The problem with traditional CMA is...

[Oso]

David Jamieson said:


All I'm saying is that there is a perpetuation of fallacies in Kungfu like almost no other martial art.

You don't find nonsense like is found in CMA in lot of other martial arts. I shouldn't really say "cma", but just the "classical and traditional martial arts" in general.

It is astounding at how much of it is just pure bs.
To the point where I will not recomend training in traditional martial arts and instead there needs to be a component of rbsd , along with sound stand up, clinch and ground training(mma) or there just isn't a lot of value in it.

If there is no realistic application work then it just ain't realistic period.
And the language barrier thing is a cluster-hump all on it's own.

I basically agree with most of this...and my purpose is to expand upon the thought, not contest the post.

so, a list of random, incohesive thoughts on the subject:

There is a problem is lack of 'pressure testing' the techniques.

There is a problem of over complication of movement.

There is a problem of 'traditionalists' argueing that CMA needs to be 'maintained' with no changes.

There is the problem with ego that, IMO, stems from not getting your ass whupped enough times because you've never stepped up.

I think Judo is a great example of a traditional art that went modern. Judo is the result of the modernization of a traditional art that culminated in a martial style that can stand the test of the street as well as the ring.

CMA is not going to get anywhere if the only people we ever fight are other CMA peeps.

................


I'm probably going to get called names and otherwise catch a bunch of crap by uber traditionalists and probably be told that I really don't know CMA...but that's fine.

The one point, I diverge on from David's post is that I still believe that TCMA can be used as an effective fighting method against any other method, the training paradigm needs to change though.

My goal is to take my traditional kung fu and make it work and more importantly, at this stage of my life, make it work for my students.

[Suntzu]

the biggest problem is Liability Insurance.... Lawyers.... and people that take martial arts but can't take a punch.....

[Shaolinlueb]

insurance? **** i dont think i have ever had that problem with trianing and occasionally we have someone with a swollen nose and once a broken hand. we train pretty hardcore though. all the people are there cause they want to be.

problem is a lot of people dont know how to train. some of these masters in china who claim to teach fighting have never been in a fight in their life so they dont know how to train it and heck it might be totally wrong. some of these other chinese masters have been in lots of fights so they know how to drill for fighting.

its all a matter of finding the right teacher.

[Oso]

Suntzu, if insurance were the problem then how could boxing gyms or mma gyms exist?

Insurance is an issue...I certainly do stuff my insurance company wouldn't like but I don't train that hard with new students; only once I feel like I'm not going to get sued by that person if they do get busted up some. And, I've got levels of students in my school, some that only want the exercise and forms, others that like to lightly spar but don't ever want to play at harder levels...and right now only 1 of 14 that wants to fight full contact. I just don't let my students think that they are going to be able to fight with what they know unless they fight. But, I also reassure them that it's still ok to train for the exercise and such. I just don't let anyone's fantasies about being some badass kung fu fighter get in the way of training.


SL, that's exactly the point, they don't know because they've never tried. Why they never tried is up for speculation.

I still feel that there is a problem with the piety thing combined with the ego of the teacher that prevents a student from figureing out that they aren't really training hard.

[Suntzu]

Suntzu, if insurance were the problem then how could boxing gyms or mma gyms exist? because they go ahead and pay the extra costs.... and the people that walk thru the doors KNOW that they are gonna get a "beatin"..... and look at their turnover rate anyway......... PLUS... most of those gyms still have "fitness" classes and a kids program to keep the lights on........ and as far as boxing gyms go.... atleast in my area AND the more famous ones that i know of.... they have been a fixture in their neighborhood for YEARS.... nothing like getting in on a piece of property in the 1950s or earlier.....

problem is a lot of people dont know how to train. "people" meaning the instructor or the student?

[HearWa]

Well, what does CMA have that other arts don't have to a more extreme degree? Nothing, it seems. Judo is known for its excellent throwing skills, Muay Thai/Boxing for it's superior striking skills and BJJ/JJJ/Sambo for awesome grappling skills.

What is CMA left with? Center line theory? Useless, flowery rhetoric? Sticky hands practice? Wushu? San shou (arguably a combination of american kickboxing and judo)? "Enlightenment"? Chi? Static stances?

I'm nineteen and I am taking martial arts to learn how to kick ass and it's as simple as that. I've dedicated six years of my life to this myth we call "Kung Fu" and this magical place called "China." I have good forms and pretty decent sparring skills (kickboxing-esque, I've come to find out), and knowledge that if I would have dedicated my time to one of the aforementioned arts I would have progressed alot quicker than what I have. And it really ****es me off.

[Oso]

the model of having a serious fighting class and other classes to pay the bills is exactly my goal.

but perception is the key too. for whatever reason CMA isn't percieved as something hard core for fighting. to much trickery and deciept from a couple decades of media hype about 'kung fu' and less than ethical people capitalizing on it.

the UFC gave people a look at something real and so when someone goes to that gym then they know what they are getting into.

kung fu movies only portray a rather fantastical look at kung fu.

[Oso]

well, a long time ago, there were chinese people using hand to hand and weapon vs weapon combat to fight battles.

somewhere in there is some good fighting. you just have to find a teacher who isn't going to bull**** you.

the 'gun' changed all of that of course

[TAO YIN]

One of the biggest mental problems of TCMA: The idea that "losing face" is bad. If you are always right, how can you learn?

One of the biggest physical problems of TCMA: TCMA has "devolved" instead of evolved... this is mainly due to the biggest mental problem.

One things for sure. BJJ and MMA isn't popular in China. Heell, Kung Fu isn't popular in China. Taekwondo, Jeet Kune Do, Tai Chi, Wushu, Jet Li, and Jackie Chan, are popular in China. About in that order too.

[Oso]

One of the biggest mental problems of TCMA: The idea that "losing face" is bad. If you are always right, how can you learn?

One of the biggest physical problems of TCMA: TCMA has "devolved" instead of evolved... this is mainly due to the biggest mental problem.

Indeed. the concept of losing as a path to winning is embraced by the sport fighters and accepted as something that is going to happen.

I am fascinated by the stories of the past and which master did this or that but only as stories and a link to the heritage.

I'm reading a book call "The Discoverers" and the author is pretty critical of the chinese mindset that was in place in the late 1400's and 1500's that caused china to close it's doors to the outside world. IF they had not done that then, in just one example, it is quite likely that they would have been the dominant world navy at the time and hence more likely to have done some major discovering i.e. The "New World" of Columbus.

I feel a parallel between this mindset and the one that is keeping CMA from taking it's place beside other fighting arts.

[Royal Dragon]

The biggest problem of TCMA IS------------------->It don't exist anymore!!

[mantis108]

I hear you big time. :)

I think one of the major problems is the "my art is too deadly" syndrom. That we see even in our mantis community still. ;) It is the arrogance and ignorance of using safety measures such as gears and rules. I personally don't buy the line that Kung Fu can only function in a "real street fighting" situation. That's a lot of horse crap IMHO. If it's real Kung Fu, it should function anywhere and any format with or without gear.

I believe you are right about the piety thing too. That's why the traditionalists more or less are trapped in the "theoretical" superemacy of Kung Fu. I mean not disrepects but in a very sad way, IMHO it's "inbreeding" only to fight amongst the same style and same lineage. In theory, it is invincible by not fighting anything else that you don't have a clue about. :(

Warm regards

Mantis108

[Oso]

M108, LOL at 'inbreeding'. That has a special meaning in my neck of the woods.

I feel like I firmed up an idea in my head with my comment about the source of "Traditional Chinese Martial Arts" was stuff that was used on the battlefield. Something happened, probably many somethings, that took CMA down the path to it's current state. What we need to try and do is get back the true 'traditional' warrior/fighter kung fu.

so, I'm feeling like 'traditional' should really refer to the much older stuff rather then anything that was developed after...say, 1000 A.D. ... or maybe even 960 since Chao Kuan Yin is said to have had a lot of influence on the shape of CMA during his reign.

M108, how do you think Confuciounism played a part in the piety issue? I mean, the whole 'filiel piety' concept is derived from Confucious, right?

[GeneChing]

I think there's an intrinsic problem with TCMA and that's the Fu in Kung Fu. It's the elevation of martial skills into a vehicle for spiritual transformation. Boxing, MMA, etc. aren't really spiritual - they are empowering on a physical level, but there's not really an emphasis on internal arts, like in Kung Fu.

Of course, spirituality opens Pandora's box, not only to new age charlatanism, but also to corruption of the individual psyche, since the spiritual path is the razor's edge psychologically. Now the Japanese "Do" arts, like Aikido, Judo, Kyudo, Kendo, etc., have this same focus upon martial arts as a spiritual practice, but the Japanese culture is more regimented and militant. Masters have to bow down the the program and come up through the ranks. Chinese culture, especially CMA culture is more folk based. Sure, there's militant stuff, but the bulk of it is the People's art - we're more about individual paths, like the Jianghu/Wuxia myths. In short, Japanese martial spirituality is more dogmatic, while Chinese martial spirituality is more gnostic.

Frankly, it's the focus on spirituality that attracts me. Sure, it's cool to be able to kick someone's arse, but that deosn't hold a candle to a shot at enlightenment. The gnostic leanings of Kung Fu has brought forth a tremendous diversity of styles and applications, not just for fighting. That's where TCMA is absolutely fascinating. Even though TCMA has its share of issues (and what martial art doesn't?) I feel that the magnitude of Chinese martial culture far outweighs the charlatan regulars - in fact, the charlatans are part of the fun, at least to me.

[Shaolinlueb]

those of you that have said chinese martial arts hasnt evolved is wrong. you just got stuck with some bad experiences. the people who use their martial arts in the "modern" era against guns have had it evolved. you can still keep the tradition alive and flowing in the modern world. its just all a matter of this a forms, fighting, or both school? many people stick to just forms these days and teach half fasted sparring techniques. sparring is a good drill but its not street fighting. its like ufc is good sports fighting but not street fighting.
when i talk about the not training right. its the sifu's who dont know how to do it right and the students learn from them.

to train for combat isnt easy man. you have to have this mental state you have to be in. its like training hand to hand combat military style. your gonna get hurt from all the bruises and punches you'll be taking and giving. you will have to deal with lots of pressure and anxiety and such. there will be injuries, there will be blood drawn, but in the end you will learn to fight using your skills and not just this sparring stuff. its not for everyone. people that train like this tend to have a few screws loose sometimes. anyone that has seen real combat and has had to kill a lot people with their fists or guns will almost definetly have a couple screws loose/something not be right with them again.

now can you learn to be a fighter without going through the military type training? yes. will it be just as hard. yeah , probably a lot less yelling in your face too. but same concept. its gonna be a lot of full force, you dont move or do technique right, you get hit or maybe even hurt. expect to get bruises, expect to bleed once and a while.

will this stuff work in the ring? yeah if you modify it not to hurt the person severly or kill them. its just a matter of how you train.

why havent a lot of masters practiced fighting in china? i dont know. the CR outlawed kung fu and they had to practice in "hiding" so maybe thats on reason. public fighting was outlawed between "countrymen" too wasnt it? didnt want to join the army, learning kung fu cause you were weak and such. but not wanting to fight takes a big part of it too. a lot of masters dont want to fight. there are some that did to test their skills. there were others that had to so they wouldn't be killed.

[ReignOfTerror]

All I'm saying is that there is a perpetuation of fallacies in Kungfu like almost no other martial art.

You don't find nonsense like is found in CMA in lot of other martial arts. I shouldn't really say "cma", but just the "classical and traditional martial arts" in general.

cma and tma has always been the way it is, so if people today can't fight with it and today it has crappy techniques than it always was like this, and if they survived bandit raids in those villages with it than there is no reason that wouldnt work today considering what is taught is exactly the same and in the same nammer. Also, your saying mma is the only effective ma, why would this be the case when there are so many styles? why does a style automatically become effective when it is a sport style? and what prevents other styles from being sport styles?


I think Judo is a great example of a traditional art that went modern. Judo is the result of the modernization of a traditional art that culminated in a martial style that can stand the test of the street as well as the ring.

Judo was never a tma, unless you consider belts and gis implication of tma.

[Oso]

Gene, thanks for your thoughts.

Do you agree with my 'backyard historian' opinion of the change from the battlefield discipline to the 'vehicle for spiritual transformation'?

If so, what is your opinion of when that happened?

I agree with the 'spiritual transformation' bit and a lot of that is certainly why I got involved in the first place. But, why leave behind the combat discipline? Why not keep both?

the Dog Brothers motto comes to mind "Higher consciousness through harder contact"


Sure, it's cool to be able to kick someone's arse, but that deosn't hold a candle to a shot at enlightenment.

but, for me at least, there is enlightenment in striving against someone as hard as you can and knowing they are doing the same and at some point a victor is decided. it really doesn't matter who wins, but that you did the training to get to the point that you can compete (not meaning sport comps especially) against someone at that level.

FTR, I'm not talking about hurting people. I will keep using the words 'fight' and 'combat' and 'compete' but at no time am I talking about a desire to actually hurt someone. That's why sport competition is so important, IMO. A good sport program is designed to allow maximum endeavor with minimum hurt.

[SifuAbel]

When this kind of question/post/subject comes up, I find it interesting that the practices in question are neither identified or discussed. Or, the practices are against that persons particular paradigm.

What exactly is it that is a "fallacy" ? In who's opinion are these practices not usefull?

And of those tings you don't like, is it more a lack of understanding or ability?

Also the "spirit" is not in the kung fu. "X" teacher brought his ideas from his religious background. "X" teacher was a budhist/taoist/hinduist/whateverist who just so happened to also know martial arts.

The Shaolin were buhdists before they were martial artists. Their spiritual, moral, and ethical conduct was not a product of their martial practice, it was a product of their religion.

[Oso]

those of you that have said chinese martial arts hasnt evolved is wrong. you just got stuck with some bad experiences. the people who use their martial arts in the "modern" era against guns have had it evolved. you can still keep the tradition alive and flowing in the modern world. its just all a matter of this a forms, fighting, or both school? many people stick to just forms these days and teach half fasted sparring techniques. sparring is a good drill but its not street fighting. its like ufc is good sports fighting but not street fighting.
when i talk about the not training right. its the sifu's who dont know how to do it right and the students learn from them.

