New An Tianrong Article

[Redfish]

Ok ..so the new An Tianrong article is just more of the same.

We have to see the big picture. The "Competition Wushu" he is talking about is Standardised Modern Wushu and NOT competitions in general where we could all turn up with anything.

Therefore he needn't talk about the history of Chinese martial arts. He can talk about the history of Floor Gymnastics or the Olympics or whatever.

Maybe the article can be renamed "my personal take on the history of those martial arts that we copy roughly".

We don't have to talk about "Traditional" becuase Chinese martial arts are still going in the same form. We can talk about Chinese martial Arts and 'wushu'.

I'm still astounded how magazines and organisations such as this one, who claim to support the proud traditions of Chinese martial arts, continue to give importance and coverage to Wushu - which is the biggest threat Chinese martial arts has ever faced.

[PangQuan]

go here.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?p=593653#post593653

[Brad]

Traditionalists are their own worst enemy.

[SPJ]

I enjoyed reading the article.

It is a very good intro for westerners.

It is an oversimplification of history, but it is still correct for the most part.

For a very long time, folk Wushu and military Wushu are the same.

In the old time, all trades are passed down in the framework of family or Jia since the warring states 战国 or spring fall during the weak Zhou 周王.

If your father is a military general so will be your children and grand children. You study how to ride, archery, hand to hand combat and weapon since young. When you grow up, you are introduced into the Army. Of course, you have to pass the tests and start with the lowest level of the rank and climb the ladder up.

Such as Sun Wu or Sun Tzu 孙武 was from a family that fought for Qi Guo 齐国.

Folk wushu was promoted and allowed since the song dynasty 宋朝. There are many folk association of different styles of Wushu, too.

Song was weak in defense of its neighbors. Good soldiers were flamed by bad officials. Such as the imperial guard head coach 禁军教頭 Lin Chong 林冲 was framed. He was very good at long spear. He had a beautiful wife coveted by the son of a Gao Qiu 高球 who played good soccer with the Song emperor.

Lin became the head master on Liang Shan. 落草为寇梁山好汉.

It is a very good article and touched the life philosophy as well.

Overall, I enjoyed the article very much.

Good Job.

:)

[GeneChing]

How can you complain about revisionism and bust out a quote from Plutarch on wushu in the same breath? :rolleyes:

[Wang Rui Xuan]

Just finished reading Mr. An Tianrong’s article “Traditional Wushu and Competition Wushu”. The title alone gave the impression the paper would provide some nice analysis and make some clear distinctions between traditional and modern wushu. I assumed it would be definitive, informative and insightful.


All Show - No Go
Despite eloquent writing skills, the entire 4300 plus word article failed to effectively highlight the DISTINCTIVE technical features between ‘traditional’ and ‘competition’ wushu. Moreover it confused terms, made broad sweeping generalizations, provided irrelevant examples, and implied that traditional and modern competition wushu were somehow inseparable as a result of their shared connection with Chinese culture. In simpler terms the article was ‘all show - no go’. Of course this is not meant as a personal attack against the author or his abilities as ‘wushu’ teacher.


Setting the Stage – Modern wushu is inseparable from history and culture
First let’s go back to the author’s first piece entitled “Wushu needs name rectification’ for some background. The author briefly mentions some specifics of ‘competition wushu’, and then suggests it is more valuable to examine competition wushu from a larger social and cultural context. He says:


Quote - from Wushu Needs Name Rectification
"In formal international competition, Wushu is presented in two basic forms: performance routine and free-style attack technique (i.e. sanda). When examined in a cultural perspective, taking into account how it embraces the fields of ancient Chinese philosophy, aesthetics and medicine, Wushu is a sophisticated multilateral science of considerable content. Wushu is not limited to specific boxing techniques but embodies a vast area of human activities."

I severely question this directional approach and its value in definitively addressing ‘modern competition’ and ‘traditional’ wushu. Moreover it implies a very questionable underlying theme that is reinforced in the second paper. What theme? ‘Modern’ and ‘traditional’ wushu are more similar than dislike, based on commonly shared Chinese culture and history. This is a commonly perpetuated myth.


Follow Up – Traditional wushu is inseparable from history and culture
Moving on to the current article entitled ‘Traditional Wushu and Competition Wushu’ Mr. An states at the very beginning that ‘wushu’ cannot be separated from China’s 5000 years of social and cultural development. He says:


Quote from Traditional Wushu and Competition Wushu
"Over its (wushu) five-thousand-year history, it has acquired a theoretical framework that embraces many Chinese traditional cultures (classical philosophy, ethics, militia, regimen, Chinese medicine, and aesthetic, etc.). Its association with Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, and hundreds of other Chinese philosophical systems cannot be ignored…."

Although he never clearly states if he is talking about ‘traditional’, or ‘modern’, we will assume it is traditional. The result – more poorly defined terms that potentially confuse, and the assumption that we must look at China’s 5000 years of cultural development to understand traditional kungfu.


