Are style vs style challenge matches obsolete?

[rogue]

I was just thinking about with how much video we have of everything from Olympic TKD to Toughman to Vale Tudo to bum fights can't we figure out where our styles are weak and strong at least at the expert levels?

I finally finished reading the SD vs BJJ white belt thread on bullshido, and the entire thing seemed pointless. I think crossing hands with others is great for training and learning but does the "my style is better than yours" challenge match have a point anymore? :confused:

[Vash]

Originally posted by rogue
does the "my style is better than yours" challenge match have a point anymore? :confused:

Did it ever? The type you mention, "mine better than yours," carried no validity. The "let's see what happens," now, that's some good stuff, at least for those who can apply the techniques/principles of their styles. That way, gaps in plans can be discovered, covered, and made whole. The ego clashes never meant nothing to nothing.

[CaptinPickAxe]

Its the practioner, not the style












Unless it a complete B.S. system...

[WanderingMonk]

Originally posted by rogue

I finally finished reading the SD vs BJJ white belt thread on bullshido, and the entire thing seemed pointless.

Depending on how fast you read, that is about one hour of your life that you wasted and never getting back.

[PHILBERT]

I use to strongly believe that "It's the practioner" thing, but in some cases (not counting the b.s. systems), I think the style can play a huge factor. More so than the practioner.

[Yum Cha]

At the risk of sounding redundant,
Its the practioner, not the style....

aye.

[CFT]

Originally posted by PHILBERT
I use to strongly believe that "It's the practioner" thing, but in some cases (not counting the b.s. systems), I think the style can play a huge factor. More so than the practioner. I'm interested in what you have to say on this matter, can you expand on your point?

If it is striking vs. striking or grappling vs. grappling, then I don't think that any one art is inherently better than another.

Speaking from a striking arts perspective, I don't see large differences in basic/core philosophy. Some arts have their ideas better formulated/formalized so that the practitioners are more able to articulate why their art is "better".

If you're talking about a stiking style versus a grappling one, then that is just comparing apples to oranges. It's almost the same as saying that weapons based styles are better than empty-handed ones. Weapons provide an undeniable advantage in combat which would and should make even a competant empty-handed combatant pause for thought, but it doesn't necessarily make it superior.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by CFT
I'm interested in what you have to say on this matter, can you expand on your point?

If it is striking vs. striking or grappling vs. grappling, then I don't think that any one art is inherently better than another.

Speaking from a striking arts perspective, I don't see large differences in basic/core philosophy. Some arts have their ideas better formulated/formalized so that the practitioners are more able to articulate why their art is "better".

There are differences in the mechanics of some strikes throughout various styles. The standard TMA roundhouse is completely different from the thai roundhouse. There are different philosophies about proper stance, footwork, etc. Those won't matter much, but difference in striking philosophy can make a world of difference.

Also, there's the topic of training methodology. Watch the avg thai boxer train. Next, go watch the avg tkd guy train - completely different. thai boxers undergo heavy contact in the ring, and their training reflects that. In addition, some styles train WAY more efficiently than others. It's not a secret that many CMA take longer to become proficient in- it was designed to be that way.

If you're talking about a stiking style versus a grappling one, then that is just comparing apples to oranges. It's almost the same as saying that weapons based styles are better than empty-handed ones. Weapons provide an undeniable advantage in combat which would and should make even a competant empty-handed combatant pause for thought, but it doesn't necessarily make it superior.


Apples and oranges or not, it's still a necessary comparison, for the simple fact that those matches do happen. And, it's not really apples and oranges. Grapplers use alot of principles that stand up guys use - they may use them in different ways, but they use them.

[Gangsterfist]

There is definately some advantages in certain systems over others. For example in this most recent issue of IKF magazine there was an article of why women should study wing chun. I read the article and looked at all the pictures and drills they were doing with wing chun. It was bad wing chun. Over extended attacks, grabbing pak saos, spine out of alingment, poor structure, weak bong sao, etc. If someone who practiced that paticular style of wing chun Vs. someone who trained it the way its suppose to be, I would be my money on the person who trained it properly.

When it comes down to it, its attributes Vs attributes. The person who can take the most damage and deal the most damage will win in a fight. However, I do believe that not all styles of martial arts are created equally. I think that there is good teachers for every art, and there are good fighters practicing their art. I believe there is good karate, good TKD, good BJJ, good wrestling, good judo, good akido, good wing chun, good taiji, good long fist, and so on and so forth. I also believe there is a bad to every good.

So it may not be the style per se, it could be the teachers or some other factor as to why the style was not taught right to you.

I know in my kung fu classes we really get hit sometimes. I get black eyes, fat lips, etc. but I know I can take a hit, and I know I won't freeze up when I get hit. So really it comes down to how hard you train. I know people who can't really fight, but are really tough. I also know people who are very skilled but cannot take much pain. You never know who you will fight, nor will you know their attributes and skills. You could be an excellent martial artist, but your technique could also have no effect on your opponet if they are just plain tough.

[Ray Pina]

I think it is very important to play outside of your syle to see.

I don't look at it as a, "mine is better than yours." That is a little rude.

I look at it as, "wow, your Nintendo is really cool, you must have a lot of fun with that (duck hunter, ect.). But hey, check out my X-Box, tell me this isn't the ****."

Maybe right away, from all your hours of controller work and hand eye coordination and just getting afeel for how games work, or maybe playing an updated, better graphic version of a game you have .... your better than me already. But when you compare Nintendo to X-Box, one is higher technology.

At the same time, I believe no one style is perfect or the best at all things. But some have cut out a lot of fat and have added a lot of power and mechanics and they adapt better to all situations.

No matter what your opinion though (student/style) there is only one way to validate it: go out and play with other styles.

[Suntzu]

No matter what your opinion though (student/style) there is only one way to validate it: go out and play with other styles. I think nowadays there are soooo many avenues to do just that……

[red5angel]

I think crossing hands with others is great for training and learning but does the "my style is better than yours" challenge match have a point anymore?


no, no point to prove.

[Ray Pina]

Yes and no

There's no point in creating an f-16 compared to the Wright Brother's plane.... it's just evolution and updating. You don't go and say the Wright Brother's plane is ****, you just add to it, start with the basic principles and make it better.

As a martial artist I think there is a point in going out and crossing hands. You find what YOU are week in and see what you can do to fix it. If you keep an open mind, you may also see some things YOUR STYLE is week in.

I haven't met a TKD guy who impressed me with their hands or on the ground, but their kicking is beautiful and some can change with their leg the way some can with their hand... I mean realy change, touch you and still chanhe direction with power (not just the snapy, snap of the pants).

But they can play with each other in their school till the end of time and fool themselves that the leg and standing on one leg takes care of everything and nobody can take them down or get in close enough to punch.

Is that Self Defense or Self Deception?

As Sun Tzu pointed out, there are plenty of forums now to see if you're fooling yourself.

People create a million reasons (moral, based on rules, spiritual ect) on why they won't go out to test and frankly, I think it's a matter of skill. If you have it or almost have it you want to see and feel relatively safe. If you're no where near to having it of course the ring is the last place you'd want to find yourself ... you'd get your a$$ kicked. It's that simple but people make it complicated, often like their martial art.

[CFT]

Originally posed by SevenStar
Apples and oranges or not, it's still a necessary comparison, for the simple fact that those matches do happen. And, it's not really apples and oranges. Grapplers use alot of principles that stand up guys use - they may use them in different ways, but they use them.I agree with alot of what you say, mechanics are different in most arts, but alot of principles seem to be similar of not the same. The principles of Aikido, Tai Chi, Wing Chun seem to be the same (at least on paper), and yet to look at they are very different.

Getting back to Philbert's post:

I use to strongly believe that "It's the practioner" thing, but in some cases (not counting the b.s. systems), I think the style can play a huge factor. More so than the practioner.I still don't think anybody has convincing said why one art can really be superior to another, excluding training methods and time. I agree that a professional thai boxer will have the skill, stamina and conditioning to cream any TMA who has not taken his/her training to that level ... but that does not make muy thai a "superior" style.

As everyone knows, BJJ is the best style ever! ;)

[Ray Pina]

"I still don't think anybody has convincing said why one art can really be superior to another"

It's hard to answer that without ****ing someone off.

Let's just say that maybe style "A" is very sport oriented, and it doesn't allow its practioners to attack a kicking or supporting leg, doesn't allow full contact to the head. Or let's say style "B" begins all of its matches standing up and clinching each other's uniform -- this style with time may lose the ability to succesfully bridge the gap. Maybe, maybe not.

Let's say one style tends to stand very erect, perhaps even leaning back a bit and has very slapy hands.... in the contect of playing with others do the same it may work, but with some with less busy hands and true powerful punching they may have trouble.

I know it may not be the style but the way they school trains, but styles tend to have their own way of training, where you can enter 8 out of 10 TKD, Judo or Wing Chun schools and find a similiar curriculum.

I know this is not PC and I don't really feel so strongly about any of this because frankly I've put this type of thing so far behind me. I have found what I have been looking for and it fits my personality and thinking. Everyone has to find what works for them and once they dedicate themselves to it they can make it work if they train realisticly ..... now that's a more PC answer;)

[Suntzu]

As everyone knows, BJJ is the best style ever! betta tell that to Genki Sudo :D

and if someone strongly feels that X is better than Y..... well there are more than enough oppurtunities to prove your point..... big gloves.... little glove.... "jacket".... no jacket... standing... or 'grappling'..... from bars to ballrooms to arenas.......

[Asia]

I finally finished reading the SD vs BJJ white belt thread on bullshido, and the entire thing seemed pointless. I think crossing hands with others is great for training and learning but does the "my style is better than yours" challenge match have a point anymore?

Actually YES they do still have a valid point because we STILL have pple deluding themselves.

For those who can step back and take an objective look at their art and skills then a STYLE vs STYLE challenge is not needed. For those who STILL think they can death tough a Pro Fighter and claim victory or believe they can stop a wrestling shoot with a horse stance then they still need to have this.


betta tell that to Genki Sudo

You know Sudo trained BJJ at the Beverly Hills JJ club, right?

But I agree BJJ is NOT the best art ever its BAJIQUAN!:D

[Gangsterfist]

I think its best to look at what works for you, not what works for everyone else. I think you can learn a great deal from others, but ultimately you learn the most from yourself.

Style has nothing to do with anything in a real fight. Which cannot be compared to any kind of ring fight. Ring fights can be looked at as a testing lab I suppose. However, in real fights on the streets its much much different. Remember that kickboxer guy who got shot not too long ago? Someone robbed him w/ a gun and he thought he could fight back because he was a good fighter. Well, not good enough to beat a gun.

Even if a gracie wins a fight in UFC, or loses a fight in K-1, it really proves nothing. If you study a good art you should technically be able to use it in many different situations against a wide variety of opponets, and perhaps even multiple opponets. I am not saying you would win your fights, I am saying you would have an idea how to win. Even if you don't win your fights on the streets you can at least know what to do and execute it.

[Suntzu]

You know Sudo trained BJJ at the Beverly Hills JJ club, right? STOP IT!!! :p


Remember that kickboxer guy who got shot not too long ago? Alex Gong?.........