Nothing is like a real fight but you can get close if you are willing to fight full contact with rules to prevent serious maiming.

But where did the sifu's get thier lack of ability? Sure there are some out there who are just plain crap but there are plenty that are of good 'lines' that don't fight or teach to fight.

to train for combat isnt easy man. you have to have this mental state you have to be in. its like training hand to hand combat military style. your gonna get hurt from all the bruises and punches you'll be taking and giving. you will have to deal with lots of pressure and anxiety and such. there will be injuries, there will be blood drawn, but in the end you will learn to fight using your skills and not just this sparring stuff. its not for everyone. people that train like this tend to have a few screws loose sometimes. anyone that has seen real combat and has had to kill a lot people with their fists or guns will almost definetly have a couple screws loose/something not be right with them again.

I agree it's not for everyone, but if someone is attracted to kung fu and wants to learn to fight, it should be an option...and not a 5 year plan, at that.


now can you learn to be a fighter without going through the military type training? yes. will it be just as hard. yeah , probably a lot less yelling in your face too. but same concept. its gonna be a lot of full force, you dont move or do technique right, you get hit or maybe even hurt. expect to get bruises, expect to bleed once and a while.

Answer: Protective gear. No, it won't eliminate all injury but will keep them down.

will this stuff work in the ring? yeah if you modify it not to hurt the person severly or kill them. its just a matter of how you train.


SLL, I hate to say it but that is pretty much the 'too deadly for the ring' comment.
It's actually really, really difficult to get any of your techniques to the level will you will severely hurt or kill a conditioned athlete....especially a fighter

why havent a lot of masters practiced fighting in china? i dont know. the CR outlawed kung fu and they had to practice in "hiding" so maybe thats on reason. public fighting was outlawed between "countrymen" too wasnt it?

Ok, so maybe those are a couple of reasons the fighting ability was reduced.

didnt want to join the army, learning kung fu cause you were weak and such. but not wanting to fight takes a big part of it too. a lot of masters dont want to fight. there are some that did to test their skills. there were others that had to so they wouldn't be killed.

um, lost me a bit there


SLL, I'm not attacking you...just trying to debate this topic. :)

It seems as if people are in agreement that the fighting effectiveness of 'kung fu' has been generally reduced (with exceptions of course). I'm curious about the why and how to reach back a thousand years and get it back.

[ReignOfTerror]

Indeed. the concept of losing as a path to winning is embraced by the sport fighters and accepted as something that is going to happen.

Not really, some coaches and schools are really dissapointed with a single loss and could kick the student out for it.

also the thing about forms is how else would you teach a kung fu class without teaching them first. I mean forms is the offensive techniques of the style and without them if you just ask people to sapr they will just use sloppy brawling or fight like kickboxers (which they will do anyway, but not in theory).

[ReignOfTerror]

I think there's an intrinsic problem with TCMA and that's the Fu in Kung Fu. It's the elevation of martial skills into a vehicle for spiritual transformation. Boxing, MMA, etc. aren't really spiritual - they are empowering on a physical level, but there's not really an emphasis on internal arts, like in Kung Fu.

thats exactly the fault of it. If you come in with a chip on your shoulders, an ifneriority complex, a hatred for the world or certain individuals, training in boxing will not make you any happier of a person, it will not change your life, and you will be just as miserable/feel just as ifnerior/or have just as much hatred. That is why people like Tyson raped someone or bit someone's ear off. Changing a human character is said to be one of the hardest things, for instance changing someone from a pushover/doormat/pansy into a toughguy, or changing someone from a thug into a calm person. What can one do to do that? what can oen learn? I remember seeying a news story about some kid who was bullied and took up boxing, and it didnt help him at all, ehwthe physical or mental Im not shure but he was in the news so he must have had to resort to worse means.


but, for me at least, there is enlightenment in striving against someone as hard as you can and knowing they are doing the same and at some point a victor is decided. it really doesn't matter who wins, but that you did the training to get to the point that you can compete (not meaning sport comps especially) against someone at that level.

FTR, I'm not talking about hurting people. I will keep using the words 'fight' and 'combat' and 'compete' but at no time am I talking about a desire to actually hurt someone. That's why sport competition is so important, IMO. A good sport program is designed to allow maximum endeavor with minimum hurt.

On the street you will almost always be fighting someone alot bigger/stronger/more agressive/with larger history of violence, than you. Or one with his friends ready to back him up, street fights are almsot never fair between two equals.

[Oso]

When this kind of question/post/subject comes up, I find it interesting that the practices in question are neither identified or discussed. Or, the practices are against that persons particular paradigm.

For me the practice/paradigm doesn't matter. It's the results. In this case I'm questioning the fighting ability produced by CMA schools and how come we don't see any CMA fighters fighting cross platform.

What exactly is it that is a "fallacy" ? In who's opinion are these practices not usefull?

I haven't said that the practices aren't useful in general but only that for some reason good hard fighters aren't being produced.

And of those tings you don't like, is it more a lack of understanding or ability?

What do you mean?

Also the "spirit" is not in the kung fu. "X" teacher brought his ideas from his religious background. "X" teacher was a budhist/taoist/hinduist/whateverist who just so happened to also know martial arts.

The Shaolin were buhdists before they were martial artists. Their spiritual, moral, and ethical conduct was not a product of their martial practice, it was a product of their religion.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

[Oso]

Not really, some coaches and schools are really dissapointed with a single loss and could kick the student out for it.

are you saying a sport school (boxing, MT, BJJ, MMA) does this? from my observations I'd not believe that until I saw it.

also the thing about forms is how else would you teach a kung fu class without teaching them first. I mean forms is the offensive techniques of the style and without them if you just ask people to sapr they will just use sloppy brawling or fight like kickboxers (which they will do anyway, but not in theory).

I don't think I said anything about not teaching forms. I'm a firm believer in the use of forms. just not the overuse.




On the street you will almost always be fighting someone alot bigger/stronger/more agressive/with larger history of violence, than you. Or one with his friends ready to back him up, street fights are almsot never fair between two equals.

I basically agree with that.

FTR, I'm also not in disagreement that there are things, 'dirty tricks', in CMA that are usefull for fighting. Just that reliance upon them as fightstoppers is silly.


oh, I barely have time for this thread....

[mantis108]

Hi Oso,

Great question. I think Gene made some great points as well.

If we look at military literatures and such things in ancient China, we will find that warfare has always be spiritual in nature from a Chinese perspective. There are a plenty of military manuscripts through out the ages other than Sunzi's text that reflect the spiritual side of military action.

There aren't a lot of study in military history in China these days. If we look closely, we will find a few interesting thing

1) Tang dynasty (618 - 906 CE) bascially is feudal system and its armies were not really professional armies. Most of the time peasants were drafted to do the biding of the feudal lords. It is of note that Japan was pretty much the same way until the 1500s -1600s where the samurai class rises.

2) Song dynasty (960 - 1279 CE) saw the potential problem of that and began to consolidate military power as well as reinforcing political control over the military. This gave rise to professional soliders. Despite the efforts of the central government, troops were still loyal mostly to their own leaders such as General Yue and General Yang. These are sometimes known as the "family Troops".

3) Ming dynasty (1368 - 1644 CE) continued and extended the policy of Song dynasty where military personel inherit the titles and positions of their parents. For example, General Qi inherited his father's rank and position as thrid in garrison command in Deng Zhou, Shandong (modern day Ponglai). BTW in Japan, the Samurais were kind of like that too. This further stablized the control over the professional army. Civil officiers, often Confucian scholars, were placed as the highest command of the troops. Military class was merely serving the political masters. What is of note is that the military class was mostly Daoist (folk Daoism). When your life is on the line, you will believe in anything that perceived as having the power to keep you alive. It also provides an escape in an otherwise very restrictive system.

I believe much of the blending of Confucian and Daoist ideology showing in Kung Fu especially in South Shaolin arts is bascially because of the Ming dynasty military policy carried on by the rebellion forces during Qing dynasty. We can easily see where the filial piety came from. In a very big way, Kung Fu today is really an extention and reflection of Ming dynasty military art culture IMHO.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[Fu-Pow]

Some observations........

TCMA (aka Kung Fu) is a 3-fold path.

Mo=fighter

Mun=scholar

Sun=monk

TCMA should develop all aspects, not just one to the exclusion of others. A lot of TCMA that you see now is just Mun or Sun, somewhere along the way it lost the Mo.

Tao Lu (ie hand and weapon forms) are used as vehicles of mental and spiritual development. Why not just do Qi Gong?

Many "modern arts" only develop Mo. There's no "art" to the martial art. Can they fight, sure! But do they use their whole selves to fight? Do they use there intellect and their spirit to fight. Or is is only force on force, body on body, strength against strength?

You might win a fight but if you walk away with a broken hand or missing teeth did you really win? That is where Mun and Sun come in. They take it to a higher level of mind and spirit against body.

My formula is thus:

Yi (mind-intent) =the right mindset

Xing (form)=bodily structure and shape
(also shape of specific techniques, static and moving)

Jin (body mechanics)=coordinated power/skill developed from practicing correct form

San Shou (application)=applying the techniques with the correct Yi, Jin and Xing under varying degrees of pressure.

Everyone has something to work on. Mostly I see bad attitudes that prevent people from ever even approaching the other aspects.

[PangQuan]

I think everyone here has made some valid points.

Fu-Pow hit the preverbial nail on the head so to speak.

Everyone has an aspect within themselves that needs work. Many of the masters today are no exception.

One of the largest factors in the modern world I think is the neccessity that is no longer there.

Generally speaking, on average one will never need to resort to melee combat to save thier life. So the emphasis on the extreme training methods has gradually decresed. Likewise, with an emphasis on western culture, one does not seek enlightenment because of a blanket of security that has been placed throughout society by government, religion, and ignorance.

Very few people, if anyone on the planet today has the value of experiences that were undergone by many of the past masters. The world itself is just a different place all together.

I feel good about my masters skill, I know he has fought, and I know he still can. I enjoy the fact that he is a serious buddhist and has respect for everyone. I also am glad that he seperates studies from his regular life, in class he is the master not your friend, end of story. But at the same time he is still a product of the modern world. We are all products of our environment. There is a great atmospher of traditionality at his school, but at the same time he has adapted well to america and has put methods in place to make the experience more exceptable for us all. The longer you train under him the harder the training becomes. This is a great way of challenging anyone.

I would never want to "reach back a thousand years" and recover the ancient methods. I myself am not ancient. There are traditional elements that mesh well with modern society and there are those that do not. Just as there are circumstances in effect today that just simply would not fly 1000 years ago in any culture.

I feel it is finding the balance within traditionality and modernity that will help keep the art we love alive and strong. Constant change is inevitable, and it shall always be. The ability to meld yourself with this change and adapt to your surroundings is, IMO, one of the most valuable aspects of a traditional mindset in regards to the combative arts.

[Shaolinlueb]

oso. there are plenty of great teachers out there that arent fighters and dont teach fighting. but it this arguement always seems to go back to fighting. can a master be good but have no fighting ability? yes. they can be great. are they encompassing the whole aspect of traditional martial arts? not to me they are. is it their fault for not training to fight? might be, might not be. they might not have been able to train it at one time or another or was just one who never did it. thats fine. doesnt mean you cant be a great master cause you never learned to fight.

encompassing the whole art even means encompassing everything even the things you dont want to do. like fighting. i hate fighting personally. i enjoy the forms and exercise better then the fighting. but i do the fighting because its part of the art, learning to defend yourself. it also means getting into the spiritual side a bit of it too. that is part of the art. im not syaing you have to be buddhist, its the whole wu de thing.

oh yeah we do use pads. but sometimes you forget to control your emotions and things happen. injuries arent that often. i have only seen 2/3 serious ones in the 5 years i have been training. mostly just lots of bruising. :D

[bamboo_ leaf]

(but that you did the training to get to the point that you can compete)

(I will keep using the words 'fight' and 'combat' and 'compete')

all very different ideas with their own training methods.

Its kind of the same problem our military has in the middle east, when they feel that real soldiers ware uniforms and use tactics like large armies, or the idea that you can have a war on terrorism (an idea?)

[ReignOfTerror]

oso. there are plenty of great teachers out there that arent fighters and dont teach fighting. but it this arguement always seems to go back to fighting. can a master be good but have no fighting ability? yes. they can be great. are they encompassing the whole aspect of traditional martial arts? not to me they are. is it their fault for not training to fight? might be, might not be. they might not have been able to train it at one time or another or was just one who never did it. thats fine. doesnt mean you cant be a great master cause you never learned to fight.

encompassing the whole art even means encompassing everything even the things you dont want to do. like fighting. i hate fighting personally. i enjoy the forms and exercise better then the fighting. but i do the fighting because its part of the art, learning to defend yourself. it also means getting into the spiritual side a bit of it too. that is part of the art. im not syaing you have to be buddhist, its the whole wu de thing.

oh yeah we do use pads. but sometimes you forget to control your emotions and things happen. injuries arent that often. i have only seen 2/3 serious ones in the 5 years i have been training. mostly just lots of bruising. :D


Sifu Ross doesn't compete nor was ever much of a fighter, yet look at his school and the number of prodigees he has. Hell he doesnt even teach the same style he was taught what I wonder is how he got business in the first place.

[David Jamieson]

I think there's an intrinsic problem with TCMA and that's the Fu in Kung Fu. It's the elevation of martial skills into a vehicle for spiritual transformation. Boxing, MMA, etc. aren't really spiritual - they are empowering on a physical level, but there's not really an emphasis on internal arts, like in Kung Fu.

Of course, spirituality opens Pandora's box, not only to new age charlatanism, but also to corruption of the individual psyche, since the spiritual path is the razor's edge psychologically. Now the Japanese "Do" arts, like Aikido, Judo, Kyudo, Kendo, etc., have this same focus upon martial arts as a spiritual practice, but the Japanese culture is more regimented and militant. Masters have to bow down the the program and come up through the ranks. Chinese culture, especially CMA culture is more folk based. Sure, there's militant stuff, but the bulk of it is the People's art - we're more about individual paths, like the Jianghu/Wuxia myths. In short, Japanese martial spirituality is more dogmatic, while Chinese martial spirituality is more gnostic.