Four thousand word information dump – Where’s the beef?
The remaining 4000 words are dedicated to discussing the merits of ‘traditional wushu’. Not surprisingly the author focuses on a number of irrelevant broad based cultural themes providing little value in terms of really clarifying the distinguishing features of ‘traditional’ and ‘competition’ wushu. He talks about things like military versus folk wushu, social customs and traditions, philosophy, nomenclature, religion, ethics, medicine, value systems, etc…

What surprises me (or maybe it shouldn’t) is that the paper fails to mention the most important defining themes separating traditional from modern wushu; i) main purpose of training, ii) type of regimented training, and iii) skill attributes sought and developed.


The Result – endless debate into metaphysics
Both papers take us further away from understanding the fundamental differences and similarities between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern competition’ wushu. Instead of ZOOMING IN on the essential technical merits of traditional and modern wushu, both papers ZOOM OUT, adopting a very culturally generic and broad based approach to discussing wushu.

We see two key underlying messages: i) modern wushu should be viewed in the context of Chinese culture, history, philosophy, etc…, ii) traditional wushu should be viewed in the context of Chinese culture, history, philosophy, etc… In the absence of anything more insightful like discussing purpose, training methods, and skills sets developed, we are left to compare traditional and modern wushu based on the merits of Chinese history and culture? This is extremely limiting and does nothing more than perpetuate the myth that traditional and ‘modern wushu are somehow essentially the same.

While I do agree that the cultural, social, political, philosophical, and economic implications factoring into the development of martial arts are interesting and tangible, I fail to see the value it provides in effectively highlighting the unique distinctions between traditional and modern wushu.

On a side note this tends to be representative of how ‘modern competition’ wushu is marketed. How? In over generalized terms leveraging three factors: i) the interest in wushu itself as a sport/activity, ii) interest associated with Chinese culture, and iii) the brand awareness associated with ‘traditional kungfu’.


KISS Approach – Keep it simple stupid
As mentioned above, my suggestion in addressing the title of this article, "Traditioanl Wushu and Competition Wushu" would be to ask three simple questions: 1) What is the overall purpose of training? 2) What does the training regimen encompass? 3) What skill attributes (physical and mental) are practitioners attempting to develop?

Addressing these three simple questions would enable us to effectively and efficiently arrive at a list of fundamental differences and similarities between traditional and competition wushu, without having to analyze the complexities of cultural development over the past 5000 years. For all of you nerdy economists out there it runs similar parallels with the expression 'it's the economy stupid'.

Once again this is not a personal attack. Just my own personal assessment of a poorly written and misleading article.

Best regards,
Wang Rui Xuan

[Redfish]

To conintue from Wang Rui Xuan's great framework and analysis there ...

After basing the articles on the idea that 'wushu' is one ****genous idea inseperable from 'culture' Mr An starts to make the division between 'folk' and military' kung fu.

For a start, 'culture' is perhaps the most difficult and ambiguous concept in anyone's language.

But the idea of folk wushu and military wushu must be backed up with some reasons why it's different. Mr An gives us some vague ideas about this. Military wushu is for life and death combat, folk wushu is for catching thieves.

Let's look at one of Wang Rui Xuan's questions: What is the purpose of training?

Pre 1912 we can safely say that the purpose of training was to be able to fight. We can also say that the aim of modern wushu training is for showing forms in competition.

As for the idea of 'folk wushu'. It's a wishy-washy concept that is over simple and i'm going to say this about it:

The author has created the idea of 'folk wushu' in the form he describes to connect wushu to the traditional arts. It is historical 'myth making'. It is legitimizing ... justifying.

Many deadly martial arts used only for fighting were practiced by groups with no ties to the military. Shaolin Temple are the most famous in folklore. Some people from various groups went on to work as caravan guards but they were definately members of local communities. The common factor with all groups - miliatry, secret societies, caravan guards, local village groups etc - was the need to fight/defend themselves.

Not training to fight is what separates Competition wushu and traditional kung fu.

[GeneChing]

Here's our final submission from Master An Tianrong which is sure to infuriate his critics on this thread - check out Competitive Wushu (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=587). Master An only submitted three articles to us for e-zine publication. I hope that he is encouraged by this debate to submit more. I also hope that the naysayers to Wushu can muster up the ability to submit something cohesive for publication. Here are our writer's guidelines (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/about/guidelines.php). Of course, you may continue to discuss this by posting on the forum here too. It will remain in the archives like the rest of the threads. But e-zine submissions are better archived (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/TOC/index.php). We're an equal opportunity publisher. ;)

[SPJ]

Overall I enjoyed the article III. It is very informative on Wushu development in China.

However, there are several issues I like to bring up.

1. Combative sports are with Chinese all along. The earliest one would be the 5 animals play or Wu Qing Xi. People wore horns and butted each other for fun and practice. Shuai Jiao was for combat and also for sports for over 2000 years. Among the military, there are horse or horse carriage racing, archery on and on. They are for fun, entertainment, but also practices for military skills.