I am saying you would have an idea how to win. Even if you don't win your fights on the streets you can at least know what to do and execute it. and 'you' should now this how?....... by being sheltered from the rest of the world..... toiling away in you 'classes' unaware of what other 'styles' are doing?......... or by mixing it up?.... taking the guess work out of the 'what ifs"..........

[Gangsterfist]

Having an idea of what to do is what you will ultimately gain from your training IMHO. You will not have any definate or absolute answers, but you will have an idea of what the answer is.

A person who constantly attacks in a fight may wear themselves out quicker. The person who is constantly defending may be saving energy but is still taking hits and not advancing in any way at all. You have to act upon the situation and not react. Reactions take too long. Sometimes you will need to attack and sometimes you will need to defend. Knowing what to do at the right time.

I am not arguing with you about touching hands with other styles of martial arts. That will teach you how to dynamically apply your art to other situations. Sometimes you have to adapt your art to fight another fighter.

SunTzu-

What I am saying is you should train realistically for your physique and attributes. Have an idea of what you can realistically pull off in a fight. Its different for everyone.

[rogue]

Actually YES they do still have a valid point because we STILL have pple deluding themselves. And so do you challenge someone because he's deluded or ignorant of what else is out there? In this day and age if someone isn't interested in various ways a fight can happen, crossing hands with others or merely watching the numerous fight outlets available then what can you do. Hell, I'm pretty bad but I've pointed out stupid techniques to people, demostrated why and still have them use it to this day.


and if someone strongly feels that X is better than Y..... well there are more than enough oppurtunities to prove your point..... big gloves.... little glove.... "jacket".... no jacket... standing... or 'grappling'..... from bars to ballrooms to arenas....... That's exactly it Suntzu.

[Musicalkatachmp]

Yeah...but if there is one thing I have learned it is that you can't please everyone so you have to please yourself...even if you enter a tournament and do well, there will be naysayers that will say that was an easy tournament blah blah blah...people are going to believe what they want a lot of the time...true some styles that have done very well in the ring have earned a great deal of respect that way...but that is very hard to do...if a kung fu guy won UFC then sure he would turn some heads but winning UFC can be tricky, even challenging I'd say...

Alas, in the part of the kung fu world that I am familiar with, it seems people are content to sit around saying that their style and shifu are the best, and everything else is crap, b/c so and so won some competition 50 some odd years ago against other kung fu guys...or somebody wins a competition where they fought once and runs around calling themself the "WORLD CHAMP" which yeah technically I can't call it a lie but is that what they are content with? They beat some tomato can so now they have reached the pinnacle of their career? I guess its easier to assume you are the best than to go out there and find out...

[Merryprankster]

Why do people feel the need to proclaim something is superior?

1. Belief preservation.
2. Everybody wants to feel special and unique...

[Asia]

Don't get me wrong.

I don't think STYLE vs STYLE is to prove one is superior than the other. No art holds all the answers (Except the Almighty BAJI!:D you mortals can't understand!) And style vs style matches help point out the holes in each.

However the are many pple out there that will NOT see the holes in their system unless they experience it first hand.

[Suntzu]

However the are many pple out there that will NOT see the holes in their system unless they experience it first hand. there lies the rub.....

[rubthebuddha]

actually, the rub is currently sitting down.

sad thing is that some people, when pointed out the flaw either through reason or through getting socked, will still let themselves be deluded just because accepting error is more painful than the risk of getting socked again. :(

[red5angel]

I don't believe there is a valid way to test any style vs another. You can test to see if your style is useful in combat by fighting, but even then count on many many fights with many many people on both sides before you can solidly state that your style works.

[Ray Pina]

I learned a lesson like this concerning the Bong Sau.

I would have success with it when training with my Wing Chun teacher and classmates. But then I would train with my Southern Mantis teacher and he told me not to use Bong Sau because he'd snap my arm.... sure enough, he nearly did and was kind enough only to flip the elbow and apply pressure until I was kissing the floor (this went on for about a month)..... lesson learned.

Now in internal the lesson has been taught simply and clearly. It's not that the move or idea is wrong, it's how its applied.

Go into Bong Sau (and isn't the correct way that elbow is under shoulder and wrist under elbow and you roll it so the elbow is now up? And I know it's a moment in time and a deflection move). How much weight can you pick up in this position? How can you open if someone is collapsing you? You can't roll! You already did, you shot that load already. It's a dead movement.

I've said this many times and I'm sure people here will give me he|| for saying it again, but it's true. A good guy will flip it on you.

Tan Sau is $hit because it blocks from left to right or right to left like a windshield wiper .... window still gets wet.

And Fuk Sau is $hit because it merely covers? Why not strike the attack and slip outside and cover (Fuk Sau) or slip inside and open (Tan Sau).

Of course this is 100% mouth boxing over the internet but I have felt it first hand and realised the weakness in the style. People will tell me I didn't train long enough. Fine. But when I use a computer from 10 years a go and have the chance now to use a new one, should I just train at getting better with the old one or just jump right in with the new technology?

[red5angel]

that's all over generalizing efist and inaccurate. Bong sau is an alive, transitional position. If you hold it, pause during it or use it otherwise incorreclty, your right you can get caught, the same with ANY technique known to man. The drilling is designed to deflect, and if you train properly in sensitivity then you should be fine. But that's really the point isn't it? We could one up each other all day with if's and and's.

Tan sau - sure, its like a windshield wiper, if your rigid and inflexible. The idea is that if your using it properly, the rain never meets the windshield at all. As a matter of fact, while most WC guys will bring up bong sau, I think tan sau is much more useful because of it's flexability as a transition. If your throwing it around then you bet your a$$ your going to get hit. It's not an "external" technique and doing that way misses the point, same with bong sau.




Why not strike the attack and slip outside and cover (Fuk Sau) or slip inside and open (Tan Sau).


why not?


Here's the issue e-fist, and exactly what this whole subject is all about. for whatever reason, wingchun wasn't working for you, but it works. I know guys who could probably impress the crap out of you with their wingchun. I know a few guys who could probably deal well with your sifu as well (I know blasphemy, but we aren't all invulnerable to harm or a higher skilled person). It's unfair for anyone to claim an art doesn't work because it hasn't worked for them. That's one of the biggest issues in this whole style vs style thing. Guys who are out there, studied an art for a little while, or even sometimes (very few times) a long time, but can't get the art to work.
Ever met one of those people, guy or girl, who walks into the martial arts and just doesn't seem to "have it". no matter how goo the instructors are, or how much attention they get paid, they just can't ever seem to fight their way out of a wet paper bag? They're missing a certain something that is important to good close combat. what that is I couldn't say? Not enough time practicing? Not paying attention? Wrong style? Could be many things. To blame the art in my opinion is ignorant.

[Gangsterfist]

EvolutionFist-

Your questions and comments are valid. I understand where you are coming from. Perhaps Ving Tsun is just not for you. That is okay, because not every art is for every person.

I read your post, and I think of the problems with Ving Tsun today. I am no master of Ving Tsun, but I do study it, and I train hard. I am definately not the best either. However, after reading your post, I think perhaps you misunderstood certain concepts or perhaps were just taught differently.

The bong sao (or wing arm)- is a transitional movement to mainly deflect high attacks. The elbow is actually above the shoulder and the wrist is on centerline. The hand is turned inwards towards your body. The arm is held at approx 130 degree angle. You hold no tension in your shoulder or wrist. All of your focus should be near the elbow. Infact your wrist should be loose. You should have a spring like motion if someone were to press towards you on your forearm and then let go. Now when you intercept the strike with the bong sao you are using a bit of forward energy (or intent, or whatever you want to call it - not tension) + your structure to block it. The shoulder should be dropped and relaxed, not tensed or raised at all. That is the hardest part IMHO, the shoulders using the bong sao. Also, remembering not to stay in the bong sao position is hard to. Once you bong, you transition right away. As for the armbar you were talking about, yes that is a very good valid move. It is also very easy to counter. Immoveable elbow theories and dropping elbow are key here. Also feeling your opponet as well. This goes to another principle of the dragon head/tail. When the dragon tail raises (your elbow) the head lowers (your hand) and vice versa. So the moment you feel the chin na being applied you must lower the tail and raise the head, and drop that elbow down. Structurely, the dropping elbow is very powerful.

The fuk sao (or covering hand) is meant to act as a feeler. In VT they say the second hand in the killing hand. That is because a lot of times you want to trap and control then strike. This way you can set up your opponet to put themselves in a bad situation. Now, lets say you are fighting someone who is just really fast. Has really fast strikes. Fuk saos can be used to tell you where your opponet is going before they go there, by feeling where they are moving and how their body moves. Also, if you want to play nice and not really hurt someone you can feel out their movements until you can apply chin na or something else (whatever grappling, take downs whatever). It may not be "wing chun minded" but if it works it works.

The tan sao (or disperssing hand) is used with the whole body. The problem is a lot of people have trouble applying this because they do not use foot work, or positioning. I have found that the tan sao is realistically best for straight punches and it works great. For almost all other attacks I would usually end up using pak sao and biu sao. Or I would use foot work and dynamics to dodge the strike. The tan sao is effective and very powerful structure wise, but to be used in live situations you must use foot work and positioning. Come in at angles, not straight forward on your opponet.

Like I said not every art is for every person. I took several martial arts before I found Ving Tsun (wing chun, whatever) and taiji and I really like them. They are great arts if practiced right and practiced often, just like any other martial art.

Evolutionfist - This was in no way a negative post towards you. Infact I am glad you posted what you thought from your experiences. I too, am interested in other arts and do pick up techniques every now and then from other systems, like animal boxing, CLF, tai hui, bagua, hsing-i, judo etc. Because I am very fortunate in the fact I get to train with a wide variety of people who train different systems. Sometimes wing chun does not seem like it can hold its own against someone who does another art, and other times I win the sparring match easily. I also think mantis boxing is very cool as well.

Good luck in your training,
GFist

[red5angel]

the other thing I think is a weak argument is the whole old versus new thing. The human body is only capable of so many things (not including all the belief in Qi and what it can do). Now, some traditions withstanding, the only real things that change after so many hundreds or thousands of years is the way one trains, and that is mostly due to a better understanding of things and better technology. For the most part when people claim they have something "new" it's pretty much just re-inventing the wheel but again, out of ignorance will claim they have found a new and better way of doing things.

[PHILBERT]

Originally posted by CFT
I'm interested in what you have to say on this matter, can you expand on your point?

If it is striking vs. striking or grappling vs. grappling, then I don't think that any one art is inherently better than another.

Speaking from a striking arts perspective, I don't see large differences in basic/core philosophy. Some arts have their ideas better formulated/formalized so that the practitioners are more able to articulate why their art is "better".

If you're talking about a stiking style versus a grappling one, then that is just comparing apples to oranges. It's almost the same as saying that weapons based styles are better than empty-handed ones. Weapons provide an undeniable advantage in combat which would and should make even a competant empty-handed combatant pause for thought, but it doesn't necessarily make it superior.