Frankly, it's the focus on spirituality that attracts me. Sure, it's cool to be able to kick someone's arse, but that deosn't hold a candle to a shot at enlightenment. The gnostic leanings of Kung Fu has brought forth a tremendous diversity of styles and applications, not just for fighting. That's where TCMA is absolutely fascinating. Even though TCMA has its share of issues (and what martial art doesn't?) I feel that the magnitude of Chinese martial culture far outweighs the charlatan regulars - in fact, the charlatans are part of the fun, at least to me.

The spiritual component in your average martial arts school is pretty much moot or more often than not a convoluted mish mash of the head instructors personal reckoning of things and his or her world view. Is that spirituality? Is it a shot at enlightenment to study with someone else who clearly isn't there?

I am not comfortable with this component in martial arts for a few reasons.

What is the tangible aspect of spirituality in martial arts that is not everywhere?

Or, how is martial arts anymore of a spiritual path than new age adult synchronized swimming?

Ancient Chinese culture is completely irrelevant for the most part to the average modern westerner and particularly those who practice martial arts. The Pai structure is neato and cool, but is not in keeping with the paradigm.

The required effort to become good at anything, to become masterful of ones chosen skills is not only found in the art of Kungfu. Nevertheless, the point is taken about people not going all the way, but then, who is teaching "all the way"?
No one, because you have to get there yourself. All a teacher in anything can do is show you something, it is up to you to do the rest. Even then, we've seen many teachers who make claims about the extreme danger of using such an art but there is pretty much nothing to substantiate these claims. Then when some venue like mma comes along and basically says if you want to support those claims then step up. Then the bells toll, the whistles buzz, and people fail to show up and those few that do certainly are in for their share of rude awakenings. So, yeah, as has been indicated above, the "my art is too deadly" usally translates out to "I don't know what the heck I'm doing" :D

The reason I'm rolling back the covers on this is because of my own training experiences over the past 4 years where I have been exposed to what appears to be more practical and efficient methods of developing skills in martial arts that I did not find in the traditional and classical martial arts I have spent so many years with. It's changed my pov on a lot of it in particular on the "martial" aspect.

The mantra is "You cannot swim if you don't go in the water".

I think there are a lot of traditionalists who haven't dipped their toes in yet and when they do, they will be surprised at how cold that water is.

These are not some idle musings. I'm kind of ticked at the state of things.

[Royal Dragon]

WARNING!!! Most of this response is geared to OSO...everyone else might want to skip to that last three paragraphs...

OSO said]
so, I'm feeling like 'traditional' should really refer to the much older stuff rather then anything that was developed after...say, 1000 A.D. ... or maybe even 960 since Chao Kuan Yin is said to have had a lot of influence on the shape of CMA during his reign.

Reply]
Not nesasarily so. The arts evolved quite a bit into the late Qing dynasty. The Emperor Sung Tai Tzu's (Chao Kuang Yin's) art really wasn't perfected untill the late Ming either. Back in 960 AD, it appears that few outside of Shaolin even practiced forms. Martial arts were crude, and mostly restricted to a handfull of techinques (30-40) at best. These were practiced as individual drills with partners. My studies into Tai Tzu eventually revealed there WAS NO original 32 move form. The style was not really even about the Emperor's favorite 32 techniques, but much much more about HOW to USE them to kick the snot out of others as needed, or desired.

The "Original" 32 move form was most likely developed somewhere between the Yuan dynasty, and the early Ming. Even so, each Tai Tzu line had added so much to the knowledge base by then that the newly created form surely contained much more than the original 32 moves, and was uniquely develped specific to each individual Tai Tzu line. Mst of which went on to evolve into completely new styles, or died off when times no longer required them.

Where am I going with this? Well, basicaly I'm siteing example as to why trying to go back to the very beginning of an art is not really holding to the "Traditional" either. If you really want to be traditional, then you should go to the art as it was at it's peak. In Tai Tzu's case that was during the ming dynasty. In the case of Bagua, that was only 120 years ago at best.

1000 years was a long time ago, and the arts may very well have been very refined by then, but final perfection of the chinese arts occured between the Ming, and Late Qing dynasty. Since that time the Chinese arts either remained the at same level (rarely), or greatly declined. The TRULY traditional masters are the ones who don't worry about being carbon copies of thier teachers. They are the ones who hold true to the principals of the arts, and how to empart great skill in the styles to thier students.

Many who "Claim" to be traditional, are mearly play acting, and in reality are teaching in a VERY modern way that was developed at best in the last 50-60 years or so.

[bodhitree]

people should find what they believe effective for them, if they get beat or feel disenfranchised improve or switch stiles and learn from everything.

[bodhitree]

I love gong fu, but style purity is not the only issue to me, i want to be a complete fighter and believe i have the recources to do it, being exposed to other fighting arts.

[Royal Dragon]

Oh, and one other point, forms were NOT originally for students to train, they were for teachers to organise a cohiesive teaching curriculem. In the end, they had great benifit for students too, but they weren't developed for them. The emphisis on forms in training is also a VERY modern thing.

[mickey]

Greetings All,

My job causes me to miss out on such good discussions.

One problem with TCMA is that it is taught backwards in too many places. There was a time when the basics included internal training; yes, from the very beginning. The internal was not some advanced component that one should have to experience after 5 to10 to 20 years of training. If that were the case, there would be NO famous TCMA masters to read about. Also the basic training program is too short: one to three months. Basic level was from three to five years in some instances. And this does not include forms (with the possible exception of Tan Tui). Basic level included internal training, external training, meditation, fighting, drills and specialty training (palmwork, legwork etc). The advanced forms were earned;they were not paid for by monthly dues. After training this way one would be able to train the fighting forms in real time as well as use the techniques contained in them. Training this way is bad for business nowadays. I remember having to train Tan Tui 10 reps for each road (the roads were long). That was done with full power and low stances. It hurt BAD. So bad that after all these years, I am still waiting for my placenta to drop. It didn't just train the body, it worked the mind on a very deep and psychological level. It questioned my commitment and my discipline. In all, I think it was worth the pain. Recently, a friend of mine had the idea to teach Tan Tui to his beginners-- the turnover was rapid. My friend did not realize that he needed to teach a balanced program. I remember reading an article by Robert Hui(I think that is mantis108) on "Defining Cross Training" It was the best martial arts based read that I have seen in many years. To put it simply, it was a template for a lifetime of learning that present TCMA could benefit from.

Another aspect, and I agree with oso here, is perception. TCMA are supposed to be soft, fluid, and deadly at its most advanced levels. A lot of this hype is put forth by the masters themselves in order to "teach something,teach nothing." Some masters would even encourage their students to watch kung fu movies to learn how to fight. So if a neophyte were to go to a movie and see a triple feature-- Five Fingers of Death, Five Deadly Venoms and Fist of Legend-- he would be leaving the theatre quite confused. Real transmissions must be extended(ex: through fighting) and felt in order to be received and understood. And so with the initial impression of the soft fluid martial art, TCMA has tended to be a magnet for those who are not confrontational by nature and are really not into the feel of a bone breaking from the impact of their strikes. I am refering to that killer instinct.

One final aspect is the lack of understanding of what "kung fu" is. It is self discipline. That means that no one should ask more of you than yourself when it comes to your training. Some have erroneously believed that going and learning is progress. You need to interact with what you are learning with intensity and passion. In doing so, you spark the real light of learning that will never burn out. If you don't it won't come to you.


mickey

[Royal Dragon]

Well said!!

[SPJ]

Agreed that this is an excellent thread.

I started with Tan Tui and Shuai Jiao. Every step is a kick. The practice is to do every thing right every time. To save pain is to be really relaxed in moving. When kick or bounce leg, do not "tighten" till the last end point and a sudden stop. It has the sudden force near the very end. It looks powerful and yet saves strength. After a while, you kick as if you walk naturally. The moving practice is easy to "cheat". The standing one is not. Try not moving in any stance for 25 min or more. I may stand on one leg and raise the other leg at waist high. The is the end posture of Tan Tui. You hold this posture as long as you can.

I have to relax my mind into stillness. In the summer time in Taiwan, there was a big distraction or challenge, the mosquito or fly. I would feel them landing on me and biting me. And yet no moving. "But Master, the mosquito is biting me!" think loundly.

Sorry.

My point is that practice to have very basic skills first. You have a good foundation then move on to more advanced stuff.

Take all the time you need. Patience is a virtue. The skills come with practice over time.

If you believe in overnite magic, that would be sad. Unless of course, you are born talented or gifted.

I was very clumsy when I was a kid. I lost a shoe into the lake in Taipei New city park while watching the Masters practicing. Everyone laughed at me. But all of a sudden, I have many willing teachers to teach me. Everything in Kung Fu is about balance. Balance in standing. Balance in moving. Balance in postures. Balance in neutralizing power. Balance in issuing power.

Oh, everything you heard and saw about CMA is true. Will you be there right away? probably not. How long it gonna take? years or decades. As long as it needs to.

You know what. Once you master whatever skills you cultivate, you still have to practice everyday or the skills will slip away. More so when you get old.

I practice CMA and religions since young. It is hard for me to separate the 2.

Back to regular posting.

I am ranting now. I still have a bad cold and drowsy on cold meds.

Cough is gone. which is good.

:D

[ReignOfTerror]

The required effort to become good at anything, to become masterful of ones chosen skills is not only found in the art of Kungfu. Nevertheless, the point is taken about people not going all the way, but then, who is teaching "all the way"?
No one, because you have to get there yourself. All a teacher in anything can do is show you something, it is up to you to do the rest. Even then, we've seen many teachers who make claims about the extreme danger of using such an art but there is pretty much nothing to substantiate these claims. Then when some venue like mma comes along and basically says if you want to support those claims then step up. Then the bells toll, the whistles buzz, and people fail to show up and those few that do certainly are in for their share of rude awakenings. So, yeah, as has been indicated above, the "my art is too deadly" usally translates out to "I don't know what the heck I'm doing"

It isn't just in the U.S, all over the world tma fail to show up or kill people, but if they really could do that do you think they would? what would motivate them to show up and use dim mak if some monk womewhere actually knew it. Do you think sifu ross's teacher would show up in ufc 1? hell it was in his time I think and where was he? if we had the technology to resurrect past masters from the dead they probably wouldnt show up anyway. People who are really secure in their abilities and sued them in combat don't need or want to do it in public venues.


Where am I going with this? Well, basicaly I'm siteing example as to why trying to go back to the very beginning of an art is not really holding to the "Traditional" either. If you really want to be traditional, then you should go to the art as it was at it's peak. In Tai Tzu's case that was during the ming dynasty. In the case of Bagua, that was only 120 years ago at best.

do you really think those guys at that time would teach you (a white esterner)? or they were any better than today's fighters or hell todays practitioners of those styles? today we can learn all those sttles plus morer with no secrecy so todays practitiners should be better.



One problem with TCMA is that it is taught backwards in too many places. There was a time when the basics included internal training; yes, from the very beginning. The internal was not some advanced component that one should have to experience after 5 to10 to 20 years of training.

actually most of those guys would have a very dogmatic ways of trianing for instance standing in the san ti or horse stance for three years with no additional training just to test the students obedience and loyalty to the master. Sun Lu Tang for instance only did this for a period of time with xingyi, and that is just one example I can think off the top of my head. Also they did everything without questioning it or the master, not to mention each of those masters often would leave something out of the style by not teaching it to anyone.

[Oso]

Fu-Pow: great effing post. I'm gonna print that put it on the bulletin board at school.

I agree with all three traditional aspects as you stated. I just think the fighter aspect is being neglected.

time for sleep

[Royal Dragon]

do you really think those guys at that time would teach you (a white esterner)? or they were any better than today's fighters or hell todays practitioners of those styles? today we can learn all those sttles plus morer with no secrecy so todays practitiners should be better.


Reply]
Not the point. I was pointing out that to be truley traditional is not to go ALL the way back to the beginning, but better to go to an art at it's peak and see how it was taught. In Tai Tzu, there are a few lines that teach the way it was taught at it's peak. Infact, Tai Tzu is a rather no nonsense art that has been relatively preserved since it's peak during the Ming in many lines.

[mickey]

Greetings,

"actually most of those guys would have a very dogmatic ways of trianing for instance standing in the san ti or horse stance for three years with no additional training just to test the students obedience and loyalty to the master."


Reign of Terror,

Remember, I did say that one needs a balanced approach. I have met people who practice standing post and I was impressed with the accumulation of their energy. One had it so good that his fingernails were like razors. If you check the photos in the book Yin Yang Ba Pan Zhang, your eyes might be able to discern something that master had that is missing in a lot of the TCMA that I have seen. The man had leg chi. The channels were open wide and it would have made any kick from that guy devastating. Now whether the master knew this, I do not know. But it was there. That is not a casual attainment.

mickey

[Oso]

I think everyone here has made some valid points.
One of the largest factors in the modern world I think is the neccessity that is no longer there.

True

Generally speaking, on average one will never need to resort to melee combat to save thier life.

Also true.

I would never want to "reach back a thousand years" and recover the ancient methods. I myself am not ancient. There are traditional elements that mesh well with modern society and there are those that do not. Just as there are circumstances in effect today that just simply would not fly 1000 years ago in any culture.

I don't especially mean to only train w/ anceint methods but to train with the same reason....to learn how to fight. There are certainly modern methods that are great methods for learning to fight.

I feel it is finding the balance within traditionality and modernity that will help keep the art we love alive and strong.

Absolutely

Constant change is inevitable, and it shall always be. The ability to meld yourself with this change and adapt to your surroundings is, IMO, one of the most valuable aspects of a traditional mindset in regards to the combative arts.
............

[Oso]

oso. there are plenty of great teachers out there that arent fighters and dont teach fighting. but it this arguement always seems to go back to fighting. can a master be good but have no fighting ability? yes. they can be great. are they encompassing the whole aspect of traditional martial arts? not to me they are. is it their fault for not training to fight? might be, might not be. they might not have been able to train it at one time or another or was just one who never did it. thats fine. doesnt mean you cant be a great master cause you never learned to fight.

