung fu master should teach in such a way that a style can become the students, that way producing a master for the next generation. The essence of the style is preserved even though some aspects may change.
If something remains totally unchanged then it is not really an Art as it doesnt allow any individual contributions.
As with all Art forms the student will start by blindly copying and imitating existing ideas before experimenting and refining an art for themselves.
I agree with the comments that one must truly understand an art before individualising it.
As for mixing arts together, if a valid fighting system can be produced then why not. I would add that only exceptional martial artists would have the skill and knowledge to do this.

Just my 2 cents.

[No_Know]

Internal external aspects of bak mei? (http://www.dryqwong.com/kungfu/training.shtml) read the first two paragraphs.

You said this, "Bak Mei for one doesn't have "internal" or "external" influences. It just "is"." But the above link in the first two paragraps...what do you have to say about that?