7* pretty much nailed it with his Muay Thai and TKD comparison. If you took a BJJ purple belt against say a 3rd degree TKD guy, I'd put money down that unless he can kick the BJJ guy once and knock him out, each time the BJJ would win. If you took a Kyoushin or however it is spelled against a TKD guy, the Kyoushin would probably win as well.

The only way I think it depends on the person more than the style is when the styles are similar in training, and similar in time. Say CLF guy versus a Hung Gar guy, both have 5 years training or something. Then I think it might depend more on the person. Or a Shotokan guy versus a Goju Ryu, both with 3 years.

Edit:
Where can I find this SD versus BJJ White belt thread on Bullshido?

[rogue]

If you took a Kyoushin or however it is spelled against a TKD guy, the Kyoushin would probably win as well. And how do you know this? If I took my personal experience I'd say you are wrong since as I've done well against Kyukoshinkai (OK 2 of them neither black belts) who tended to attack really well but walked into counter attacks, I've even seen a video of a TKD fighter knocking a Kyukoshinkai fighter across the ring. But I know my personal experience is only that and not the complete story on Kyukoshinkai or TKD or anything else, and I know this because I can watch other KK fighters and I can watch other TKD fighters. I can also work out with other styles in a friendly or competitive manner without resorting to a challenge.


However the are many pple out there that will NOT see the holes in their system unless they experience it first hand. And what happens then? They start training to make the holes smaller, or they come up with an excuse and keep on keeping on, or they quit. I think that people will mostly find the training that they want. If someone wants to put on padding and lightly tap someone in sparring then more power to them, if someone wants to take himself to his best as a fighter will also find the training he desires. :)

[Yum Cha]

Occasionally the topic comes up concerning the "street fighter" who most of us might consider a well practiced, but not "styled" fighter. One who has trained perhaps a little bit of this and that, but mostly survived on direct experience.

We've also got match fighters. Anything with rules. Usually with gloves or other protection.

Then the touch fighters....

Then the "non-sparring" stylists.

So, which style is superior? The one where the most people practice the hardest fighting and conditioning discipline? The street fighter?

Is best defined by fighting other trained fighters, or by fighting in real-life situations, or by being constructive members of a society and exercising violence only as a last resort? The question itself is fallacious.

Or is it the one that gives the individual practicing it the most of whatever they need? What muscle and blood do with the knowledge.

Some people have no desire to be the best fighter, but they don't want to be the victim. Others are after money, glory and fame. Which is superior, and by whose measure?

Multi-discipline understanding is great. Know your enemy to know yourself. Some arts have particular techniques aimed at the key techniques of other arts, does that make them better?

Some arts have tremendous depth allowing for years of learning and development. Others are quick to learn to an effective level. Which of these is superior?

The art travels with the man. Good men will make a strong lineage and raise stout children. Poor practitioners will raise crippled children who will succumb.

Arts rise and fall on the backs of the players, not the strength of the style.

Thats my rant and I'm sticking to it.

[Merryprankster]

Some arts have tremendous depth allowing for years of learning and development. Others are quick to learn to an effective level. Which of these is superior?

These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

[Vash]

Originally posted by Yum Cha
Some arts have tremendous depth allowing for years of learning and development. Others are quick to learn to an effective level. Which of these is superior?


Originally posted by Merryprankster
These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

MP is correct. I've not heard someone who claims their style/training methodology will make them an effective fighter in a short time say the style will be less effective as time goes on.

[Merryprankster]

Vash, true.

To speak further to it, becoming effective in a short period of time does not necessarily mean that the art lacks depth.

However, I HAVE heard many people who generally lack significant full-contact experience make absurd claims to the contrary.

[rogue]

Some arts have tremendous depth allowing for years of learning and development. Others are quick to learn to an effective level. Which of these is superior?:confused: What makes any art quick to learn to an effective level? In my opinion it's hands on training with a trained partner. Look at an art like BJJ, it's not just rolling around on the ground, you need to feel what your opponent is doing, you need to think, the art has moves, counters and counters to counters. If it was a base art I doubt people would be sticking around to get advanced rank.
I watched Mike Moses and another guy rolling and it looked like an Aikido demo but on the ground.

People who become effective quickly in any art will have many things in common when it comes to training. What some think is tremendous depth is just a slower method of training.

[rogue]

OK Asia, you may be right... (http://www.wingchun.com.au/forums/showthread.php?t=123&page=1&pp=10) :( ;)

[Vash]

I'd have to say rogue is right on. I loathe using the term "alive," so I'll say "training with an opponent on a constantly-increasing resistance level utilizing the techniques, principles, and methodologies of the studied style" is an integral part of learning.

[rogue]

Vash, you put it so much better than I did. I've been training that way and the difference is amazing. It's like drinking from the firehose.

[Yum Cha]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

I thought the question was to determine superiority, not exclusivity.

Further, do the training methods you describe...

"training with an opponent on a constantly-increasing resistance level utilizing the techniques, principles, and methodologies of the studied style"

...come down to the traing methods of the man, or the structure of the style? I mean, it could be gymnastics, fencing, bbj, boxing or TKD, so it must be a virtue of disciplined study.

[SevenStar]

The structure of the style. Notice that all of the sports you mentioned are highly competitive (with the exception of some TKD). The nature of the sport dictates that you train that way, and is thusly structured in such a manner.

[Meat Shake]

training methodology is a big part of it...

[SevenStar]

Definitely, but those training methods are included within the structure of the style. When you were in SD, were you doing the same things kirk has you doing now?

[PHILBERT]

Where is this BJJ white belt versus SD thread?

[Yum Cha]

But is the structure of the style, as described earlier, limited only to those styles? Can it also be applied to other arts that aren't competitive? Or even to mundane pursuits, perhaps (for Ego's benefit) spelling bees or nintendo?

I'll agree that the man pushes himself, using whatever tools at his disposal, to excel, and that some styles weed out non-comitted early on. But I still see it as an individual discipline, not an inate element of a given style, simply due to the fact that the principle can be applied to numerous pursuits equally, or to BBJ, Wing Chun, or Tai Chi equally.

For superiority to reside in the style, it would have to contain certain unique elements that enabled this superiority.

Like no-touch knock outs, flying, death rays from the fingertips, etc...

But thats begging the question of how to measure superiority? Fighting ability? Strategic ability? Longevity and healing powers? Personal satisfaction and enlightenment? Bags of cash and babes?

For each man its different, and in each man it resides. Don't fear the style, fear the man.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Yum Cha
But is the structure of the style, as described earlier, limited only to those styles? Can it also be applied to other arts that aren't competitive?

Sure it CAN be, but is it already? Since the inception of muay thai, it's been that way. No matter what MT school you go to, it's a given that you will train that way. Not every longfist school I go to will do that, nor will every karate school, etc. There are some, but if the instructor's there add it to their system, then it's only part of their system, not the style as a whole.


Or even to mundane pursuits, perhaps (for Ego's benefit) spelling bees or nintendo?

:D

I'll agree that the man pushes himself, using whatever tools at his disposal, to excel, and that some styles weed out non-comitted early on. But I still see it as an individual discipline, not an inate element of a given style, simply due to the fact that the principle can be applied to numerous pursuits equally, or to BBJ, Wing Chun, or Tai Chi equally.

but unless every wing chun (for example) school on the planet adds that training, then it's not inherent to the style, only to the particular schools that do it.

When you think of muay thai or kyokushin, what kind of training do you envision? When you think of shotokan, what do you envision? Now, why do you think that's so?


But thats begging the question of how to measure superiority? Fighting ability? Strategic ability? Longevity and healing powers? Personal satisfaction and enlightenment? Bags of cash and babes?

which can be measured in different areas. I get more chicks than you - my babe magnetism is superior. You play golf better than me - your golf skills are superior. Once again, something inherent to the style. If I want decent iron palm, will I go to a muay thai school? If no, then why not?

For each man its different, and in each man it resides. Don't fear the style, fear the man.

fear the style AND the man. If style had no bearing, why did grappling shake up the MA world when mma tournies began? There were some good athletes from other styles, and they got their clocks cleaned. That's not saying their style is superior, but if those bjj black belts are constantly crushing black belts of supposedly equal caliber of other styles, then where is the disconnect? Two high caliber athletes, two black belts, equal training time...the difference was style, due to the training methods associated with it.

[CFT]

Originally posted by Yum Cha
I'll agree that the man pushes himself, using whatever tools at his disposal, to excel, and that some styles weed out non-comitted early on. But I still see it as an individual discipline, not an inate element of a given style, simply due to the fact that the principle can be applied to numerous pursuits equally, or to BBJ, Wing Chun, or Tai Chi equally.

For superiority to reside in the style, it would have to contain certain unique elements that enabled this superiority.
I think Yum Cha has hit the nail on the head, as have others, but they have not explicitly made the statement as in his second paragraph (in quote).

Anyone should be able to transcend their training methodolgy (TKD, etc.) and be able to apply their art against a resisting opponent. If a particular style has an inherent weakness then even changing the way the practitioner trains would be useless, which would seem to contradict some of the previous posts.

So I still say that it is the practitioner and not necessarily the style that counts.

[SevenStar]

To quote myself:


"but unless every wing chun (for example) school on the planet adds that training, then it's not inherent to the style, only to the particular schools that do it."


You can be the baddest tkd guy on the planet, but not have the foresight to change your training methods. If it's inherent in the style, it doesn't matter.

[Ray Pina]

Actually, I consider WC an important stop in my martial life. It was my first style after Isshin-Ryu and that's where I learned to stick and trap, two important elements that helped my later learning.

As for my ability in wing chun, only I and anyone I played with could say .... I scored a gew medals in the advanced free fighting and chi sau at the Won Fe Hung about 5 or 6 years ago after 2 years of WC study.

The weaknesses that were shown to me and I felt were weaknesses that were shown to me and I felt. I shared them here. Agree or disagree, that's fine.

As for evolution, things change. The human body is capable of much, but even more so is the human brain and the way it can adapt and evolve and solve problems.

Michael Jordan still dribbles the ball, bounce passes it and takes jump shots .... but he completely changed the game of basketball. The things he does on the outside are the same, but completely different at the same time.

[red5angel]

"training with an opponent on a constantly-increasing resistance level utilizing the techniques, principles, and methodologies of the studied style" is an integral part of learning.


That's a matter of training, not style. It's only common sense that to get better you have to raise the challenge level along with your education. And anyone who says you don't have to spar or fight during your training is an idiot.



Notice that all of the sports you mentioned are highly competitive (with the exception of some TKD)

Why only some TKD 7*? Is it your consistant experience that there is a large proportion of TKD schools that don't compete or have a competitive attitude? Or is it that TKD hasn't impressed you as an art? There's tons of TKD schools out there that compete, I can't even think of a TKD school here that doesn't have a huge trophy rack or disply in their front window. My guess is the percentages probably work the same for alot of other so called sport arts.


No matter what MT school you go to, it's a given that you will train that way

apparently you've never been to a aerobic kickboxing class. ;)


but unless every wing chun (for example) school on the planet adds that training, then it's not inherent to the style, only to the particular schools that do it.