Great master at what? Teaching an exercise? Teaching a philosophy? Maybe. But certainly not at teaching someone how to fight.

encompassing the whole art even means encompassing everything even the things you dont want to do. like fighting. i hate fighting personally. i enjoy the forms and exercise better then the fighting. but i do the fighting because its part of the art, learning to defend yourself. it also means getting into the spiritual side a bit of it too. that is part of the art. im not syaing you have to be buddhist, its the whole wu de thing.

I agree.

oh yeah we do use pads. but sometimes you forget to control your emotions and things happen. injuries arent that often. i have only seen 2/3 serious ones in the 5 years i have been training. mostly just lots of bruising. :D

I've only seen a few bad injuries as well. Mostly rotator cuff, dislocated shoulders and a few blown knees. oh, and one ripped cornea.

I feel that the need to know how to fight came first. Philosophical ideas were separate and got melded with the fighting discipline later. JMO.

[Oso]

[QUOTE=bamboo_ leaf](but that you did the training to get to the point that you can compete)

(I will keep using the words 'fight' and 'combat' and 'compete')

all very different ideas with their own training methods.

[QUOTE]

I don't think so. In the context of a martial discipline they are synonemous, or should be at least.

[Oso]

RD: I suck at history. :D

I'll restate my point somewhat.

I would like to see 'kung fu' return the the roots of the fighting discipline that begat what we have today.

[Oso]

It seems as if there is a growing opinion that modern chinese martial arts isn't about fighting anymore.

less forms, more skill drills, more fighting, more basics

a divergence in TCMA with two main lines: one a martial art the other a martial discipline....i thought we already did that with modern tai chi interpretation???

[Royal Dragon]

It's all gone that way! in too many clubs, fantasy has replaced reality. It's all about selling forms now. At an arts height, I doubt too many beyond the teachers knew of the forms. Then, they were to catalog the curriculem, not to train skills. Not that forms don't have a good place for the student (that was a later discovery imo), but they were never practiced to the extent they are now.

I select places, like Shaolin Temple, I'm sure forms were a way of doing Qi gong while at the same time mapping muscle memory, but I doubt many outside of Shaolin practiced this on any scale. Even then, I'm sure it was the advanced students doing this, not the rank and fle.

[David Jamieson]

It seems as if there is a growing opinion that modern chinese martial arts isn't about fighting anymore.

less forms, more skill drills, more fighting, more basics

a divergence in TCMA with two main lines: one a martial art the other a martial discipline....i thought we already did that with modern tai chi interpretation???

On the first statement - Modern Chinese martial arts needs to brush up their shakespeare in a lot of respects and return to the functionality of what it is it is attempting to propogate. If you say you are a fighting art, then BE a fighting art not an esoteric practice that doesn't actually deal with the reality of combat in a sportive or realistic environment.

On the second statement - forms have their purpose in the early stages of training to get the student in touch with timing, force issuance, structure and general body balance. They are not effective means of teaching or learning the practical aspects of combat. Drills, force feedback work, strength and conditioning and alive training are much more effective and efficient ways of learning the actuality of fighting.

On the third -Martial art should be martial, martial discipline.... isn't that tied to practice? Self discipline can certainly be attained in any number of ways. Doing without having to think about what to do is the fruit of time and effort in a given skill set required by the task.

textbook techniques invariably never mete out to that and must be adapted to fit the scenario. The more you pull apart, drill and find wanting material from within forms, the more you will narrow the skills that work for you consistently as high percentage techniques.

btw and fwiw, people who train martial arts but can't stomach being hit shouldn't be training martial arts. It's not your cup of tea if you can't drink bitter.

[Royal Dragon]

I would like to see 'kung fu' return the the roots of the fighting discipline that begat what we have today.

Reply]
Then limit your forms practice to 40 minutes 2-3 times a week (because it fits Covert Baily's weight loss modle), and do indvidual two man drills, and sparring applications of the form's techniques the rest of the time instead.

It's pretty simple, Forms should be seen in the same context as weight lifting, or cardio training. Make the CORE of your practic about learning the fight strategy, and USE of the form's techniques the rest of the time. THAT is what traditional Kung Fu is. What we see in most "Traditional" schools today is not actually traditional, it is mostly a modern teaching method.

You want real traditional, get back to the core of things.

[Oso]

On the first statement - Modern Chinese martial arts needs to brush up their shakespeare in a lot of respects and return to the functionality of what it is it is attempting to propogate. If you say you are a fighting art, then BE a fighting art not an esoteric practice that doesn't actually deal with the reality of combat in a sportive or realistic environment.

Right. The problem is the proliferation of schools that say they are but aren't.

On the second statement - forms have their purpose in the early stages of training to get the student in touch with timing, force issuance, structure and general body balance. They are not effective means of teaching or learning the practical aspects of combat. Drills, force feedback work, strength and conditioning and alive training are much more effective and efficient ways of learning the actuality of fighting.

Agreed. 'less' not 'no'

On the third -Martial art should be martial, martial discipline.... isn't that tied to practice? Self discipline can certainly be attained in any number of ways. Doing without having to think about what to do is the fruit of time and effort in a given skill set required by the task.

I'm trying to distinguish between 'art' and 'discipline' by saying that the pure practice of forms for forms sake and exercise is fine and you can call it a 'martial art' and yes there is plenty of discipline in being an artist. But training for fightings sake is different and maybe some distinction should be made. Of course, all the people doing a 'martial art' would **** and moan some more about they are really doing a fighting style.

textbook techniques invariably never mete out to that and must be adapted to fit the scenario. The more you pull apart, drill and find wanting material from within forms, the more you will narrow the skills that work for you consistently as high percentage techniques.

agreed. The path in my school for a form is

solo -> two man -> one steps -> situational sparring -> free sparring

And I don't especially break down every move from every form. I impart what I think are fundamental techniques from the set first then will hit on a few I like and on the way through all that teach the student how to break it out themselves so they can find their own favorite things.

btw and fwiw, people who train martial arts but can't stomach being hit shouldn't be training martial arts. It's not your cup of tea if you can't drink bitter.

I agree with that as well. I'm steadily working on a way to teach the Pong Lai material so that the bitterness is added in slowly. I am trying to build a commercial school so I don't want everyone to run screaming from the room the first night they do arm drills.

[Oso]

I would like to see 'kung fu' return the the roots of the fighting discipline that begat what we have today.

Reply]
Then limit your forms practice to 40 minutes 2-3 times a week (because it fits Covert Baily's weight loss modle), and do indvidual two man drills, and sparring applications of the form's techniques the rest of the time instead.

It's pretty simple, Forms should be seen in the same context as weight lifting, or cardio training. Make the CORE of your practic about learning the fight strategy, and USE of the form's techniques the rest of the time. THAT is what traditional Kung Fu is. What we see in most "Traditional" schools today is not actually traditional, it is mostly a modern teaching method.

You want real traditional, get back to the core of things.

LOL, I doubt I do more than an hour of forms work a week. Well, more then that if you count time spent teaching the forms.

Luckily for me I have students at every level of the curriculum so I'm contantly teaching, and thus learning, every form every week. I only spend my time on the latest form I'm working on.

but, yes, I agree.

[GeneChing]

Do you agree with my 'backyard historian' opinion of the change from the battlefield discipline to the 'vehicle for spiritual transformation'? If so, what is your opinion of when that happened? There a notable shift occurs in the 16-17th in the literature. That's about when you first hear of 'qi' being mentioned in conjunction with martial practice, except for with swordplay, where 'qi' comes up much earlier.


I agree with the 'spiritual transformation' bit and a lot of that is certainly why I got involved in the first place. But, why leave behind the combat discipline? Why not keep both? the Dog Brothers motto comes to mind "Higher consciousness through harder contact" In an ideal world, we do keep both. But either path alone is very challenging. Both together is doubly challenging. Perhaps that's why it's so rare and beautiful to witness a manifestation of this for real, which relates to the main issue of this thread. With so few 'real' examples, fakery can promulgate easily.


but, for me at least, there is enlightenment in striving against someone as hard as you can and knowing they are doing the same and at some point a victor is decided. it really doesn't matter who wins, but that you did the training to get to the point that you can compete (not meaning sport comps especially) against someone at that level. Again, that's ideal. To be honest, I've only reached this point a few times in combat. And I've never gotten there when I've lost.

[SevenStar]

Not really, some coaches and schools are really dissapointed with a single loss and could kick the student out for it.

yes, really. One of the first things you realize through competition is that you will not always win. What you are talking about is a possible, yet unlikely consequence of losing. That however, doesn't change the reality.



also the thing about forms is how else would you teach a kung fu class without teaching them first. I mean forms is the offensive techniques of the style and without them if you just ask people to sapr they will just use sloppy brawling or fight like kickboxers (which they will do anyway, but not in theory).

the same way you train in any other style - teach them the techniques, show them the applications and have them drill them. shuai chiao guys do it. Other cma styles could as well.

[Fu-Pow]

Fu-Pow: great effing post. I'm gonna print that put it on the bulletin board at school.

I agree with all three traditional aspects as you stated. I just think the fighter aspect is being neglected.

time for sleep


Wow....what can I say....I'm flattered. :D

[ReignOfTerror]

yes, really. One of the first things you realize through competition is that you will not always win. What you are talking about is a possible, yet unlikely consequence of losing. That however, doesn't change the reality.

I was talking about schools that almost always only win, and are expected to win, or schools where the opponent is so far outclass you'd be embarassed to lose. So shure the coach might not kick you off, but youll be so embarassed you won't want to come back if you lose sometimes. I knew a girl who didn't come back to train cause she lsot the fight and the coach was always so hard on ehr, yelling at her/etc. expecting her to be a female (the only female in the class) champion.

[SevenStar]

Many "modern arts" only develop Mo. There's no "art" to the martial art. Can they fight, sure! But do they use their whole selves to fight? Do they use there intellect and their spirit to fight. Or is is only force on force, body on body, strength against strength?

This is completely relative to whom you ask. I for example, see plenty of "art" in mo. Is it just fighting? sure it is. But how many different ways is there of expressing a fighting style? you have people in the exact same system that choose to use totally different techniques, which makes them totally different fighters. This expression is indeed art.

Any fighter who steps into a ring can tell you that you have to have spirit to fight. Developing that fighting spirit is a byproduct of proper training. That is by no means inherent only to cma. Also, there is PLENTY of intellect involved. fighters don't just go in and slug it out. The successful ones have a plan and can think on their feet quick enough to alter that plan if need be.


You might win a fight but if you walk away with a broken hand or missing teeth did you really win? That is where Mun and Sun come in. They take it to a higher level of mind and spirit against body.

In the street, if you survived, you are a winner. In the ring, a 'w' is a 'w', so yes.


Everyone has something to work on. Mostly I see bad attitudes that prevent people from ever even approaching the other aspects.

Or lack of desire for them. For example, I have no desire to gan spirituality from ma... I have church for that.

[Oso]

Gene, thanks.

Qi as in 'breath' or 'Qi' as in....oh, energy for lack of a better word.;)

I still have this whole 'chicken or the egg' question in my head about the 'energy' aspects and when the idea of 'qi' as energy came about. Is it said differently when meaning 'breath' or 'energy'?

why would it show up in swordplay first?


***
Everyone, know that I'm not knocking anyones attempt at enlightenment by any process.
More power to 'em. I figure enlightenment will hit me doing what I do and being who I am or it won't. :p

***

Fu Pow, de nada, it was some good shiat.

***

RoT: That's just an example of a bad coach. As a coach, or teacher, you should still try to help each athlete/student reach the goals they won't. Some people who want to fight might end up being the underdog in every fight they get in. If they keep coming back then the coach should keep training them. But, the environment has to be a...nurturing one (ya'll shuddup: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nurture )

I'll keep teaching/coaching anyone who has the desire no matter what their real ability...but at the same time keeping them realistic about their abilities.

[SevenStar]

I was talking about schools that almost always only win, and are expected to win, or schools where the opponent is so far outclass you'd be embarassed to lose. So shure the coach might not kick you off, but youll be so embarassed you won't want to come back if you lose sometimes. I knew a girl who didn't come back to train cause she lsot the fight and the coach was always so hard on ehr, yelling at her/etc. expecting her to be a female (the only female in the class) champion.


there is a saying that you cannon judge the heart of a fighter until his first loss. If after you lose you are too embarrassed to return to your school, then you were never a fighter in the first place. It shows that you lack heart. You are a coward who ran away from a defeat. A true fighter would be motivated by the loss - he would be driven to train even harder.

The girl in question may have had an abusive coach - not all coaches are good. Or, she may have just cracked under all the pressure that was on her - I don't know her, so I can't tell. Heck, she may not have really wanted to fight in the first place.

[Oso]

I agree with Sevenstar...but I wonder if that perspective (of pure 'mo' as art) perhaps comes from people who have competed and practiced at a physical endeavor outside of the CMA world.

I think even if you take two people, same body type (weight, height), same style, same technique, same level of ability and have them both demonstrate the technique you would still see two different things because the art of what we do is demonstrated by how we feel about the movement.

I've said this before but I think martial artists of all persuasions need to read and watch some Martha Graham


There is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening, that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique.


Practice means to perform, over and over again in the face of all obstacles, some act of vision, of faith, of desire. Practice is a means of inviting the perfection desired.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/martha_graham.html

[PangQuan]

I think even if you take two people, same body type (weight, height), same style, same technique, same level of ability and have them both demonstrate the technique you would still see two different things because the art of what we do is demonstrated by how we feel about the movement.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" so to speak.

My sifu puts a definate emphasis on this matter.

"this is how I do it" he'll say when demonstrating some movements in the forms. Then he will show you one or two of the applications for the movement. The rest is left up to the artist to interperate from there.

[Fu-Pow]

This is completely relative to whom you ask. I for example, see plenty of "art" in mo. Is it just fighting? sure it is. But how many different ways is there of expressing a fighting style? you have people in the exact same system that choose to use totally different techniques, which makes them totally different fighters. This expression is indeed art.

Any fighter who steps into a ring can tell you that you have to have spirit to fight. Developing that fighting spirit is a byproduct of proper training. That is by no means inherent only to cma. Also, there is PLENTY of intellect involved. fighters don't just go in and slug it out. The successful ones have a plan and can think on their feet quick enough to alter that plan if need be.



In the street, if you survived, you are a winner. In the ring, a 'w' is a 'w', so yes.