In civilian circles, there are Rei Tai or platforms. They are open platforms for open challenge. We may decide what rules to win or lose. The prises may be even winning a bride.

Sword play, duel or fists performances by soldiers are for entertaining the soldiers, generals and the emperor.

They are part of Chinese culture all along. For example, fist performances or swordplay for holidays. Mongolian Shuai Jiao and games related with horse riding are popular pasttime for people migrating on the great plains of China. There are games for young kids, too.

In short, modern Wushu did not start nor monoply competitive or sports Wushu.

2. Rules of Wushu are evolving and so are the CMA. Rules did not dictate the evolution of CMA. The actual combat and praticality will drive the evolution and advancement of CMA.

3. Development of Wushu comp is only one of the many facets of CMA. It does not and can not be the one and only trend of CMA "modernization".

4. Suggestions for Wushu comp rules. We may make it like figure ice skating. There are required moves and some free moves allowed.

For example. I read a book about a new routine of Tang Lang Quan. It won gold in 1980's. It is new, which means not seen before. There are some common moves from Mei Hua and 7 stars. But there are new moves and sequences. The new moves are still consistent with principles, tactics and strategy of Tang Lang.

This routine won instant fame and popularity. I like it very much.

For example, for Chang Quan, there can be required moves and some free moves allowed. This way we may see diversity and also encourage renovations. This way the arts may advance and not "fixed" or "stifled".

For the same reason, I like the examples of Chen Tai Ji becomes Yang, Wu and Sun.

But overall, it is a well written article about the history of modern comp Wushu.

Good Job.

Cheers.

:)

[SPJ]

CMA did not disappear into sports only after the introduction of guns and artillery.

CMA is still alive and well in the military and police force.

Ba Ji is popular in president bodyguards and secret services protecting Mao, Chiang's, Lee Deng Hui etc.

Shuai Jiao and Qin Na are used by Taiwan's police along with guns and stun devices on the street every day.

Xing Yi is incorporated into the drills of bayonets on rifles or 刺槍术 in the Army since the Ming Guo period before 1949.

Mantis is popular in the marines and military police.

CMA is still practiced in the old way by many in the civilian circles worldwide.

College students from Wu -Tan, CLF by people from southern China and Hong Kong, Hung Gar is popular despite the fact that anti Qing Hong Men is no longer needed--- on and on.

If only say that CMA all moved into sports only may not paint the whole picture.

:D

[GeneChing]

CMA did not disappear into sports only after the introduction of guns and artillery. If you get the chance, you should check out Cameron Hurst's Armed Martial Arts of Japan: Swordsmanship and Archery - it was quite groundbreaking when published over hald a decade ago. It's a scholarly work that examines the transition of Japanese martial arts into modern sports. Clearly, there is a distinction to be made between cold arm war arts those after the age of firearm. Simply put, once the gun enters, the usefulness of martial arts strictly for war is not as significant. This shows a marked evolutionary step in martial arts - some scholars argue that it was the first real emergence of martial arts as we know it - the introduction of martial arts as a spiritual, self cultivation and health practice may have been an attempt of martial arts to redeem itself in the face of becoming obsolete. Now, I agree with you on the fact that martial arts did not 'disappear into sports' and still has a practical functionality with the military and police, but I will acknowledge that this aspect of martial arts is significantly lessened and that the bulk of martial artists are more leisurely about their pursuit.

We have another article in the ezine queue, not by Master An, that addresses a similar theme. We should be publishing that with our next update. Thanks for supporting our ezine!

[SPJ]

Thanks for the reply.

You are right. Most people nowadays are learning MA as other persuits.

I will look into the book you referenced.

:cool:

[SPJ]

With the all names to confuse;

Wu Shu is the short term of CMA or Zhong Guo Wu Shu 中国武术.

It is called Kuo Shu, too.

Now that people tend to link Wu Shu only to the demo, performance and comp.

I ran into some other forums.

Relative to comp Wu Shu, they call TCMA traditional Wu Shu.

Maybe this would clear something up or just add to more confusion in the west.

Traditional Wu Shu, mmmm--

:confused: :D

[Wang Rui Xuan]

Quote from SPJ:
"For example. I read a book about a new routine of Tang Lang Quan. It won gold in 1980's. It is new, which means not seen before. There are some common moves from Mei Hua and 7 stars. But there are new moves and sequences. The new moves are still consistent with principles, tactics and strategy of Tang Lang."


SPJ,

Looking for some clarification in reference to your above exmaple.

Could you more specifically explain whether you think forms (and forms training) represent THEORETICAL principles/tactics/strategy, or APPLIED principles/tactics/strategy?

Thanks,
Wang Rui Xuan

[GeneChing]

If we were to black out coverage of Wushu in the magazine, et.al., we would be just as guilty of being undemocratic as you project upon the PRC blacking out traditional.
That's the tricky part about democracy - what if the public chooses the wrong solution? Where does liberty lie then? Keep in mind, especially for the forum (which I view as quite democratic) - Liberty resides in the rights of that person whose views you find most odious...