You can't fairly qualify that statement for one art and not for another. Unless any art includes that sort of training in all of their schools. Your bias shows itself in your argument here 7*. To imply that one style has inherent training while another may not, as it comes to training apropriately to be a good style, isn't a correct statement. While some arts may have a higher percentage of schools that may not spar or compete, by your estimate, any art that has atleast one school that does not spar or train like that, is not a good art in the context of this argument.


fear the style AND the man. If style had no bearing, why did grappling shake up the MA world when mma tournies began?

Two high caliber athletes, two black belts, equal training time...the difference was style, due to the training methods associated with it.

your logic is incorrect. Grappling shook up the MA world because it had been neglected for so long. When it was "re-introduced", people were unprepaired for it. Now things are different.
The difference was not style. It had as much to do with setting as it did with anything else. Grappling lends itself very well to the ring and so called NHB fighting. Now, people have adapted and the spread has evened out, proving that it's not the style but the way people are training.


E-fist, actually you helped to make my point - Michael Jordan isn't doing anything any differently from anyone else on the court, he's dribbling, jumping, running, but there are two factors playing into his success - a - his training methods most likely differed, or atleast he foiund a combination that worked well for him (used his brain to adapt, as you said) and b - genetics probably plays a big part in how he performs as well.


Wing Chun is a great style. But when you know it, there are a lot of self distruction mechanisms in there. Somehow we have to organize a big chi sau event through this board, so everyone can show their stuff and no one has to worry about getting banged up too badly.

All arts, have their strengths and weakneses. A good martial artists learns to see those and cover or compensate for them in effect, adapt. Wingchun, is actually a pretty solid art in my opinion. However, given your instructors history, having been kicked out of Yip Man's school supposedly, would probably leave him bitter enough to have a special place in his heart for learning how to defeat it properly. Therefore taking a student who practiced the art for 2 years and "showing" him the supposed "weaknesses" in wingchun.
It's a broad and narrow minded statement to make since it's only been your experience. If wingchun were so filled with holes, I'dimagine it wouldn't be so popular ;)

[Ray Pina]

TKD competes, no doubt about it but they compete in TKD tournaments. I tried fighting in one a year and a half ago and they through me the hell out of there.... they can try and treat my head like a soccer ball but they don't like it when you treat their head like a volley ball, or trap their leg and charge them making them fall ..... they feel silly when that happens and disqualify you.

As for the MJ discussion: "his training methods most likely differed, or atleast he foiund a combination that worked well for him (used his brain to adapt, as you said)"

That is my point. Styles are just names, what makes them unique is the way that they train. We are all kicking, punching and blocking but the difference is in the how.

[red5angel]

they feel silly when that happens and disqualify you.

or is this against the rules in their tourneys?


That is my point. Styles are just names, what makes them unique is the way that they train. We are all kicking, punching and blocking but the difference is in the how.

Then I have to disagree with your example. Everyone in Basketball does basketball. There's only one way to dribble, there's only a couple of ways to score, and everyone in basketball does it the same for all intents and purposes, hardly a good comparison to martial arts. While basketball can be broke down simply, what your saying is more like the difference between basketball and soccer. The idea is to get the ball in the goal to score but soccer guys kick the ball for the most part and basketball players use their hands. They both dribble, but it' snot the same thing.

In the martial arts, you kick and I kick. there are different ways to do it, although I would argue that a front kick is a front kick is a front kick. While you might choose to kick one way more often, and I may choose to kick another, neither is weaker. Here's a great example, I know a TKD guy who can kick like you wouldn't believe. You know the story, can't see his leg coming til it's too late, and all that crap. He has a lot of power for someone his size - small - and I have no doubt that he could fight effectively using what he knows. He's trained all his life to kick that way and he's awesome at it. Some might say that some of the techniques he uses are "weak" because they are long kicks, to the head. But he can get them off, and he does it quick and with power. He can punch to but he doesn't need to. Sure some grappler may come along and take him down, but that isn't because that grapling is somehow better then kicking, but that it's a different approach. Now it's up to the guy kicking to have trained in grappling to be able to compete in that arena as well.

[CFT]

red5angel,

I must admit that I had a certain impression of you from previous posts in other threads, but your thoughts in this thread are well reasoned and presented in a very readable style.

The fact that I agree with much (or all) of what you say is a bonus. :D

Anyway, keep posting.

Despite their intial ideas, most people commenting in this thread seem to be converging on the person over style viewpoint, even if they don't realise it!!

[Ray Pina]

Actually Red, you are missing the point exactly.

Karrem Abdul Jabar played basketball and center but his style (sky hook) is completely different than say Shak.

How does this relate to Martial Arts: a front kick is not a front kick is not a front kick.

Tai Boxers use the round house differently that TKD players. E-Chuan does it completely different from both of those, borrowing from Ba Gua ideas.

Most styles plant and kick and are stationary at that moment. E-Chuan looks at that as being dangerous for a few reasons.

1) My teacher calls it Saving Private Ryan, you offer your foot with little or no support (BJJ guys usually have to dig in for your leg, here you give it to them for free) from your hands.

2) You lose all your mobility.

3) Your only using the power of the leg.

Ba Gua uses the hidden kick and practices it while walking the circle.

The idea is to drive off the back leg, while shielding your groin with the leading knee. The kick is somewhat of a knee and somewhat of a roundhouse kick at the same time striking with the shin.

It's our roundhouse. It's different than TKDs roundhouse and different than Tai Boxer's roundhouse.

My entire point, and the reason that I am know studying internal is, it's not what you are doing (after 26 years of MA I can kick, punch, block) it's how you are doing it. Each style, for better or worse, has their own way of doing it and there is a difference.

Otherwise it would just be "MARTIAL ARTS:, like it's hockey, or football, and we'd have teams not styles .... which could be the future when everybody gets the best of everybody elses if you're looking.

[Mutant]

I believe it comes down to practicianer, style and methodology, not just 2 out of three of those catagories.

Lets say you have a very talented and athletic person, practicing art 'x' in with a methodology that will best prepare that person for full-contact competition and/or a street encounter using the technology of art 'x'.... but art 'x' doen't have as effective a technique/answer to deal with a mauy thai round kick or, to be fair, a knife attack as art 'y', then the results may come down to style, despite the practicianers talent and efficiency of training that particular style. Different styles have different answers (and often different training methodologies).

A not-so-talented fighter who trains in an effective style using an efficient methodology may beat a more talented guy who's not training effectively and not realizing his potential (and who may not even realize this). So its not all 'the practitioner' although that has a lot to do with it.

Different combinations of these variable will yield different results.
Lame style, uncoordinated pracitioner, and poor methodology yields a terrible fighter, which we see many of at local McDojos.
Capable style, talented athlete and effective training methodology can produce a great fighter. And somewhere in between you have everyone else with numerous variables.

Of course certain styles generally utilize certain training methodologies so there is a lot of correlation. But I have also see a lot of variable here (jeet kun do for example, or tae kwon do, wing chun, kickboxing, you name it..) so I think its nessary that methodology be considered related, but a seperate component.

[red5angel]

CFT - sorry if I'm not as entertianing as usual! ;) that's only when I'm fighting the axis fo ignorance.


E-fist, I disagree, just because Kareem might have his own personal touch to what he does, both he and MJ are doing the same thing, even more so then any two martial artists.

Of course I know of all the ways martial artists do things or claim to anyway but that's because they need a selling point. Ever seen those threads someon starts griping about how kungfu guys stat to look like their doing TKD or muy thai when they fight? ever wonder why that is? In all of the kungfu fights or fights containing kungfu in them that I have seen, one thing stil stands. While you can see a few trademark techniques, things start to look alot like other things. ultimately what I am trying to say is there may be only what a few basic techniques, the rest are just the same things with a little personal touch, mostly cosmetic.


A not-so-talented fighter who trains using an efficient methodology may beat a more talented guy who's not training effectively and not realizing his potential (and who may not even realize this). So its not all 'the practitioner' although that has a lot to do with it.

That's how I'd word it. I don't believe in ineffective styles. I believe in ineffective people. Sometimes you can get a bad match up. If I were to practice TKD, I wouldn't be fighting to my full potential, because I'm much better with my hands then my feet. But that's not fault of the style.


which we see many of at local McDojos.

What I see at Mcdojos are watered down versions of other arts that are indeed effective. Not only that, but you can take a MCdojo taught style and be effective with it. I've seen it. Mcdojo has less to do with the style then the training methodology and the business approach.


I think its nessary that methodology be considered related, but a seperate component.

I think individual methodology is more the issue then style. If you wanted to learn say Karate, form National Karate down the street. If you put your heart and mind into it. Busted your butt, and adapted to cover your weaknesses, cause all styles have them, then you could probably be a pretty darn good fighter.

[Gangsterfist]

Sevenstar-

A couple of things you wrote caught my attention. You said:

but unless every wing chun (for example) school on the planet adds that training, then it's not inherent to the style, only to the particular schools that do it.

You also mentioned how Muay Thai was more standardized training. That no matter what gym or boxing club you trained at, Muay Thai would be pretty much the same across the board. At least that is how I interpreted it.

So, would you like to see more things standardized? I could see the point in that.

However, correct me if I am wrong, but there are several types of Muay Thai (thai fist right?). There are more traditional ones that have forms, and a whole art aspect to them. Like in the movie Ong Bak? There is also the popular sport version which is more widely spread out through the world. There are probably sub system in each class. Like northern thai fist, and southern thai fist. I don't know, but I am guessing there is. So, if it were to become standardized then, would it not be more like a sport and not an art?


Every art has its strenghts and weaknesses

It has been my observation that almost all southern styles of kung fu (taiji, wing chun, white crane, bagua, hsing-i, choy lay fut, etc etc) share some aspects. The concepts and theories are similar as well. Some motions and energies are different. Then there are a few unique techniques behind them that gets the style known for something. I see similarities in them all the time. You will see similar if not the same concepts amongst many martial arts. That is because people are big fans of using what works.

Certain styles like Choy Lay Fut have been known to be good against wing chun fighters, because of all the chum techniques (or crashing, sinking however you interpret it) that crash and destroy your bridges. Even if its known to be effective that does not mean it will work everytime. Wing Chun people obviously started training against it, and now its not as shocking are as hard to stand up to CLF people. Of course this was not proven just stories from china, so I have no idea how true this actually was. Same thing happened with grappling. It won ring fights, it got huge, now people train against it.

So, my final point is, you must train all aspects of combat with your art (or other arts if yours is lacking somewhere) to be a well rounded martial artist. This includes stand up, ground, clinch, grappling, striking, long and short range, and entering techniques. No matter what style you train.

[Asia]

Originally posted by rogue
OK Asia, you may be right... (http://www.wingchun.com.au/forums/showthread.php?t=123&page=1&pp=10) :( ;)

My job here is done!:D

*flys off into the sunset!*

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by red5angel


Why only some TKD 7*? Is it your consistant experience that there is a large proportion of TKD schools that don't compete or have a competitive attitude? Or is it that TKD hasn't impressed you as an art? There's tons of TKD schools out there that compete, I can't even think of a TKD school here that doesn't have a huge trophy rack or disply in their front window. My guess is the percentages probably work the same for alot of other so called sport arts.

all of the above. I know of schools that don't compete much. Also, there is the ata - enough said on that one.


apparently you've never been to a aerobic kickboxing class. ;)

:)
Actually, they were included. When I posted that, I was thinking in terms of attributes - stamina, etc., not fighting ability.