Or lack of desire for them. For example, I have no desire to gan spirituality from ma... I have church for that.


Sounds like you've got whatever you're doing all worked out. Let me put it this way.....my way of thinking about it works for me and your way works for you. Carry on.

[GeneChing]

Qi as in 'breath' or 'Qi' as in....oh, energy for lack of a better word. According to my dictionary, qi has six definitions: air, gas, breath, smell, airs/manners, & spirit.


I still have this whole 'chicken or the egg' question in my head about the 'energy' aspects and when the idea of 'qi' as energy came about. Is it said differently when meaning 'breath' or 'energy'? Same character. It's actually the same in our language roots too - the root 'spir' is in 'spirit' and 'respire' because the ancients all beleived the spirit resides in the breath. It's like 'inspiration' which can mean to 'breath in' or 'exaltation'


why would i t show up in swordplay first? Hell if I know, but that's the what the written record shows...

Sevenstar:
For example, I have no desire to gan spirituality from ma... I have church for that. If your spirituality stays in church, you have no spirituality. Just like if you can only fight well in your school, but not in the street, you can't really fight. I search for spiritual growth in every aspect of my life, my home, my work, my practice, and my play. To do any less is to cheat yourself of life's greatest bounty.

[Oso]

Judo was never a tma, unless you consider belts and gis implication of tma.


you missed my point.

Jujitsu was a TMA

Kano turned it into a Modern Martial Art (MMA :eek: )

[SevenStar]

Sevenstar: If your spirituality stays in church, you have no spirituality. Just like if you can only fight well in your school, but not in the street, you can't really fight. I search for spiritual growth in every aspect of my life, my home, my work, my practice, and my play. To do any less is to cheat yourself of life's greatest bounty.

that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I don't have to learn it in my MA. that time is better spent training. Naturally, it will (or should) carry with you everywhere, but that's not a necessary function of MA. There are people - some on this board - who have said that without spirituality, there is no MA, and that is why some don't consider martial sports as martial arts. This, IMO, is untrue.

[GeneChing]

I hear ya, man. That's the problem when you bring spirituality into the equation - it creates paradox and that jams the minds of the orthodox. Part of me concurs with you - surely you can have a martial practice without spirituality. There's nothing spiritual about military skills; that's just how to how to kill someone. At the same time, if you truly beleive in the power of martial arts, to practice it without spirituality is like handing a child a loaded gun. To me personally, the most important thing about martial arts isn't the art itself, not art for art's sake - which could be all competition is about - it's what you do with it.

[PangQuan]

"Why would it show up in sword play first?"

Im going to ponder in print here...

I would guess that up until the point a sword was introduced into chinese culture, primary weapons were, sticks and spears and hands and bows.

if you look at those weapons compared to a sword they are some what limited in the variations of movements in which they are quite deadly.

when you are facing another man sword to sword, you must (more so than many other weapons) be able to "feel" his intentions, because the moment you slack, your dead.

I most assuredly understand the deadly applications of earlier concieved weapons as well as hand to hand combat, but we must also remember that combat as whole was not really in an organized state until well after the invention of the sword.

It may have very well been the pressure brought on by such deadly technology that forced men to rethink thier ground and re establish new methods with which to gain an upper hand in the new state of affairs.

Even with modern weapons we must have proper control of our qi (breath) in order to have deadly accuracy...

a perpetual inevitable cylce?

just some random thoughts on this particular subject...

[SifuAbel]

I don't think there are teachers having students do zen ponderings during class. Its a bit overblown. Its more a part of the physical training process than somebody standing there preaching gospel to you.

Contolling pain, anticipating the opponents move, moving with fluidity, etc, are more concrete lessons learned by practice than by absract notions. This, if anywhere, is where the actual "spirit" is in training.

[No_Know]

"The mantra is "You cannot swim if you don't go in the water".

I think there are a lot of traditionalists who haven't dipped their toes in yet and when they do, they will be surprised at how cold that water is."-David Jamieson~

Lifeguards swim, but you see them out of the water. You do Not have to be In the water to be able to swim. It can be true that at least some lack comprehension.

People say do kung fu for self defense. Some might think learn kung-fu to learn how to fight. But to fight so that they do not get beat-up. People look down at Kung-Fu as failure in fighting. The concept was learn to fight so you don't have to fight. With that, Kung-Fu has been about not fighting, either by overcomming or merely keeping you away from risk zones because you were at class instead.

Training fighting instead of kungfu has two arenas, sports and beating people-up.

You go fight. I'll have Kung-Fu.

Kung-Fu is Chinese, if you are not Chinese culturally you might not comprehend Kung-Fu.

You can enjoy and benefit without complete understanding. Hopefully we all can benefit.

I No_Know

[ReignOfTerror]

This is completely relative to whom you ask. I for example, see plenty of "art" in mo. Is it just fighting? sure it is. But how many different ways is there of expressing a fighting style? you have people in the exact same system that choose to use totally different techniques, which makes them totally different fighters. This expression is indeed art.

Any fighter who steps into a ring can tell you that you have to have spirit to fight. Developing that fighting spirit is a byproduct of proper training. That is by no means inherent only to cma. Also, there is PLENTY of intellect involved. fighters don't just go in and slug it out. The successful ones have a plan and can think on their feet quick enough to alter that plan if need be.



In the street, if you survived, you are a winner. In the ring, a 'w' is a 'w', so yes.



Or lack of desire for them. For example, I have no desire to gan spirituality from ma... I have church for that.


so you think Tank Abbot is an artist? do you think the so many mma fighters who go ins winging with haymakers and/or continue beating people whoa re already down ahving to have the referee basically tackle them to get them off the guy artists?

so you think surviving a streetfight is winning? Im willing toi bet 95 percent of people who fight on the street survive.

[ReignOfTerror]

there is a saying that you cannon judge the heart of a fighter until his first loss. If after you lose you are too embarrassed to return to your school, then you were never a fighter in the first place. It shows that you lack heart. You are a coward who ran away from a defeat. A true fighter would be motivated by the loss - he would be driven to train even harder.

The girl in question may have had an abusive coach - not all coaches are good. Or, she may have just cracked under all the pressure that was on her - I don't know her, so I can't tell. Heck, she may not have really wanted to fight in the first place.

that's the thing, in that particular gym there was alot of pressure for everyone to fight and represent and if youd idnt people might look at you as weak or something. Cause people kept asking me and I didnt want to do it so I always had good excuses, and I really dont want to or have desire to do it.

[ReignOfTerror]

you missed my point.

Jujitsu was a TMA

Kano turned it into a Modern Martial Art (MMA :eek: )

jiu jitsu sia different style, and judo isnt a modern mma, not too many people in mma crosstrain in it and the general bjj community laughs at it. Hell there were no if any examples of hip throws being utilized in mma till the last year or two or so.

[ReignOfTerror]

that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I don't have to learn it in my MA. that time is better spent training. Naturally, it will (or should) carry with you everywhere, but that's not a necessary function of MA. There are people - some on this board - who have said that without spirituality, there is no MA, and that is why some don't consider martial sports as martial arts. This, IMO, is untrue.

same thing could be said about conditioning.

[ReignOfTerror]

I think there are a lot of traditionalists who haven't dipped their toes in yet and when they do, they will be surprised at how cold that water is."-David Jamieson~

Lifeguards swim, but you see them out of the water. You do Not have to be In the water to be able to swim. It can be true that at least some lack comprehension.

I kind of agree with this. Some people are just natural fighters. For example a guy one time went into my former gym taking the boxing class and when I sparred him he was harder to fight than the majority of people I was sparring. This is because he was very unpredictable and moved back everytime I tried gettnig close to him thus I couldnt hit him, and was very agressive when i finally did close the gap. And he would punch so often instead of feeling out your opponent like most people do that you couldnt egt a hit on him cause you would be always on defense.

Also there are many boxers who hardly ever spar but hit bags, speedbags, double end bags, etc. but when they do spar they are badass. Or look at por boxers, they only fight few times a year yet show no ring rust.

[ReignOfTerror]

I hear ya, man. That's the problem when you bring spirituality into the equation - it creates paradox and that jams the minds of the orthodox. Part of me concurs with you - surely you can have a martial practice without spirituality. There's nothing spiritual about military skills; that's just how to how to kill someone. At the same time, if you truly beleive in the power of martial arts, to practice it without spirituality is like handing a child a loaded gun. To me personally, the most important thing about martial arts isn't the art itself, not art for art's sake - which could be all competition is about - it's what you do with it.

Sun Lu Tang would disagree with you.

[Oso]

Hi Oso,

Great question. I think Gene made some great points as well.

If we look at military literatures and such things in ancient China, we will find that warfare has always be spiritual in nature from a Chinese perspective. There are a plenty of military manuscripts through out the ages other than Sunzi's text that reflect the spiritual side of military action.

There aren't a lot of study in military history in China these days. If we look closely, we will find a few interesting thing

1) Tang dynasty (618 - 906 CE) bascially is feudal system and ......the same way until the 1500s -1600s where the samurai class rises.

2) Song dynasty (960 - 1279 CE) saw the potential problem of that and ..........Yue and General Yang. These are sometimes known as the "family Troops".

3) Ming dynasty (1368 - 1644 CE) continued and extended the policy ......having the power to keep you alive. It also provides an escape in an otherwise very restrictive system.

I believe much of the blending of Confucian and Daoist ideology showing in Kung Fu especially in South Shaolin arts is bascially because of the Ming dynasty military policy carried on by the rebellion forces during Qing dynasty. We can easily see where the filial piety came from. In a very big way, Kung Fu today is really an extention and reflection of Ming dynasty military art culture IMHO.

Warm regards

Mantis108

missed this...thanks for the details.

I have definitely seen more of the mystical side of the arts in my southern training versus my northern.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

TCMA, more-so than most, was a life-style.. self-defense being a large portion of that style, but not the only focus.. Temples were not exclusively dedicated to producing fighters, they also produced superior people.. I use the term superior not as a distinction separating TCMA from others, but as homage to those that dedicated their lives to the cultivation of an ideal.. Hardcore dedication to developing a singularly devastating fighting method without the balance of a well-rounded lifestyle leads to an imbalance in one’s existence.. I am all too familiar with the mind-set of those that train to the exclusion of all else, I did at one time.. sparring and controlled competitions just didn’t do it for us, we need validation in a real environment.. we took jobs as bouncers, door-men, etc.. basically, we exported violence, we sought it.. and, my spirit suffered, my life suffered.. in my mid-thirties I began a family and everything changed, I knew I didn’t want my kids to be raised by someone that held violence to such a high standard.. oh, and my wife was a bit of an influence, too.. although she tolerated my previous training and my inclinations to test my skills, she was adamant about the responsibility for a new life to have a balanced upbringing.. and I agreed. My kids have trained in martial arts, my son is a world-class fighter, but.. he is a deeply honorable and spiritual being, unwilling to harm without just cause.. his training is as intense as any I have seen, but for him it is a competition with himself, always trying to be better than the person he was the day before..

So, after deciding to review a life spent seeking the next opportunity to “play the game”, I discovered TCMA... it was there that I began to see the value of Wude and transformation of hard fighting skills into a well-rounded art form.. it was there that I connected with Taoist philosophies.. it wasn’t that I didn’t have certain spiritual inclinations previously.. I had just not seen it so well interwoven into fighting arts, resulting in a life-style that feels “right”.. true, it may be more of a maturity thing, but.. being a superior fighter is empty without an ideal worth fighting for.. This world is full of macho-types willing to engage anyone that doesn’t yield to their ego.. hence the current state of world affairs.. and, to be sure, there are “ideals” that themselves are violent and promote instability.. but, in TCMA I found a certain honor and integrity that added value to an otherwise pointless education in the skills of destroying other beings.. self-defense alone is a reasonable goal .. but, contesting who is the best “fighter” has little value except for the ego.. surely, striving for excellence is a valuable goal and a good tool for developing better skills, but.. at some point competition becomes a simple venue for violence.. hence, the value of TCMA, controlled violence with a conscience.. Contests that seek to determine who is the best fighter will continue to deepen and expand violence at levels that become socially counter-productive..

If one’s only goal is to finely hone the skills of fighting, TCMA might not suit them.. if one finds no value in spirituality, it is likely they will find little value in TCMA.. Many proponents of extreme fighting assert the value of being able to handle superior fighters.. but, how often do we encounter highly trained fighters in street situations? Self-defense is more than pure fighting.. it is also strategies that avoid such situations.. it is not show-casing your abilities, but surprising the unsuspecting adversary..

Now, I do agree that TCMA has some issues that need attention.. fraud being one major issue.. and, its willingness to test skills being another.. but, the testing of skills need not be pure violence, we need to focus on the “art” of martial arts as well.. I think society is ready for a culture of Martial Artists that offer role-models rather than brutish “bad-boys”.. with extreme fighting as a role-model, imagine the potential for escalating street violence.. TCMA is an alternative to raw fighting arts, there will always be a venue for the absurdly violent, it is an element of our nature.. but, I find TCMA to be a path around and beyond that mentality, an evolution of the Art.. TCMA preserves a rich tradition while encouraging evolution.. I find great satisfaction in letting TCMA values guide the uses of the other arts I have trained in.. in finding a spiritual connection to a martial journey..

At the end of the day, it is the student’s nature that chooses the path.. Martial skills with a spiritual balance.. or simply a venue for expressing an inherently violent nature..

Be well..

PS: I know this is kind of “sappy”, but in my old-age TCMA has real value.. TCMA is what we make it, and we have a great opportunity ahead of us.. Maybe it should be referred to AFA (American Fighting Arts) with a Chinese Tradition..

[PangQuan]

Well said.

And dont worry, its only "sappy" to those who dont understand what you are saying.

[Oso]

TCB, agreed well said.

One clarification, you seem to be saying that all TCMA was temple oriented. Am I misunderstanding you?

I too was a bouncer for about 7 years between the ages of 23-30. Part of the reason (besides the chicks, of course ;) ) was to have a valid opportunity to test my skills. I didn't seek violence per se. I'm very happy to say that in 7 years I only swung on guys twice and those times were times when I could not control them with chin na or grappling...i.e. softer methods failed due to the severity of the situation. I ended up running the crew after the first year and developed a staff of guys that didn't have the 'punch first, ask questions later' methodology. I fired people if they demonstrated that. I took my job of providing a safe, legal environment for people to have fun in pretty seriously.


I totally agree with the need for a balance in the pursuit of martial skill.

I'm just seeing an imbalance the other direction.


but, contesting who is the best “fighter” has little value except for the ego.. surely, striving for excellence is a valuable goal and a good tool for developing better skills, but.. at some point competition becomes a simple venue for violence..

I see your point and there are certainly people out there who are doing that but that is not my goal nor one I propagate in my students....I'm just short of words to describe exactly how I feel. :( It's different then that for me, it's not just being able to beat the crap out of someone...I've never beaten the crap out of anyone in my life.

[David Jamieson]

let's take a look at the warrior/scholar/monk thing that fu mentioned.

How many of us here had a genuine warrior/scholar/monk as a teacher?
How many of us here are warriors or scholar/monks?

How many people who train in MA in general fit this description?

How many buddhist temples exist that propogate the full course of Kungfu in this modern world we live in? Besides Shaolin, which as we have been shown again and again by various roving correspondents isn't exactly what we had in our minds.

In order to transform ones martial ability from technique to alive and effective one has to kill the master it seems these days. My experiences over the last few years have revealed a couple of important things to me about the nature of martial practice and the nature of myself as a practitioner. One of the surprising things was in the beginning that the amount of time required to gain proficiency is not some drawn out timeline consumed with inward reflection.

It is hard practice of effective methods that will get you there and get you there in a comparably short timeline compared to the old "it takes 10 years to master such and such".

I have seriously met guys with less than 1 year in with sportive combative arts that have a far better understanding of the meat and potatoes of combat than same time in people I've met who are just finishing up their first or second form in a system, have had no mat time, don't do a lot of resistance training and tend to be wrapped up in the mystical aspect.

I've spent my time getting form down and working all the "art" I've learned over the years and frankly, I find that there is too large a portion of it that is not exactly what I would call practical or effective in any venue. That might lead some of you to say "well you had a crappy teacher" or were studying in a mcdojo or some such other line of thought, to which I reply, no. My teachers in TMA were all high level proficiency. Only one of them had peeps in organized tournaments and none of them stepped out of the box when it came to modern martial arts and all of them had a view of it that it was barabarian and not in keeping with the path of the Kungfu person, the Karateka, or the sportist fighter.

The more people I cross hands with that have adopted some of the methods of mma and worked them into their own curriculums the more I understand that perhaps this was actually the return to the gist of the matter in martial arts.

For too long the martial arts had deteriorated into some fortune cookie quoting circus act and now that actuality was creeping back into things, I honestly think this is where the teardrops started for so many. They found themselves doing antiquated things that hadn't been proven in generations and came from a time when the whole idea of combat was different in a cultural sense (mostly) and had an ethics and morals system attached to it to prevent its students from actually using it except in the most dire of situations. To not test and test with some frequency the effectiveness of ones practice is in my opinion a huge downfall. Closed system testing is not too effective either. In order to hone your skills, you must put the blade to the stone so to speak. That is Kungfu, not the whole idea that because you read a sutra, sit and meditate and then play a little push hands makes you some sort of idealistic human according to stories you have either propogated in your own mind or that you have had confirmed by the like minded.

Zen shows us that pain is perhaps one of the most effective methods of getting knowledge. It is brilliantly real. So real it can't be denied, there is no question about whether it hurts or not, pain is. Bitter, is the analogy here. No sweat, no blood, no tears, no pain, no tiredness = no kungfu in my opinion.

[MasterKiller]

The more people I cross hands with that have adopted some of the methods of mma and worked them into their own curriculums the more I understand that perhaps this was actually the return to the gist of the matter in martial arts.

I have to say that the last 3 months of pretty serious MMA training has made my kung fu leaps and bounds above what it was, and I wasn't that bad to begin with. Not because the techniques are better, but because the training format gives me more opportunity to test them.

Not to mention I dropped 10 lbs and am now hovering around 166 lbs.

[Oso]

this was actually the return to the gist of the matter in martial arts.

right. I have a hard time with the theory that mysticism/philosophy was there from the beginning...you had to survive the raid from the village in the next valley over before you could ponder whether it was ok to kill to keep your wife or daughter...or even to just keep the food you had grown.



I have to say that the last 3 months of pretty serious MMA training has made my kung fu leaps and bounds above what it was, and I wasn't that bad to begin with. Not because the techniques are better, but because the training format gives me more opportunity to test them.

which supports the idea that its' the training, not the style....as has been said over and over before.



I'll never give up CMA...I'll cross train and encourage my students to do so with me or even on their own...I've a kid who's going to college this fall and of all the schools in the area he's going to, I'm promoting the bbj/mt school. of course, that way I can hopefully keep him as a kung fu student and hopefully he'll come back with some whup ass for me.

[mantis108]

Hi Oso and All,

No problem. :) Hope you find it useful. I think we are getting to a point pretty much like arguing whether Church and State should seperate.

I have shared the following on the KFM Wing Chun board. I would like to share it here as well:


Traditional Kung Fu regardless of styles IMHO is without a doubt mystic discipline. It is not that different from Yoga of the Hindu tradition. Both have union of the mind-body continuum with the space-time continuum as the under lying lesson. The difference is that Yoga is coming from a Vedic perspective; while Kung Fu often takes up I Ching perspective.It is of note that I Ching is also about unification just like modern scientists who are working on the string theory trying to tie (pun intended) all things together. Chinese mystics (ie Sun Lutang) have long been the poineers of that idea. The models that they came up with are all collected under the I Ching study. In I Ching, there is a "Holy Trinity" as well. No, it is not Heaven, Earth, and Human although that's common knowledge to most. The core (trinity) is Mathematics (Shu), Principles (Li), and Phenomena (Xiang). That's the inner knowledge which is applied to all things including pugilism. This makes pugilism not just a casual and careless plight but premeditated and profound enterprise. The most important of all is that the mathematics properties will matches the principles as well as the phenomena under the scrutiny of I Ching. There is such a thing as anatomy (shu/mathematics) which is applied to pugilism (li/principles) and then to physical conflict (xiang/phenomena) from I Ching prespective. Personally, I would not discount so readily thousands of years (at least 5,000) of inner knowledge that makes the Chinese one of the most successful races or nations ever lived on the face of earth.

Having said that Wushu doesn't necessarily equal to Kung Fu. Wushu (modern or otherwise) don't have to stand up to the scrutiny of I Ching and they don't need to have a spiritual component at all. Personally, if we talk about Kung Fu, then we need to well define it and distinguish it. So today, Shaolin Wushu is just about anything including modern Wushu and no need for it to stand up to any sort of spiritual scrutiny. But Shaolin Kung Fu on the other hand upholds the tradition of Ch'an (if there is such a tradition from a Buddhist POV). Many people say Ch'an this and Ch'an that but who have really take note about the major transformation of it by the 6th Patriarchate Hui Neng? He's the one that really opens up the door for Ch'an to be fully blend with Chinese mind including the I Ching worldview since Tang dynasty [re: his most famous poem]. BTW, he brought it to the south too. Without him, there would be no distinct entity which we call Shaolin Kung Fu today. We will still pretty much be doing Wushu or just fighting like Conan the Barbarian. ;) Just not much of sense in having a life devouted to becoming a benevolent and fully functional human being via martial dicipline that is mystical in nature these days right? Is it or is it not? I would love to be able to fight (any form of) out of my own terms and my own chosing not being dictacted by fear or pressure.

Warm regards

Mantis108

PS Thank you, Mickey for the support. :D

[Fu-Pow]

being a superior fighter is empty without an ideal worth fighting for..

Beautifully put. :D

[Fu-Pow]

let's take a look at the warrior/scholar/monk thing that fu mentioned.

How many of us here had a genuine warrior/scholar/monk as a teacher?
How many of us here are warriors or scholar/monks?

How many people who train in MA in general fit this description?

Mun, Mo, Sun is an ideal, not something that is necessarily achievable.



I have seriously met guys with less than 1 year in with sportive combative arts that have a far better understanding of the meat and potatoes of combat than same time in people I've met who are just finishing up their first or second form in a system, have had no mat time, don't do a lot of resistance training and tend to be wrapped up in the mystical aspect.

That's because there is too much emphasis on Tao Lu, rather than Xing, Jin and San Shou. Tao Lu has value but it is only one part of the equation.

[DoGcHoW108]

The problem with traditional CMA?

Well, in my opinion, too many people talking about a problem and not fixing it. If, for example, the Shaolin you learn seems lacking in application (assuming thats what you want in a MA), you learned, say, Xiao Hong quan but your teacher didnt bother to teach you apps, mix it woth something or use some imagination. You might be amazed how much you discover on your own or with a few partners. CMA, just like any MA, were not handed down to us from the gods, people made them up.

The fight-compliant nature of a MA was brought about by human practitioners just as it has more recently been made devoid of it. CMA is not an entity, it is a concept. the entity of CMA is the people who practice it, and as an entity it wont go anywhere unless people start putting their money where their mouth is. If you abandon the MA you want to learn because some jock with a buzzcut told you something else is better, that is lack of character on your part, not the MA you were practicing.

sorry if i sound a bit ****y, but man i just cant believe how much garbage is said on this subject by both parties.

Anyhoo, my 2 cents

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Somehow i sense that there is a feeling that MA and philosophy are exclusive to one another.. they are not. As in all things, there is an unhealthy imbalance when one or the other is radically favored.. There is Martial Art, and there is methodical violence.. Art, being the difference..

They found themselves doing antiquated things that hadn't been proven in generations and came from a time when the whole idea of combat was different in a cultural sense (mostly) and had an ethics and morals system attached to it to prevent its students from actually using it except in the most dire of situations. This is a description of TCMA, "Traditional"..part of its purpose is exactly "to prevent its students from actually using it except in the most dire of situations".. casual use of real and deadly harm should be discouraged.. As a traditional art form, i approve of preserving TCMA.. i also approve of using currently practical methods of enhancing self-defense goals.. cross-training is a beneficial supplement to a comprehensive self-defense system.. but, i am also of the opinion that in all things, a harmonious spiritual philosophy will balance the potential for aggressive violence..

Oso:
I'm just short of words to describe exactly how I feel. It's different then that for me, it's not just being able to beat the crap out of someone...I've never beaten the crap out of anyone in my life. Likewise, i know what you mean.. i have competed in some very brutal formats, but never have i used unnecessary force to prevail.. i have engaged in street situations and never have i left an oponent without an honorable exit option.. and, in agreement with David J., i am equally certain of the educational value of "pain".. losses at the extreme level of competition are usually quite "educational".. heck, even wins are "educational"..

Violence should not be elevated as an art form, it is a social plague.. Martial Arts should be the civilized response to uncivilized violence.. without a philosophy or code of ethics that promotes harmony, MA becomes just methodical violence.. MA purists often insist that MA/CMA needs no values, philosophies, or codes of ethics to be an effective fighting system, and i agree.. but, few would disagree that the doctrine of "survival of the fittest" leaves only one man standing, the new "target".. Philosophies and codes of ethics are for the benefit of all, including the players.. it is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.. Ultimately, what benefit is there to being the "baddest man alive"? money? ego? looking over your shoulder for the next guy that wants that title?... or, for the unlikely event that you may get to use those skills for real self-defense? i am in complete agreement with developing practical self-defense skills.. but i have seen success mutate into boastful egocentric aggressiveness, a quality not consistent with TCMA or social stability..

As far as realistically concluding a conflict, i have not seen any practical applications from TCMA schools i am familiar with.. techniques end up with instructions like, "then you can do this, or this, or this with no resistance and "floppy" examples of "this"... with no actual subdue and immobilization training.. more focus on decisive conclusions, less on elaborate options.. Like in sparring, when the oponent goes down or signals defeat, step in and carefully continue to demonstrate the concluding techniques.. (including dialing 911 if the situation warrants it).. like after the tap-out, release some of the pressure and set up a safe exit.. i know several people (including me in certain situations) that carry the plastic "cuff-straps" in their hip pockets.. In today's society, with today's technology and the evolution of MA, sending your students out with only forms as self-defense should be a criminal offence..

TCMA was not conceived with MMA or Muay Thai or Kali/Escrima as comparisons.. it was a cultural competition of styles within a largely closed society.. it evolved into a beautiful and practical art-form.. but, it never expected Tito, or Shamrock, or even Bruce Lee.. there is no issue with enhancing TCMA, but certainly there is an issue with losing this link to the past..

Be well..

[red5angel]

I think the problem with Traditional CMA is two fold, it's traditional, and it's full of Traditional CMA'ists. ;)

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


If you abandon the MA you want to learn because some jock with a buzzcut told you something else is better, that is lack of character on your part, not the MA you were practicing. Precisely.. you may want to supplement your art, but most well established arts have merit.. and, much of the merit is manifested in the depth of training and dedication..

Be well..

[WinterPalm]

The charlatans of any art will reflect badly upon the whole spectrum, but that doesn't mean all CMA have these problems.
Many people who move away from their teachings, or claim the validity of what they were taught is limited, and those who do this that actually become great fighters, art denying what they were taught. CMA is a vehicle for transmission of ideals across the generations and contains within it many different techniques, exercises, etc that work for a person or do not. However, in order to teach the next person, it would seem necessary to have more techniques than just the ones that work for you, wouldn't it?

My Sifu tells me time and again that what works for him might not work for me and vice versa. This is why there is such a spectrum of techniques in any CMA.

Two major problems I see in CMA are as follows:

The Spiritual element is sometimes seen as often the only way or the best way for the means of achieving skill or enlightenment. Why should one pursue a combat study in order to cultivate enlightenment if that does not apply to them? Spiritual beliefs and ideals are what prevents one from using what they are taught to bolster their ego or to belittle others. At the core, your Sifu may be moslem, christian, or buddhist or taoist, but in the end those core lessons of being a decent person, cultivating positivity and virtue are integral to a study which consists of learning how to hurt and kill people. Why would one want to learn all this to actually hurt someone. I feel secure in what I am being taught and in what my Sifu can and does do. But that doesn't mean I am invincible, no, heck if anything were to happen to me I would try my best to give 100% to defend mysefl, nothing less and nothing more. Conversely, I am not going to try and purposely hurt someone or prove my worth by stepping up to every challenge offered. I am a citizen of a modern nation and combat has been proven to be barbaric year after year, we see the pictures, we have friends and family dying for combat. It is useless, but to not prepare yourself would be unwise.