You can't fairly qualify that statement for one art and not for another. Unless any art includes that sort of training in all of their schools. Your bias shows itself in your argument here.

To imply that one style has inherent training while another may not, as it comes to training apropriately to be a good style, isn't a correct statement. While some arts may have a higher percentage of schools that may not spar or compete, by your estimate, any art that has atleast one school that does not spar or train like that, is not a good art in the context of this argument.


that's not at all what I said. I was responding to this:

"I'll agree that the man pushes himself, using whatever tools at his disposal, to excel, and that some styles weed out non-comitted early on. But I still see it as an individual discipline, not an inate element of a given style, simply due to the fact that the principle can be applied to numerous pursuits equally, or to BBJ, Wing Chun, or Tai Chi equally."

it's not necessarily an individual discipline. The training you receive in a sport art like muay thai is inherent to that style. Can you apply it to WC? certainly. but unless every wc school in the world does it, then it can't possibly be inherent to WC.


your logic is incorrect. Grappling shook up the MA world because it had been neglected for so long. When it was "re-introduced", people were unprepaired for it. Now things are different. The difference was not style.

the difference was style. Whether or not they were prepared for the style is a different issue. Why are things different now? because they began training in that style - the inception of cross training. if the style didn't make a difference, they wouldn't have cross trained but merely devised ways within their style to successfully defend against grappling.

It had as much to do with setting as it did with anything else. Grappling lends itself very well to the ring and so called NHB fighting.


So, had the grapplers entered a kuo shu event, they would not have been able to take the stand up guys down? be real... even if ground grappling is allowed, they'd just constantly do takedowns.

Now, people have adapted and the spread has evened out, proving that it's not the style but the way people are training.

because they are now crosstraining in the style that was kicking their asses... what does that tell you? Style has alot to do with it.


Wingchun, is actually a pretty solid art in my opinion.

I wsan't taking a shot at wing chun, it just happened to be the example I used.

[Merryprankster]

I thought the question was to determine superiority, not exclusivity.

Uhhhhh...point being that you can have an art that is both effective in a short period of time AND that has great depth to it.

So the question, "which is superior?" is fallacious in and of itself.

[Gangsterfist]

Most martial arts, and fighting styles will make you "street worthy" in a year of so of decent training. I mean decent by you actually practice several times a week. If you practice hard everyday I could even say a lot of systems would make you a decent street fighter in 6 months. However, no training can ever give you the learning power of real hands on experience.

The art I think about when training short term Vs long term, are the internal arts. IMHO, they take the longest, and take the most dedication to become really good at. They are good complete systems, but take years of training be to real effective in it.

In this months IKF magazine, there was an article about some guy (I forgot his name - sorry I can post it when I get home and pick back up the magazine) who created a realistic combat art based off his training. There are no forms, just combat drills and sparring. He streamlined a lot of stuff to make it easier to learn and only used what he thought was realistic. In a short period of training like this one could become a good fighter. Who is to say if this combat art is bad or good? I am pretty nuetral about it. I have no feeling either way to be honest. I think its cool if thats how you want to train. It will probably make you a good fighter, if that is what you want to be, and only what you want to be.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Gangsterfist
Sevenstar-

A couple of things you wrote caught my attention. You said:

You also mentioned how Muay Thai was more standardized training. That no matter what gym or boxing club you trained at, Muay Thai would be pretty much the same across the board. At least that is how I interpreted it.

So, would you like to see more things standardized? I could see the point in that.

However, correct me if I am wrong, but there are several types of Muay Thai (thai fist right?). There are more traditional ones that have forms, and a whole art aspect to them. Like in the movie Ong Bak? There is also the popular sport version which is more widely spread out through the world. There are probably sub system in each class. Like northern thai fist, and southern thai fist. I don't know, but I am guessing there is. So, if it were to become standardized then, would it not be more like a sport and not an art?


nah, muay thai is muay thai. muay thai encompases the gloved art that came about in the 1920's - it is the most recent incarnation of muay. muay thai is standardized in it's current fashion.

Think of it this way - muay is the art itself. the term after that indicates a particular area or era when it was developed, but all eventually culminated into the muay thai that we know of today. there is muay boran, muay luang, muay kaad cheurk (sp?) - this is the one where hand wraps began. these various muay are rare, if practiced at all.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Gangsterfist
Most martial arts, and fighting styles will make you "street worthy" in a year of so of decent training. I mean decent by you actually practice several times a week. If you practice hard everyday I could even say a lot of systems would make you a decent street fighter in 6 months. However, no training can ever give you the learning power of real hands on experience.


IME, in many styles, at 6 months, you are just beginning to spar, if that soon.

since you happened to mention internals, someone on this forum, can't remember who, said that in 6 months of xingyi, he only learned one punch...

[rogue]

The art I think about when training short term Vs long term, are the internal arts. IMHO, they take the longest, and take the most dedication to become really good at. They are good complete systems, but take years of training be to real effective in it. How so and why? When I was doing Tai Chi everyday I was able to use what I was learning in my TKD class after a couple of weeks. I didn't know tai chi but I could use peng, an, cai, lu and ji during one steps and free sparring. Aikido which is somewhat of an internal art can be taught in 1 year, (see Angry White Pajamas). I've also seen variations of many aikido and tai chi moves and principles in the karate that I'm learning and able to use within a week or two. I really can't see why one system takes longer than another to become effective at except for variations in training and goals. If I spent my time marching up and down a dojo punching air (which is not traditional) and just doing kata instead of working with an experienced trainer then it would take me longer to become effective. There aren't any intrinsic restrictions in any art that should cause it to take a long time to use.

[Gangsterfist]

Originally posted by rogue
How so and why? When I was doing Tai Chi everyday I was able to use what I was learning in my TKD class after a couple of weeks. I didn't know tai chi but I could use peng, an, cai, lu and ji during one steps and free sparring. Aikido which is somewhat of an internal art can be taught in 1 year, (see Angry White Pajamas). I've also seen variations of many aikido and tai chi moves and principles in the karate that I'm learning and able to use within a week or two. I really can't see why one system takes longer than another to become effective at except for variations in training and goals. If I spent my time marching up and down a dojo punching air (which is not traditional) and just doing kata instead of working with an experienced trainer then it would take me longer to become effective. There aren't any intrinsic restrictions in any art that should cause it to take a long time to use.

I also practice taiji (yang style) and it took me 1 year to complete the first short form. In my wing chun class after 1 year I was sparring and fighting a wide variety of people and already knew 2 forms.

Internal arts IMHO are the hardest to learn because they take the most time to develope the skill sets to use them. They are great arts, and I practice my taiji every day and go to class every week and practice with sifu.

My wing chun training has advanced so much faster than taiji. It took me a few months to complete the first form in wing chun.

Fighting arts are designed differently. Some are designed to teach you how to fight in a short period of time, some are life long committments. I realize the need and reason for both, and I also respect both.


Sevenstar-

Have you seen ong bak? The guy does a pretty wicked Muay Thai form in the begining, and they refer to his art as being muay thai the whole time.

[rogue]

But, how so and why GF?

[Gangsterfist]

The reason behind the long training with my taiji (I have the same sifu for wing chun and taiji) is that it is very specific in its structre, weight distrubutions, stances, and positioning. The fact I did the first 3 movements for months on the form until I got them right. Taiji is a great martial art, and I practice it still and go to taiji class every friday. There are reasons for how specific it is. Mainly going off the yin yang theories and energies. Always completeing the circle and the flow of chi and all that good stuff.

Before I took Wing Chun and Taiji I had 3 years previous experience with an okinawan karate. A very good and complete okinawan system. I was a second generation taika oyata student, studied under one of his seniors, greg linguist. He was a great teacher, and it is a good style of martial arts. So, even with three years previous experience in martial arts it still took me a year to get the movements down somewhat right, and I still am not even close to perfect with my taiji.

However, I guess it could be just me, I guess someone else may excel at taiji a lot quicker. If anyone says they are good at taiji in 6 months to a year I would probably not believe them. I would also think perhaps they were taught wrong.

Results may vary I guess...

[Yum Cha]

Hi 7*

The thread is moving pretty quickly but I will get back to one point.

I said - "For each man its different, and in each man it resides. Don't fear the style, fear the man. "

You replied - "fear the style AND the man. If style had no bearing, why did grappling shake up the MA world when mma tournies began? There were some good athletes from other styles, and they got their clocks cleaned. That's not saying their style is superior, but if those bjj black belts are constantly crushing black belts of supposedly equal caliber of other styles, then where is the disconnect? Two high caliber athletes, two black belts, equal training time...the difference was style, due to the training methods associated with it."

BBJ is a great example. Ju Jitsu has been abound since year dot. What changed it, what transformed it into BBJ, and made it the force it is today? A martial genius, not a style.

Evolution, Survival of the fittest - from the primordial stuff that was the first cave man bashing up another, to primitive warfare, to grecko roman, to Shaolin...as human beings we have demonstrated our ability to learn, pass on information to the next generation, who than add to that body of knowledge. The same is true of martial art styles. They evolve with what we add to them.

When GIs brought back arts from Japan after wwII, they evolved it for the Occidental. Bruce gave us a taste of Kung Fu, Parker's Kenpo, Gracie, and tomorrow there will be another.

:D I'm not going to change your mind, am I? Fair enough.

[rogue]

Gangsterfist, let me toss this thought excercise out to you. If you had to train someone to fight (in the ring, for their life, whatever) using only WC or TCC how would you do it?

[Gangsterfist]

...peng, an, cai, lu and ji ...

These things are not exclusive to taiji. Infact, every martial art has them in one way or another.

Pong - ward off
On - Push
kao - leaning forward power
lui - roll back
ji - press

[[not trying to correct your spelling, just using phenetics]]

These movements are found in the set called "grasping the sparrow's tail"

They are very useful and IMO, hard to learn and fully apply in one week.

Perhaps the internal arts are harder to learn and master because they do not concern themselves with the basics of punching and kicking. They are designed more around controlling yin and yang energies rather than agressive straight forward fighting. I am no master of any martial art, so take what I say as you will.

The idea behind the movements you mentioned is more than what they mean. Are you rooted? Can you feel the energy come up from the ground through the leg and transmitted out from the hips to the hard where the strike lands? I also practice Qigong and cannot even begin to describe the feelings I get when doing it. Nor, can I scientifically back it up. Its what I personally experience form it.

Internal arts, IMHO do take the longest to master, and the longest to make you a good fighter as well. You have to train the body to move as one unit in so many different ways. You have to have the flexibility and the mobility in your body to execute the moves and techniques how they are intended to.

Talk to someone who has cross trained in different styles of taiji. My first sifu learned the wu style long form and it took him forever to change his body from the differences of the yang long form. He has been doing taiji since he was a child. He still had troubles because he trained his body with the yang form for a long time.

anyways, best of luck to all of you in yoru training
:D

[Gangsterfist]

Originally posted by rogue
Gangsterfist, let me toss this thought excercise out to you. If you had to train someone to fight (in the ring, for their life, whatever) using only WC or TCC how would you do it?