The second point is in relation to the development of closed-door training, advanced curriculum, senior students, black sashes, etc. This labeling has allowed for many to seize it with the ideas that they are great! Ego of so many practioners gets in the way. Do I think these components should be gotten rid of? No, never. They only add to the system by requiring people to achieve ranks and levels of skill they never even knew existed but what I feel these labels do is force us, as students, to accept our humility and to force our character to accept it without growing too swollen. This to me is a character development that puts stress on the student to not develop an overinflated ego. Not sure if this was the intent but it seems to keep those that are prone to become egomaniacs out of the way. I can't imagine being a Sifu, imagine the mental discipline to not believe day in and day out that you aren't a champ? Especially when we see the skills and abilities that many have developed.

To sum this up I feel the problem is the student mentality and the lack of respect and paying of dues as time goes on. We are all only too eager to accept lessons and gain skill but once we come to a wall that stares blankly in a manner we do not understand, we move on complaining that the other stuff was no good or only had limited value never considering that it made us who we are. It is what and who you are as a student that makes or breaks a martail art. I think this is why many arts have died... where have all the good students gone??

[mantis108]

In an ideal world, there is no need for a Kung Fu revival by means of Bruce Lee's JKD. Furthermore there is no need to have a dispute between Original JKD and JKD Concept being the "one" true and pure form of JKD. But such is Men's affair and the reality of CMA.

Perhaps entity is not a good word. As far as I am concern Kung Fu is a process that is quantifiable and measureable. It can be standardized and expressed by any practitioner regardless of physical attributes (weight, height, race, etc...), That to me makes it an entity. I don't want to sound like an elitist or something but this is why traditional systems have manuscripts, forms, applications and even specialty training (so-called Kung/Gong) to safe guard the systems. These are the stuff that Bruce Lee thought was a good idea to discard with. However, the same dispute happens and where exactly is JKD going? Surely anyone can go through the same process that he did and reinvent the wheel but then don't mock tradition teaching just because it wasn't readily available. BTW, he has his own brand of spirituality mixed in there as well. XMA and Modern Wushu has plenty of forms too and they can create application for them for all they want. Yet, they are still hollow and devoid of meaning because they have strayed far away from the guidence of tradition.

All I am saying is when it comes to Kung Fu, indepth study and guidance of capable teacher(s) is a must; otherwise, we might end up following the same foot steps of Bruce Lee in reinventing the wheel. It not necessarily a bad thing, just that it's not necessary.

Mantis108

PS In all fairness, it would help a great deal if Bruce Lee finishes what he started. But it properly is Karma ....

[SevenStar]

so you think Tank Abbot is an artist? do you think the so many mma fighters who go ins winging with haymakers and/or continue beating people whoa re already down ahving to have the referee basically tackle them to get them off the guy artists?

Not all art is beautiful. If that is Tank's expression - or his best way of expressing it - then so be it. It has been pretty successful for him. Regardless, that expression is not for me to judge. we each have our own style.




so you think surviving a streetfight is winning? Im willing toi bet 95 percent of people who fight on the street survive.

Then they all won - they are around to fight - or not fight - another day. they may have gotten effed up, but they will live. They aren't pro fighters - they have no win loss records, so the concept of "win and lose" is irrelevant.

[SevenStar]

I hear ya, man. That's the problem when you bring spirituality into the equation - it creates paradox and that jams the minds of the orthodox. Part of me concurs with you - surely you can have a martial practice without spirituality. There's nothing spiritual about military skills; that's just how to how to kill someone. At the same time, if you truly beleive in the power of martial arts, to practice it without spirituality is like handing a child a loaded gun. To me personally, the most important thing about martial arts isn't the art itself, not art for art's sake - which could be all competition is about - it's what you do with it.


but does what you do with it have to be spiritual? Even outside of the context of competition - let's say my ultimate goal is to teach... granted, when you teach, you put your soul into it - you do the same when you compete. But is that still the same spirituality?

[SevenStar]

Self-defense is more than pure fighting.. it is also strategies that avoid such situations.. it is not show-casing your abilities, but surprising the unsuspecting adversary..

that is true. And that is not unique to tcma.



At the end of the day, it is the student’s nature that chooses the path.. Martial skills with a spiritual balance.. or simply a venue for expressing an inherently violent nature..

not necessarily. favoring competition does not qualify one's personality as inherently violent.



being a superior fighter is empty without an ideal worth fighting for..

the ideal is bettering yourself. If you are going to be superior, you have to continually strive for it, or you will fail.

[GeneChing]

I've been enjoying this thread - it's quite thought-provoking.

In response to Sevenstar - For me personally, whenever you use the word "art" there is an implication of spirituality. Perhaps I read too much into it, because that isn't overt in the dictionary definition, but for the sake of making my point here, let's overlook that. Now the word 'martial arts' has entered the common vernacular as a broad term referring to any fighting skill, from performance wushu to military killing tactics. I can't think of another usage of the word 'art' that is like this; for example when we say 'culinary art', we are refering to something a bit higher than home cooking. Since that distinction doesn't exist for martial arts, perhaps this is the cruz of this whole thread. Some of us are defining it as high art - and that's rare, even in Rennaissance periods. Others are using it as a generic term for all fighting arts, thus Cardio-kickboxing is a martial art. So the answer to your question lies in where you draw your lines. For me personally, I certainly hold the philosophy that martial arts can be practiced devoid of spirituality (although, just to muddle things, I would also say that going to church can be devoid of spirituality too.) But then, this is under the parameters of the second pop vernacular definition, not by 'artistic' standards.
Dang, can I waffle or what? I should have gone into politics....

As for Pangquan's comments on why qi is connected with sword before empty hand fighting, well, my feeling is it's Freudian. ;)

[David Jamieson]

I think ideals are swell and all, but practically speaking, they are a fools game.
We don't live in an ideal world, we certainly don't have an ideal culture and teh state of martial arts is less than ideal.

For me, a lot of anything has to do with objective. Afterall, it's in keeping with Zen to have purpose in motion and intent in stillness.

Not really about "kungfu" so much as it is about classicist and antiquated methods, thinking and driving forces behind a practice.

If one lives in this time and wants a better way to achieve the goal they have set, then there are options to do this. In the traditionalist quagmire of method and training, the whole concept gets fuzzy in the trappings and bindings of crud that have built up around the method over the years. The baggage of former generations being laid squarely on the new.

The idea of extending filial piety rules into the mix even though you only have 4 or 6 hours worth of class a week. That is fairly ridiculous, especially in a western culture sense and also in the context of all these people who establish these structures based on what they think it might have been like 100 years ago in their kungfu fantasy. I mean come on, How many guys are out there who can't speak a lick of chinese language, know very little of the history and yet insist on hanging banners everywhere in chinese, wearing chinese robes, or worse, buddhist robes, and propogate methods claiming they are fighting methods but clearly, they are pretty much useless practically and tactically.

I have found huge chunks of the martial arts I learned in "traditional" environments to be wholly useless in a live setting training in realistic scenarios. It's not because I don't understand the techniques, it's not because I haven't practiced them, it's because they are antique. It will still work under ideal conditions, but it doesn't hold water otherwise.

There was some good in a lot of it. But overall, I get more out of my martial training now than ever before simply because of the addition of aliveness to training and testing of technique as opposed to just supposing it should work.

Where I got my kungfu lessons from formerly there was sparring, but it was metered and monitored and highly controlled. We didn't pay a lot of attention to working athletically and efficiently in that sense. There was little force feedback work and most of the focus was form. This whole structure collapsed under the pressure of serious practicality when it came down to it. The same goes for the Karate and TKD lessons I got although the tkd did have more emphasis on getting in the ring, I found it ultimately to be training to fit the tkd venue and not the realities of modern livin in the big city.

There are components that are missing in martial arts schools that they really need to step up and look at. The reason traditional martial arts are getting dominated by mma in pretty much every venue is because they have in many ways lost focus of what teh purpose of martial art is and have in many respects turned what was once useful and practical into an antique that is quietly gathering dust and rusting. Nice to haul out and show your friends. Even has value to some who would be willing to bid on it and in fact might even have some function after all these years, but, from a combat perspective, there are far better mechanisms and methods available in my opinion.

Kungfu schools need to on the whole get their collective sh1t together and get into the times. You can have the antique and the modern in the same garage and get value from both. If you don't upgrade your equipment and skills, you won't be able to keep pace into the times ahead.

[David Jamieson]

Oh, and the face games are seriously hurting the ability of traditional martial arts to progress forward. Singularly one of the biggest barriers to the collective development of TMA is the face games.

[rogue]

I have found huge chunks of the martial arts I learned in "traditional" environments to be wholly useless in a live setting training in realistic scenarios. It's not because I don't understand the techniques, it's not because I haven't practiced them, it's because they are antique. It will still work under ideal conditions, but it doesn't hold water otherwise.
KL, I'm not being a smart ass but how do you mean antique and what kind of ideal conditions did they have back then that we don't have now? What kind of realistic scenerios are you talking about?

[SPJ]

This is an excellent thread. Many critical issues are mentioned.

1. Mysticism. I tried to put science, physiology, anatomy, kinetics, into explaining how, why, when where, what make things work into the practice and theory.

I checked and checked bios and references to siphon out records and oral legends.

All these are in notes. Basically I demystify the myths in the styles I practice.

2. Functionality and forms. Forms are dissected in and out in each move or posture. Meaning taking them apart bits by bits and placing them back. Analysis and analysis, hand, eye, body, mind/intent, steps or Shou Yen Shen Fa Bu. etc. Why and how again. Would it work on what conditions. From cooperative to resistend training partners. Take the notes and drill over again. What if the opponent counter or move this way and that way what is the counter counter move. Feed back from sparring and take the notes and analysis. So you have a real understanding of what if then what. The practitioner make the arts alive or gives live to the arts. Forms, theories and methods are dead. We breathe air and life into them.

3. Close door policy or exclusiveness. If some style or school of MA does not take students openly and does not want to an open dissemination or discussion of their fighting methods. Well, you have to figure a way to "open" the door and get in.

My point is that for our own sake and the future gen, it is entirely up to us, to correct these deficiencies and bring everything open to the public if we could.

The most open styles are usually most popular styles, survive the longest, attrack more talents to propagate and advance their styles such as Mantis, Ba Gua, Tai Chi, etc etc.

Everything starts from within us to correct the without in the arts.

:D :)

[SifuAbel]

"Whole chunks" is very vague. Can you give us a better example?

And , what mysticism?

[Royal Dragon]

I think part of it is many of the techniques that were recorded in the forms were originally counters to commmon attacks of the day. these types of attacks are not seen much in today's world, and outside of preserving them in the form for the day they are needed again, are not much use today.

The other BIG thing, and one that is comonly mentioned, is modern Kung Fu fails to take the traditional aproach of actually pressure testing the methods in order to refine them into instinct.

It's like doing body work on a car. You can go to the parts store, and get the book and "See" how it's done. You can even try and fix a dent or two on your own car with some succsess, but when the wrecked car comes to the shop, it's the "old timer" with years of actual collision repair experiance who is called to fix it.

[bigdoing]

Seven years ago I was at a psychological crossroads in my life, I had a crushing expericence mentally and I was very much on the border line of flipping out perminate. During that time I had been reading some of the classic chinese philosophical writings...Mencius, Chaung Tsu, Huang Tsu, All the the Te Chings and what not. So they keep talking about tai chi, chi and the likes, I picked up a tai chi tape and book and tried to practice that, I was nervous to try and join a school. So I did that for about a year and my mental and emotioanl state was radically changed.

I had no clue how to use this stuff to fight or as martial art and even though I would look at the aplication pictures in the books and watch the video, I never belived I could do any of it with out trying it out on a real oponent. I knew I had found something that helped change my life. I decided to find a school, I looked and eventually was tured on to Choy Lee Fut.

After practicing all the basics, maybee one year into it, I decided to try and spar with some friends, some took karate, some tkd, some nothing, I sucked, it only took five mintues to find out that I didnt know what the hell I was doing. My teacher just laughed at me when I told him about it. I still enjoyed the practice regime. I was going minium three days a week four hours a class, and for a one year stint while I was out of work I wne four days a week four hours each time.

So after about 3 years at my school (plus one year self taught from a book lol ! plus one year of private lessons in clf) which is a total of five years, finally we get a couple of students who are really into sparring, they had taken mantis fpr a good amount of time, up until that point our school only had about 4 or 5 students at any given time in class and no one was really into the sparring, even the main senior (which is fing stupid)...so after watching those two guys spar and them encouraging me to join in i found out that when I was pressured, even though I was sloppy and still nervous, all the forms and bag work and thought i put into it actully paid off, I was using from my style and doing fine.

My teacher said many times " you like fight, you do, some guy no fight, do the work no the time." "only you fight can make fight better." "do the pole for the health" "kung fu do the keep heart good" the guy the knife take your money, give him" "one time tell bad guy no, two time tell go way, three times tell him, cut his face."

now two years after that and sparring regularly, I am by no means a full contact ultimate street death match fighter, but I can fight, use the motions we traing with (not all of course) and hold my own, as well as get rolled up my share of times as well. Broken ribs stretched tendons and ligements, sprains, wrist, foot inuries all happend in the process, we train pretty good contact, and Its very mentaly and physically rewarding. I have to work a lot on my leg work against shorter opponents, ground workd and a host of other things, but all in all, its MY choice to get better at this.

People have changed, times have changed, but I dont think the arts have changed so much I you find an instructor who wont bull sheet you and lets you know its how you train that makes the difference.

hope this wasnt to boring or what not.

peace
bryan.

[fa_jing]

nice post :)

[rogue]

I think part of it is many of the techniques that were recorded in the forms were originally counters to commmon attacks of the day. these types of attacks are not seen much in today's world, and outside of preserving them in the form for the day they are needed again, are not much use today. I keep hearing this, but which techniques and attacks are not longer encountered? :confused:

[MasterKiller]

I keep hearing this, but which techniques and attacks are not longer encountered? :confused:
Sticking, for one...