Well, first off I would probably freak out. I have never really taught anything to anyone besides a junior student.

If time was a factor and lets say I only had 1 year to train a fighter for a serious ring match. I would teach them wing chun. For one, wing chun utilizes a lot of hand techniques. Human beings in general are better using their hands than any other part of their body. That is because they use them constantly every day. They use their hands to get dressed, bathe, eat, type on internet message boards, etc etc.

Taiji, utilizies the whole body (not that wing chun does not, its just a bit difference) and from the very start on the first short form. Its just more to bare on one person, and harder for them to comprehend at first, especially if they have no previous martial arts experience.

Wing chun in design, is to start simple and advance the body. The first form establishes structure and there is no foot work. It establishes your gates, your center line, everything that wing chun relies on theory wise. Start off simple, get the basics down good, then move on. The second form, chum kiu, starts training you how to move and rotate your body, and how to incorporate foot work. Its progressive. Taiji, you just dive right into it. Not to say you cannot have progressive taiji training. Its just wing chun, by its nature, is just that way.

My sifu always tells me that wing chun has a lot of taiji influence in it. I sometimes do not see exactly what he is talking about, and sometimes I get it right off the bat.

However, if I could cheat a bit I would probably teach mostly wing chun, and bit of taiji to the person. I think its important to be weary of the yin and yang theory. Infact, that is one of the wing chun kuen kuits (sp?).

Every martial art has something good to offer, if it didn't it would not have lasted this long and would not still be practiced.

However, like I said before I am no trainer/teacher/coach whatever, I am just a person who studies martial arts. This was just my opinion.

If time was not a factor, my brain would probably explode from being unable to decide.

[rogue]

Keep your head intact G, it's just a thought excercise.:) I didn't say what you would teach but how you would teach. Try thinking of making someone effective in 1 year, not knowing the entire system. Have fun with it.:)

[Gangsterfist]

thx rogue-

I get the idea its just talking on the internet. It was kind of fun thinking about it.

I don't know enough of any system to teach it. I do help out people who have less experience than I do by showing them how to execute a technique differently, or maybe some small advice. I still feel a bit uncomfortable. I like to share ideas and techniques with other martial artists. A few months ago I was working out with some bagua, hsing-i, and judo guys and loved trading theory with them.

I think also a big part of making someone tough in a short period of time would be conditioning, and building physical attributes. Things like strength, endurance, flexibility and so forth. How can you expect to be tough if you cannot take a few punches.

I heard from someone that top martial artists like bruce lee, in their prime, could only block about 75% of hand techniques, and 80% of leg techniques. That still leaves a pretty big margin of error. So you are gonna get hit a few times reguardless. Unless you just luck out.

[Kelar]

Interesting, because in all my experience in IMA, before forms or push hands or sparring, there is alot of focus on basic striking, punching, double cannon fists, and kicking, stomping, jump kicks, and double jump kicks, and many elbow strikes. And even qinna and schuai jiao, but that goes along with the form often also

[red5angel]

The training you receive in a sport art like muay thai is inherent to that style. Can you apply it to WC? certainly. but unless every wc school in the world does it, then it can't possibly be inherent to WC.

I don't get this statement 7*? It sounds like you are implying that all Muy Thai schools are created equal while other styles are not?


I understand what gangsterfist is saying about TC and internal styles. Internal styles take a long time to develop the body control necessary to exhibit the characteristics the art attempts to build. Wing Chun is a good example, I can explain easily.

Almost everyone treats wingchun like an external style. they power it out there. they pay lip service to the idea that they shouldn't be using power and shouldn't be forcing it, but then you see that most of them are struggling and sweating away a their chisau. The problem is that wingchun has sort of cornered itself. With all the marketing out there, people have chosen to go the quick way instead of the internal way. Don't get me wrong, the quick way works, for those of us who are strong and healthy. But that's ironic because every wingchun guy will tell you it was designed by a woman and can be used effectively by small people. But do you really believe that Yip Man, tiny little Yip Man power housed his way through his opponents? Wingchun is supposed to be an internal style, it's supposed to be about structure and sensitivity to overcome an opponent, not about strength and power or even speed.
You can learn to do wingchun externally and do it well enough that it works fine that way, so no big deal. But if your small, you have to spend a lot of time doing internal style training. Working on your form, your structure, working on getting rooted and balanced. This takes time, lots of time, doing lots of slow paced boring training, but for small or weak people it pays off down the road.
It's not practical if you want to learn to fight quickly. But if you have soe patience and odn't mind putting in the long hard and slow work you have to, it eventually pays off. It's not necessarily any better then using wing chun externally, unless your one of the small weak ones.
Taichi I imagine is the same way. There are probably some things that you could learn quickly, and use in a fight effectively. most likely you wouldn't be doing them "properly" but ultimately, unless your trying to be a purist, it's not big deal, although it may hurt you down the road if you have to unlearn those things and re-adjust.

[Merryprankster]

[QUOTE]Working on your form, your structure, working on getting rooted and balanced. This takes time, lots of time, doing lots of slow paced boring training, but for small or weak people it pays off down the road.
It's not practical if you want to learn to fight quickly.QUOTE]

etc, etc....

Nope.

You are either training properly or you aren't. If you are training properly you can be reasonably effective within a short amount of time and will learn all the things you are talking about. If you aren't, you may never be effective.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by red5angel


I don't get this statement 7*? It sounds like you are implying that all Muy Thai schools are created equal while other styles are not?


are you reading the whole thread, or only what I'm posting? The debate has been that the training methodology succesful fighters employ is not style related, but moreso that of the individual. My agrument is that that is BS. any sport school will train that way - they have to if they watn any chance at all of success in the ring. Not all TMA train that way, because they don't have to. He's saying that since the difference is training methods, then the indivdual can add these methods to his regimen - which is true. But when he does that, those methods are not indicative of his art, only of his training.

let's say I decide to start iron palm. I also train muay thai, judo and bjj. Is it reasonable for me to say that muay thai, bjj and judo schools teach iron palm? No. Why? because its not an inherent part of the style. That's what I was saying in the quote you responded to.

[red5angel]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on some of this MP. I know all of that stuff is inherent to any art, but internal arts focus on those things to overcome the weaknesses some people might have. It takes some serious time and work to develop that control and solid structure. That's why the top guys, the real good top guys, are all as good as they are, because they have spent so many years doing it. You know those old skool guys who have been doing an art, and it just seems natural to them? That's what I'm talking about.
I don't believe you can take internal arts and learn to use them effectively as quickly as you can some arts. My example was wingchun because if you go the external route it's easy to pick up, you could learn to fight in a few months easy if you just apply yourself. However if you take the internal route, maybe you are one of those tiny women, it's going to take a few years to get real solid. that stuff takes time to settle into the body cause there is no fast way to learn it.
Now don't get me wrong, this is potayto-potahto to me. I don't see either way of doing things as wrong, I just think you have to keep those things in perspective when doing them.

[Ray Pina]

Just because you don't apose the force in Chi Sau does not make it "internal" in the sense we think of in IMA.

Grapplers are experts in redirecting force, but you wouldn't label them "internal". My WC teacher labeled what we were doing internal, so did my hung gar teacher ... it is not. Wing Chun's spine structure is actually anti-internal ... it's sun moon punching is also not internal.

....

Af for two people doing the same thing. I would highly argue that you could easily tell a Michael Jordan apart from a Kareem Abdul Jabar right down to the way they dribble, pass, shoot and dunk. Same things done differently with a different understanding.

Michael Jordan does not just bank it off the glass. He'll go around the backbooard and put reverse spin on the ball so it touches high on the glass and ricochets in. Both are shots using the backboard, but one has taken the idea to a higher level because he doesn't have that hieght advantage.

I would suggest that much is going on in the martial arts that is not disimiliar to this .... develop an eye and watch some fighters, develop an eye and watch pro sports.

Many people have different ways of gripping and swinging the bat .... they're all batting, but have different techniques.

[rubthebuddha]

actually, merry, red5 is on to something. if you go the hard, rigid route that wing chun can take, using stuff like tan sau or bong sau as a block can be done easily. however, the motions can be done much more passively and used as rediretctions, but that takes much more time to hone than just pushing someone's arm away with your own. natural reflex, when someone strikes you, is more likely going to be stop that force's progress. with training, you can counter that reflex and instill more useful ones.

i know little about bjj, but what i believe i know is that many of your responses are counter-intuitive, but once you have them down, they are far more effective. an example would be a basic armbar, to which the reflexive response for most folks would be to fight the lock, which just plays right into the grappler's game and gives them more tension to work with. however, if you train a secondary reflex into your bones instead of fighting the force and basically securing the lock for your opponent, you're more likely to evade the lock.

basically, the point i'm getting at is that training basic, gross-motor reflexes is an easy thing to do, while training responses that are typically counter-intuitive is harder but often more effective.

now, to make the bridge between merry's and red5's posts, and it's been said several times before -- if wing chun or other such martial artists trained the way competitive mma or such artists trained, questions regarding effectiveness would diminish quickly. a couple hours of forms and two-man drills per week won't do ****, but that's how many such people train, and that's how issues of effectiveness are provoked.

[Merryprankster]

That's why the top guys, the real good top guys, are all as good as they are, because they have spent so many years doing it.

Ditto on Olympic caliber wrestlers, Judoka, etc.

And grappling is ALL form, structure, root and balance on the technique end.

And it doesn't take years to become effective. And you don't have to be athletically impressive to become good at wrestling. It helps, but that always helps.

So I'm trying to figure out how you can say it takes years to develop skill sets that other arts can develop to at least adequacy far more quickly.

Now, if you start telling me that internal arts are doing something "different," we'll just go ahead and agree to disagree, and I'll refer you to Shooter, who has trained Taiji guys to fight effectively, using Taiji principles in a short amount of time.

[Merryprankster]

actually, merry, red5 is on to something. if you go the hard, rigid route that wing chun can take, using stuff like tan sau or bong sau as a block can be done easily. however, the motions can be done much more passively and used as rediretctions, but that takes much more time to hone than just pushing someone's arm away with your own. natural reflex, when someone strikes you, is more likely going to be stop that force's progress. with training, you can counter that reflex and instill more useful ones.

i know little about bjj, but what i believe i know is that many of your responses are counter-intuitive, but once you have them down, they are far more effective. an example would be a basic armbar, to which the reflexive response for most folks would be to fight the lock, which just plays right into the grappler's game and gives them more tension to work with. however, if you train a secondary reflex into your bones instead of fighting the force and basically securing the lock for your opponent, you're more likely to evade the lock.

bad training vs. good training. Not "we're doing something special that takes years to develop."

We have people turning the right way for armbar escapes in a matter of a few lessons, etc.

[yenhoi]

It seems MP has his knee on the belly of correct and is punching him repeatedly in the face AND holding the rest of you pagans off at the same time.

My hero.

;)

[rubthebuddha]

now, the internal vs. external argument is one i won't touch. honestly, i don't think it means a **** thing anyway.

"i study an internal art!"

"so?"

"but it's internal!"

"and?"

"it's different from your external!"

"er. ok."

"did i mention it's internal? our power generation is entirely different than yours."

"k."

"and we use root and stance to generate power."

"i like your hat."

"and we also use proper body alignment to generate more power."

"where'd you get your hat?"

"it takes about ten years to really get a feel for the internal force."

"um. a dog is humping your leg."

"but after those ten years, you really feel like your whole body is in line for power."

"dang, dude, that dog must think your khakis are somethin else."

"after about twenty years, you get to a point where everything you do feels internal."

...

you get the idea. to me, it's akin to making the displacement vs. forced aspiration argument on automobile engines: are they different? yup. can both make my car go fast? yup.

[Merryprankster]

now, the internal vs. external argument is one i won't touch. honestly, i don't think it means a **** thing anyway.

It doesn't. People just want to feel better about what they do.

Chris M uses internal and external simply to connote a particular set of styles with similar training methods/principles that are emphasized.

I like that definition better.

[red5angel]

Just because you don't apose the force in Chi Sau does not make it "internal" in the sense we think of in IMA.

I'm not going ot get into a huge external vs internal argument here, but there is more to wingchun then just not opposing....



Ditto on Olympic caliber wrestlers, Judoka, etc


exactly.



And grappling is ALL form, structure, root and balance on the technique end

but it also relies on power, speed and strength. You can't tell me any different with all the videos I've seen of those guys wrestling around on the ground together. That's not "internal". Like I said, all arts include those ingredients, but some more then others.


Now, if you start telling me that internal arts are doing something "different," we'll just go ahead and agree to disagree, and I'll refer you to Shooter, who has trained Taiji guys to fight effectively, using Taiji principles in a short amount of time.

It's not necessarily what they are doing but the mix of the ingredients is different. As for Shooter and what he's teaching, I have no idea, but look at my post on learning external vs internal.


Not "we're doing something special that takes years to develop."

I normally wouldn't accuse you of this but I think this is more an emotinal response then anything else. "special" is the wrong word to use. "Different" maybe, but like I said, it's mostly about the mix.

Have you ever trained a so-called internal art?

[rubthebuddha]

We have people turning the right way for armbar escapes in a matter of a few lessons, etc. and i had one of my noobs doing bong sau with all the condiments cleanly on his first night. then again, some of my peeps still aren't getting it.

it's all about how you show it to them, how well they can comprehend what you show, and giving them space to work it over and over.

i think we're all arguing a couple different things. correct me if i'm wrong:

merry's saying that good training methodologies should have you working something cleanly in not too much time.

red5's saying that some wing chun schools claim to teach something that they really don't, and that what winds up happening is a *******ized version of block-block-punch with wing chun techniques.

neither is wrong:
- good training methodologies, coupled with good techniques, and practiced by a dilligent student **** well better produce results.
- claiming to offer/teach something that you really don't is really crappy behavior and should be shot at with a bb gun.

[red5angel]

It doesn't. People just want to feel better about what they do


I think both you and Rub are dead wrong on this. Merry, do you grapple? Do you study BJJ? Is it the same thing as everything else or is it something different? Is it that you just want to feel special by calling it BJJ and grappling?


Chris M uses internal and external simply to connote a particular set of styles with similar training methods/principles that are emphasized.

That's exactly it. I'm not syaing one has anything over the other but that they approach training differently and there is a distinct difference at the two extremes, although most arts fall somewhere in between.

[Merryprankster]

Have you ever trained a so-called internal art?

Nope. Have you? For how long? Years?


but it also relies on power, speed and strength.

Nope. It doesn't. The thing is that in competitive combat sports, you take any edge you can get. If you are stronger, faster, or in better shape, you use those weapons if they are in your arsenal.

If, say, Xing Yi had a competitive circuit, they too would be maximizing those attributes. You have to to win.

EVERYBODY is strong enough, fast enough and powerful enough to learn to wrestle and make it work on people, precisely because wrestling is not an attribute dependent art. Those who are more athletically gifted have greater potential to do well, but that holds true everywhere. You have to have a modicum of ability no matter what you are doing.


You can't tell me any different with all the videos I've seen of those guys wrestling around on the ground together.

Then this conversation is pointless, yeah?


That's not "internal". Like I said, all arts include those ingredients, but some more then others.

Tell you what. YOU tell me what you mean by internal. I need to know exactly what you mean before we can really go after this.

[Merryprankster]

I'm not syaing one has anything over the other but that they approach training differently and there is a distinct difference at the two extremes

Shooter will tell you differently. He will tell you that most people don't train Tai Ji appropriately and that is why it takes years for them to get good, if they do at all. He trains his guys in Tai ji, using Tai ji principles and they fight in events after a year or so, and do well.

So to me, it again boils down to this:

Either you are training well, which means you can get to "effective" fairly quickly, or you are doing "something else," that for some unfathomable reason, takes years.

[red5angel]

I'm having some disconnect in trying to explain it MP. I think because we're both arguing degrees and trying to come to an absolute. I'll have to think about it some more and get back to you.
However, not everyone can wrestle - I know a great light weight wrestler, a real skilled guy, but I have about 65 lbs on him and while he can sometimes get me into a good submission hold, I can more often over power him to win. sometimes bigger is better period.


I trained wingchun external for 3 years and internal for 2 years, there was a big difference.

[Merryprankster]

internal for 2 years

Many internal guys would say you did not train a true internal art.


sometimes bigger is better period.

As with any form of combat. Since it is universally true, this is not wrestling specific and cannot be used to demonstrate that wrestling/grappling relies on attributes more or less than any other style. It can only make the universal point that size matters no matter what you're doing.

To answer a different question, BJJ, is a particular approach to solving the combat problem. While there may be signature preferences or techniques, the principles involved are not unique in any way. BJJ is simply a shorthand way to identify a particular approach to using those principles.

Now, replace BJJ with Baji and tell me why it takes years to become effective in one and not the other?

[red5angel]

by the way e-fist, your worng on the wingchun spine thing, ask your instructor. If he knows internal like you say he does he can correct you on that.



MP - let me try this by targetting a specific technique. Bong Sau or wing arm.

Excluding the rotating that needs to be done for this to be effective, let's look at the shoulder and elbow. more specifically the shoulder.
See, "externally" you don't need to lock the shoulder in place, cause if you have enough muscle to hold it in place, and so you can disconnect at the shoulder and be fine. "Internally" you can lock the shoulder in place in the right position, using the bone structure over the muscle (yes I know, without the muscle you can''t hold the bone in place but less muscle is being called into action here and the support is the bone structure not the muscle). Those things can get carried over into the full body. An internal artist generally calls in atleast 75% of his body to accomplish a task, and most of that is based on skeletal alignment (or qi if you buy into that ;) ) and being able to draw that energy up from the ground, a principle boxers use as well as amny others, although they aren't necessarily "internal".


Unlike "those" people you are talking about who like to make themselves feel special, I'm trying to explain these as just different approaches is all.

[red5angel]

Many internal guys would say you did not train a true internal art.

hehe, true, but another argument for another thread :) 2 years was certainly not enough time in my opinion, to learn it effectively from that angle.

[Merryprankster]

And what I'm trying to say is that it's a training issue.

By your example and your definition, the people training "externally" are doing it wrong. It's bad training. If you would like to use external as shorthand for that, ok.

It's like being trained to arm punch in boxing, or learning to shoot with your weight forward and over extended. If you are strong enough to pull it off, well. But it's not good...especially if you meet somebody stronger or better.

[red5angel]

By your example and your definition, the people training "externally" are doing it wrong. It's bad training. If you would like to use external as shorthand for that, ok.


not what I was saying at all or even trying to imply. As a matter of fact I used wingchun as an example because it CAN be used effectively both ways. Other internal arts might be more picky about it but I imagine you could even take techniques from those and teach them using external training methods, and make them work. However my only real experience is in wingchun.
I believe there are disadvantages to both, and you sort of just have to go with what works best for you. IF your small and want to learn wingchun, take the internal path or chose an internal art, it may take longer to learn but it will pay off more for you in the end. If your big and strong don't bother with internal, learn to use that natural strength you have.
The arm punch in boxing is a good example. You can learn to use the arm and the arm alone for the most part, and if you have huge arms, that may work for you. If you don't have huge arms your going to have to learn to throw your whole weight behind it, or even more specifically learn to draw off your structure. Like running at a wall. When you go to stop yourself, bent arms will work if you have the strength, if your arms are straight out and elbows locked (theoretically fo course, logically this would huirt like hell!) you will stop.

[Merryprankster]

not what I was saying at all or even trying to imply

Then I'll say it outright. What you describe as external is lousy training. Somebody might be able to get away with it because they've got the attributes to do it, but it's lousy. And if you want to be any good, it's the wrong way to do business, unless you are just phenomenally gifted...and even then it will catch up to you eventually.

[red5angel]

Then I'll say it outright. What you describe as external is lousy training. Somebody might be able to get away with it because they've got the attributes to do it, but it's lousy. And if you want to be any good, it's the wrong way to do business.


well, like I said before, structure is a part of every martial art, but it comes in different amounts depending on the art.

[Merryprankster]

well, like I said before, structure is a part of every martial art, but it comes in different amounts depending on the art.

Disagree. It comes in different amounts depending on whether or not you are training well or not so well.

The best I've ever heard said about something that just isn't good technique is "He can get away with it because of 'x' but I keep telling him he needs to do it more like this."

[Ray Pina]

1) I don't think a fighter will be better if internal or external, just saying they are different but for some reason many external guys claim intrenal but the road doesn't go the other way ... why? I don't really care.

2) Red, my wing Chun comes from Robert Chu and one of his old disciples; my master studied with Yip Man for a few years and got kicked out because he asked too many questions. As for my master's internal, his resume is rediculous, so I hope you're not implying what I think you were implying because I'm not ine for lineage, but dude, I'm telling you you'll be hard pressed to find a better one (but we don't talk about it Like My master says: Who was George Washington's father? By Chinese thinking he'd be the greatest. Son can be better than father. Student better than teacher. Lineage is ****."

3) As for internal taking long: I scored bronze in a MMA gloved event in Philly after two years of internal training. You can say I have all these years of background, but its been completely outdated, I don't use the stuff. I didn't throw it away like I don't throw away knowledge gained k-8, I just use it as a stepping stone.

4) As for the spine: do you understand the Ming Men? How it's supposed to be tucked and straight? WC has a tendency to stand very tall or even slightly back. I know how to use the upper leg and create a bow to fix this, but most WC does not.

Now you may say I'm over generalizing, but my experience is based on playing with some of the better schools in NYC Chinatown, a big center of Chinese imagrants and Chinese martial arts .... I think it's a good testing ground and base to judge Chinese martial arts.

Agian though, this is all theory over internet. I travel alot, maybe someday in the near future we can get some dinner and chi sau. I know you love WC. But why did you leave? Why do a lot of people leave? After you get what you need you move on.

I never bought the WC developed by nuns thing, either. Where are these fighting women? Hell, where are these fighting men!?

[red5angel]

I don't think a fighter will be better if internal or external

agreed.



so I hope you're not implying what I think you were implying because I'm not ine for lineage

If you think I'm implying your instrcutor is wrong, I don't mean too , however, you may be mistaken. If your not, and your instructor claims the straight spine cannot be used with an internal art, I'd be curious to hear why he feels this way? None of us are fallible and I have a feeling your teacher may hold a grudge. From your quotes he seems to have something against wingchun and he was kicked out of yip mans school.


As for internal taking long: I scored bronze in a MMA gloved event in Philly after two years of internal training.

"Long" is relative. I've seen a few months, 6 months, a year, thrown around as a good time to have started to learn to fight effectivley, or in some cases, at that point you should be fighting effectively. From that point of view, 2 years seems more then reasonable to begin fighting effectively in an internal art, but you've probably just scratched the barrel head on the potential of the art?



As for the spine:

sacrum tucked in (hips tilted) aligned with the huyen (sp?) cavity and the bubbling well. Spine straight but not tight, chin tucked slightly, it's pretty standard stuff for internal work.


I know you love WC. But why did you leave? Why do a lot of people leave?

The art is good, and I found a group of people that understood some things others do not about the art. however, personalities can sometimes stop you from learning, retard your growth so to speak. I had to choose between ego and education. If I found a way to train wingchun the way I feel I want to train it, I would in a heart beat but there is nothing in the area worth bothering with so I moved on. It had nothing to do with the art itself. However, don't get me wrong, it's not a complete art as it is generally taught now. There are holes that need to be filled. Wing Chun principles can be applied at all ranges but most people don't bother. I think the art is a good art, certainly more common sense then some arts can be.


I never bought the WC developed by nuns thing, either

I don't either. As a matter of fact I don't buy most kungfu creation myths. Their just designed to jazz up the art a little, call attention. Wingchun can indeed be used by smaller people to help equalize the gap if they are training it correctly. It's no guarentee though.

[Ray Pina]

All sounds resanable enough Red. I think we're on the same page. And boy did you hit it right about only scratching the barrel.

I'll say I understand the way the stlye behaves in certain situations and have the basic mechanics down, but I keep seeing how shallow my knowledge is. I'm thinking I'd need about another 3 years before I aproach a significant level.

Now I can fight and "beat" hobbyists. I want to "beat" fighters (big sigh):o

[red5angel]

I'm thinking I'd need about another 3 years before I aproach a significant level.

I think that 5 year mark is a good one. That's when you really start to hit that real level of skill in the internal arts. 10 years I think is the big one. But of course the more you get the more cool it gets!

[GaryR]

Okay, internal means use of the dantiens. Maybe this is an example, say you want to pull the opponentnts head down, and then get behind him, you'll most likely try to borrow some of his force by having him lean forward and then try to like jerk him down. I have never seen an external stylist do it innternally. Internal means, that internally, you actually shift or rotate your center of gravity , to borrow the opponents force. If you do this, then you can move al joints in your body as a unit, shoulders and hips, spinehead/tailbone , knees/elbows, extremities, fingers etc. and contantly add more power, internally and externally together, one joint goes one way, another one goes another way, and the won't get collapsed or out of alignment. So the center of gravity starts the movement, and the legs then drive with power by rotatoing joints. ANd internal can change direction of the opponent instanty, appearring like you didn't even move but the opponent is thrown the opposite direction he was first thrown instanty.

Okay, I'm not trying to diss schuai chiao, I actually think it's really good
Fourth post down by Djimbe has some vids (http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12820)

Now , on the third video, there is an application called " elbow locking". Now IMO it looks like in the application of elbow locking, when the guy is on one leg, he does not have the relaxation of the joints necessary to be called "internal", when on one leg

So in IMA, also, the force and "path of power" flows along acupuncture meridians, and at the same time, the joints open and close, going from yin to yang, and when something opens something closes. SOme high level masters described the opening and closing to turning a light switch on and off. I always like this video although the bigger guy is better, so it doesn't really prove the internal. But you can see the internal a little bit

http://www.brainsalad.com/mov/clip06.mov

ANd I think the 'FLowing shen" or 'Projecting shen" video on this site, really shows well, the spiral all joint related movement, really well. With awesome freestyle fajin. The kind of fajin that is like an elastic band, but penetrates the opponent badly, although it doesn't look powerful like a MMA or boxing punch. Projecting shen is ****ing cool!


http://www.mindboxing.com/frames.html


CHeck out this guy's Taiji. SOmeone posted this site on the internal board

Awesom fajin, doesn't look powerful, BUT IS! (http://www.xushixi.com/index_en.htm)

[Merryprankster]

I just watched the shuai chiao vid clip examples you gave us and found out I've been doing internal stuff for nearly 8 years.

[GaryR]

Yeah, yeah, everyone knows it. IMO schuai chiao is external, but I was actually just gonna admit that viewing from a video is hard to tell. The dantien initiates the movement of the structure, and moves independantly. Dantien can rotate one way, the strcture can turn in a different way, with many variations. SO I'm saying it didn't look all that internal to me, like thie xingyi videos here, don't look especially great to me , or internal. But I have never felt these guys power .

http://www.xingyitchuen.com.br/index_2.html

In the video section, in clip number 3, why is the guy using empty force instead of the internal??????????????

[red5angel]

I just watched the shuai chiao vid clip examples you gave us and found out I've been doing internal stuff for nearly 8 years.

LOL! I could have signed on as you and made that post FOR you!!! :p

[yenhoi]

I think your mostly wrong about the spine also, red5. Fi the spine was actually straight, and not natually bowed there would be great force/energy transfer issues for many "internal" stylists. A perfectly straight spine would cause unnatural tension in the face, neck, upperback, shoulders, lower back, pelvis, and upper legs. This energy could be useful and misunderstood in some situations, but is not correct or close to optimal for most situations, 'specially any that require you to accept or expel energy.

From what my inexpirenced eyes and hands can tell, most accomplished, capable teachers pass onto their students nearly the same set of instructions when it comes to principles. Most western wrestling adhere strickly to tai chi "principles." They even look like tai chi. Tai chi is about hips, and so is wrasslin. Many styles of familys of tai chi even lean forward like many schools or gyms of wrestlin. Most wrestlers train much smarter, higher technology, for different reasons (health vs competition) then most tai chi "stylists."

These are pretty silly arguments made for paper and internet forums only.

I agree with lldmfkhjimno that nothing, no tool that you actually think you have will be reliable and workable in extreme situations unless you have trained it in a similar manner. Black hands happens after the fact. After your a capable trained person. Before that its luck, attributes, or not happening.

If someone takes 2 years + to train anyone how to capably defend themselves, male or female, they are ripping off your time and money. Men should be able to learn and apply just as quickly as females.

What a mind boggeling discussion about almost nothing.

:eek:

[Gangsterfist]

Wow, a lot of responses since I last posted here, and the thread has gone a completely different direction.

When I first stated that the IMA take longer to develope a good fighter I meant it from a certain point of view.

Lets say you take your average person off the street and they have absolutely no martial arts or combat training what so ever. You put them in an IMA class and have them train that for one year. You take the same type average person and put them in a different type of martial art or combat training like muay thai, tkd, jkd, wing chun, etc etc.

Its my OPINION that in that 1 year the person that trained the non IMA would have the upper hand. This is also assuming they are the same size and have similar attributes.

The thing about the spine mentioned earlier. I was taught (in wing chun) to keep the tail bone tucked, but with no tension. Erect the spine and keep it straight. Lift the crown of your head, like there is a string through the center of your head connected to your spine and you are dangling from it. This is for structure, and yes its also for chi flow. In taiji the spine will bend at times depending on the posture you are in. This is also for structure and for chi flow.

In the end whether you train internal or external you will ultimately learn both aspects of combat.

[yenhoi]

Lets say you take your average person off the street and they have absolutely no martial arts or combat training what so ever. You put them in an IMA class and have them train that for one year. You take the same type average person and put them in a different type of martial art or combat training like muay thai, tkd, jkd, wing chun, etc etc.

Its my OPINION that in that 1 year the person that trained the non IMA would have the upper hand. This is also assuming they are the same size and have similar attributes.

blah blah blah bullsheit. This is old and tired. People who train seriously and smartly to fight will fight well. Others can take as long as they want and will probably never get it because they dont want to.

If you lift the crown and tuck the tailbone then your spine is curved and pulled tense like a bow. This natural tension connects everything else. Some circles (:)) dont tuck the tail bone but sink the hips into the legs, achieves the same natural tension curve. All this straightness talk is so that you dont LEAN, its hard to do anything with a truely straight spine, regardless of what name you have given or accepted for your "art."

In the end whether you train internal or external you will ultimately learn both aspects of combat.

What on earth are these two aspects of combat?

:rolleyes:

[Vash]

Originally posted by yenhoi
In the end whether you train internal or external you will ultimately learn both aspects of combat.

What on earth are these two aspects of combat?

:rolleyes:

Apparently getting effed in the aye and effing someone in their aye.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by yenhoi
What on earth are these two aspects of combat?

Kicking ass and being at one with the kicking of the ass. :D :p

Beijing Professor of History K'ang Ko-Wu reporting on the origin of the 'internal' family of martial arts:

"... in 1894 Ch'eng Ting-Hua and his good friends Liu Te-Kuan, Li Tsun-I, and Liu Wai-Hsiang, came together to form an organization to help improve the level of their arts, increase harmony within martial arts circles, and raise the skill level of their students. This 'brotherhood' consisted of Ch'eng representing the Pa Kua Chang school, Liu Te-Kuan representing the T'ai Chi Ch'uan school, and Li Tsun-I and Liu Wai-Hsiang representing the Hsing-I Ch'uan school. These teachers banned together and agreed that any student who studied with one of them, could freely study with the others. Through their collaboration, the three teachers improved their instructional techniques and decided that the three arts, although each having their own special points, were of the same family.

In order to provide this martial arts family with a name, the group originally called it Nei Chia Ch'uan (Internal Family Boxing). Later, after it was discovered that there had previously been an art called Nei Chia Ch'uan, the name was changed to Nei Kung Ch'uan (Internal Skill Boxing). However, it was too late, the name Nei Chia Ch'uan had stuck. This is how the arts of Pa Kua, Hsing-I, and T'ai Chi became grouped together in the same family and why they are known as 'internal' styles. The first time a written work was published which referred to these arts being 'internal' and of the same family was in Sun Lu-T'ang's books written in the early part of this century."

- Pa Kua Chang Journal 3(2): 6.

[Gangsterfist]

I just meant that when you train and internal or external art for a long period of time and become proficient at it, you will ultimately understand both principles.

Internal says never use force against force.

External says force against force is okay.


If you train long and hard you would be able to realize the difference between both, execute both if needed, and understand why both can be useful.

Sorry, if I was unclear earlier.

Also, I stated that you tuck the tail bone with no tension. In a way you are more rolling your hip bones inward/upward slightly; its like sitting on a high bar stool. There is suppose to be no tension. The legs are also slightly bent at the knee so the weight of your upper body is on your legs not your lower back.

[red5angel]

Yenhoi, are you taking cold medicine? OR maybe crack? In one post you say that waht I describe is not accurate for internal work, that a "straight" spine is not conducive to maintaining a connection. Then a few posts later you say exactly what I'm saying, that you refuted! I think your just trying to hide your secret techniques!!!