[rogue]

Are there no variations of sticking still around? What did sticking counter in the first place and why did it go away?

[ReignOfTerror]

I think part of it is many of the techniques that were recorded in the forms were originally counters to commmon attacks of the day. these types of attacks are not seen much in today's world, and outside of preserving them in the form for the day they are needed again, are not much use today.

The other BIG thing, and one that is comonly mentioned, is modern Kung Fu fails to take the traditional aproach of actually pressure testing the methods in order to refine them into instinct.

It's like doing body work on a car. You can go to the parts store, and get the book and "See" how it's done. You can even try and fix a dent or two on your own car with some succsess, but when the wrecked car comes to the shop, it's the "old timer" with years of actual collision repair experiance who is called to fix it.

what do you mean? so back than people didnt try to sucker punch you with a cross or a hook?

[Ou Ji]

So, if you never practice those (outdated) counters then what happens when you face off with someone who actually uses the moves he trains when he fights? I suspect you'll be in deep doo doo.

I just think it's a matter of peeps not training them to the point where they're workable in a real fight.

"these types of attacks are not seen much in today's world,"

Care to hazard a guess as to why they aren't seen much today? I really don't thinks it's because they don't work. If that were true they would have been discarded long ago.

[Royal Dragon]

ROT,
Maybe not, maybe it was long armed ape swings, or hearty Chin Na's not commonly seen today. Fighting evolves my freind. Heck, even the way the MMA guys fight today is totally different than just 10 years ago.

Different regions had different fighting styles unique to thier regions. So naturally counters were developed for that, and were not seen elsewhere because the common attackes were different else where.

Fighting is like a language, every region has it's own dialect. Today, we try to preserve old dialects because in reality we generally don't need to fight for our own survival anymore. Kung Fu today is an exercise in connecting with our history as humans, not anything we NEED to be humans...anymore...

For example, My honest answer to vertually ALL self defense situations is this --------------> Pepper foam.


It's simple, easy to carry, legal every where, as well as being mean and sidistic stuff that not only fully and effectively neutralises the attacker, it fills the primal need to really hurt the SOB too, yet it is non lethal, and not really very injurious, AND it's seen as a defensive weapon, so the very fact that you "Had" to use it makes the attacker look guilty, which helps you when it all gets to court.

All this other MA stuff is just because we really need some sort of connection to our primal roots for our physical and mental health. We are NO DIFFERENT from our caveman ancestors at all. The only thing is we simply know more stuff now.

We were evolved to deal with a physical word, in a physical way. Today, society has evolved away form what we were originally designed to live in, and that causes a great deal of problems as we are NOT designed to deal with the world we live in. In other words in the last 150 years or so, society has rapidly out evolved our physical beings. Martial arts, of whatever form, fills the void, and helps us by letting us exist in our natural, primal state for a certain amount of time. This keeps us healthy and strong so we can better deal with the unatural world we live in.

And THAT, my young aprentice is why we must beat eachother silly when we are done drilling our basics. :D

[Royal Dragon]

Care to hazard a guess as to why they aren't seen much today? I really don't thinks it's because they don't work. If that were true they would have been discarded long ago.

Reply]
I think it's just people are doing different stuff now. It's a whole big huge, long, drawn out paper sizzors rock game. For a while, rock was the winner becasue it crushed sizzors, till someone started covering with paper. Then Paper ruled all and now sizzors is the shizznits becasue it cuts paper. In time, it will be rock again, because rock crushes sizzor.

This stuff is all really very simple. Don't over think it, you'll miss the boat.

[Royal Dragon]

So, if you never practice those (outdated) counters then what happens when you face off with someone who actually uses the moves he trains when he fights? I suspect you'll be in deep doo doo.

Reply]
Correct. However, the counters are preserved in the forms. If there is sufficent need for them they will return to do the job as originally intended, and the stuff we do now will fall by the wayside untill needed once again.

Remember, it's all just Paper, Sizzors, Rock...with cool uniforms :p

[rogue]

For example, My honest answer to vertually ALL self defense situations is this --------------> Pepper foam. And that is one really bad answer for most of them.

[Royal Dragon]

why?



...........................

[HearWa]

what do you mean? so back than people didnt try to sucker punch you with a cross or a hook?
Well, let's take the wrist releases that are taught so often for example. Why were they so important to learn back then? Because it was common for people to grab your sword hand, giving them time to unsheath their sword and DECAPITATE YOU!!!!

[rogue]

why?
...........................
1. If it's in a purse or pocket it has to be deployed.
2. It can be difficult to operate under stress
3. You can spray yourself or get a back blast if sprayed too close
4. It doesn't incapacitate the attacker. They can still move, still hurt you.
5. The average grade for street use is not very powerful. 2 milliion SHU's and over is good.
6. They expire and can leak, and are seldom replaced.
7. They take 5 to 10 seconds to take effect.
8. It can enrage the attacker.
9. The effective distance is usually shorter than what the manufacturer says.
10. The foam version can easily be scraped off.
11. Size matters. You have to carry a big enough dose of the spray for two attackers. Most people that I've seen like the tiny little ones on a key chain which if they're lucky will be enough for one person.
12. They can give a false sense of security. OK anything can. ;)

A quality spray is good for something but they are not good for everything. Are you training these people that you are suggesting use the foam? Do you show them what it can and can not do?

[Royal Dragon]

1. If it's in a purse or pocket it has to be deployed. ---->Any weapon has this issue

2. It can be difficult to operate under stress---Again, same for most things, Including MA's, unless it's a lifestyle

3. You can spray yourself or get a back blast if sprayed too close--->Possible, but foam helps prevent this.

4. It doesn't incapacitate the attacker. They can still move, still hurt you.---> Never seen someone not severely effected by this. I went down fast, and was too blinded to effective do anything.

5. The average grade for street use is not very powerful. 2 milliion SHU's and over is good.----> so, get the good stuff.

6. They expire and can leak, and are seldom replaced.--->replace them

7. They take 5 to 10 seconds to take effect. --->On me when I got sprayed, it was pretty fast, defently enough to stop anyone quick.

8. It can enrage the attacker.------>LOL, ever get sprayed by this stuff?? Even by accident as i was?

9. The effective distance is usually shorter than what the manufacturer says.----->But far enough

10. The foam version can easily be scraped off.----> I got sprayed by this (As a Joke fo God's sake!!, She didn't believe it did much...at least I got a good apology!!), all that happened is it got rubbed in worse.

11. Size matters. You have to carry a big enough dose of the spray for two attackers. Most people that I've seen like the tiny little ones on a key chain which if they're lucky will be enough for one person.----So, get the big ones!!

12. They can give a false sense of security. OK anything can. ---->Ok, true


A quality spray is good for something but they are not good for everything. Are you training these people that you are suggesting use the foam? Do you show them what it can and can not do?

Reply]
I'm not teaching anyone anything right now, but working on restarting my kid's Kung Fu club. MOST people won't train in anything anyway.

[rogue]

4. It doesn't incapacitate the attacker. They can still move, still hurt you.---> Never seen someone not severely effected by this. I went down fast, and was too blinded to effective do anything. Here's what we found. If you think it will take you down then it will take you down. Anticipation plays a good part in any demonstration. We had one fellow who was convinced it wouldn't stop him and it didn't. He looked a real mess but he was able to fight and able to see enough. And this was some very good non-civilian spray. I caught some civilian grade by standing in the wrong place and it sucked, but I still was able to get inside.


So, get the big ones!! Most people will only carry what is easy to carry. That's just the way people are.


2. It can be difficult to operate under stress---Again, same for most things, Including MA's, unless it's a lifestyle And that's the bottom line. It has to be a lifestyle. Like you said, "MOST people won't train in anything anyway." and while spray may not need the training of a martial art you still need to train with it on somekind of regular schedule.

Let's let this thread get back on track. :)

[ReignOfTerror]

Well, let's take the wrist releases that are taught so often for example. Why were they so important to learn back then? Because it was common for people to grab your sword hand, giving them time to unsheath their sword and DECAPITATE YOU!!!!

I think the double wrist grab is a very effective perhaps most so (against bigger and stronger opponents) way to close the gap into grappling range and set up a throw. A judo person without a gi for example has to grab the other person somehow to throw them, and if their hands are in front of the body blockding the clinch from happening than grabbing the wrists is the only method to bridge this gap for a judo person. You can grab the neck but they can easily push you off if you hold it for more than a second. grabbing the legs can be very abd against a heavy person that you wont be able to lift as well. I think some ving tsun guy made a quote "if he can't grab your arms or wrists what else is there" and I agree with this point.


Maybe not, maybe it was long armed ape swings, or hearty Chin Na's not commonly seen today. Fighting evolves my freind. Heck, even the way the MMA guys fight today is totally different than just 10 years ago.

if that is the case than explain why today in every part of the world people fight and attack the same and explain exactly what date it happened (after the ivnention of the last kung fu system or before?), also explain how haymakers arent similar to long ape swings?

[David Jamieson]

I think it is narrow to assume that mma-ists who use modern methods that are shown to be highly effective tactically are "muscle headed jocks". And to make those statements is more indicative of the issue laying squarely with the persons making the statement.

Why is it that when someone wants to explore the reality of aggression and combat they are labeled? But Martial artists are higher lifeforms? lol. I guess you are higher up in society if you don't practice what you preach as opposed to teh other way around?

as for antique techniques, well, not gonna go into a long list of what is and what is not useful, but i can shorten it up.
There are some stylists that insist on keeping the guard level and not up. That thinking alone is antique. When I say up, I mean cover your head and not standing there with your hands in front of you on your centerline. That guard comes up a lot in traditional ma and is an invitation to get your head taken off quite simply.

I don't even want to go into the array of kicks that are taught that are pretty much tactically useless. But I will say there are some useful kicks suck as push front, shovel, shin round and a couple of others are high percentage compared to say butterfly kicks or tornado kicks or jumping spinning back kicks and so on. These fancy kicks are still taught in many trad martial arts despite the fact they are useless tactically. I guess you could use what you wanty given the time you have, but I'm talking effective vs ineffective in a 1:1 scenario.

classical weapons are antique. they are fun, they develop some wrist strength, they will give you an understanding of the weapon and some of the stuff that maps over to other weapons, but for the most part, they are antiquated and useless. Weapons haven't come forward with any realism at all. Who the heck is gonna whip out a kwan dao? or a broadsword?

baseball bats? probably a good idea to get to work on figuring how to defend against one. knives? for sure. But if a screaming 17th century madman with wind fire wheels ever attacks me, I'll know what to do!

Kungfu can be modern. It can be updated and it behooves the current propogaters of the tma to do so. Get rid of the old traditionalist thinking for one minute and take a look at what you really have in your hand. It is something that need constant care and polishing, not to be dragged out and shown to wide eyed people who don't know a hook from a cross.

If TMA can't make a place for itself in the world of modern combatives, then it had best start considering relegation to cultural dance centers.

I mean, where do you think a lot of the goodness that is mma comes from in the first place?

[SPJ]

All routes or paths were taken over 2200 years.

The fencing of straight swords became a dance or pre-arranged drills for entertainments or rituals since the warring states.

Shuai Jiao is a sport since the first Dynasty of Qin 2200 years ago.

Chan and Yi Jing Jing or exercise started in Shaolin over 1400 years ago.

Qi Gong and theory of Qi and Dan Tian rooted in Daoist practices to remain healthy and live longer. Ba Duan Jing popular since Song Dynasty.

---

If you want to use some stuffs from CMA in MMA or UFC, go ahead. There are 2 ways. One is that the MMA fighters pick up some techniques from CMA and use them in the ring. The other is that CMA practitioners enter the ring following the rules and change their practices to fit the rules.

There are many formats, routes or paths to use the knowledge and practices of CMA. The MMA, UFC, Lei Tai, Kuoshu, San Shou are some of many "formats".

What is popular will come and ago with the practitioners winning the formats. The rule changes so will the methods or styles of fighting. So now are MT and BJJ. Tommorrow may be something else.

The most popular Kung Fu is Wing Chun. The widest practiced physical activity is Tai Chi. TKD and karate schools are in every corner. MT or kickboxing is in fitness gyms and Tae Bo, too. BJJ schools are increasing.

Tommorrow what styles we shall see.

And yes, Wushu and TCMA remain for the most part in China, Taiwan, Hongkong, Singapore etc.

What is popular today may not be there tommorrow.

What is the direction of the wind today? We shall set sail.

And yet what is your goal or destination?

Your goal will determine where you will be going in the end. The formats, popular trend etc are winds to change course to move forward and yet you will arrive at where you want to go in the end.

If you want to fight, fight and take whatever work for you TCMA or BJJ or whatever.

If you want to be healthier and fitter, then practice your Qi Gong set, Shaolin Yi Jing Jing, Ba Duan Jing, Dao Yin, Da Yan, or whatever.

If you want to wield some swordplay, wield away or sway away for balance, coordination etc. Swordplay actually will help you fight, too. If it helps UFC or MMA fights, if that is important to you, I dunno.

If you want to practice staff (Gun Shu), then swing away. If it helps UFC or MMA, oops, there are no weapon comps in them--

:D

[No_Know]

Kung-Fu usually had, don't mention. Recent and perhaps today, hey I take Kung-Fu! Before no mention until mastered or the such. Recent and today~ talk after first lesson(s). Comparitively, the skill level therefore, execution timing and level might be different. Perhaps people shouldn't look at their kicks while in a cocoon or caterpilar stage. Perhaps they should acknowledge them only After they have butterfly~(stage~) kicks.

You are talking 1:1 scenario. But Kung-Fu might have always been mindful and form/technique-ful of more than one on you~ at a time. Today is looking at fighting. It seems like desperation tactics, panic stage moves is what's the thing people are big on. Let's study brawling, catfighting, because I'm comming upon a untrained--though not undeveloped (fighter who will do these natural reaction moves). It's only analysis because for real, you get called out for a honor satisfying one on one just to get positiond for a Jump or attack from behind or beside when your back is turned~ turned to the person talking and distracting/luring you.

Kicks are not always about first move contact necessarily. Some might be about locomotion and set-up and move away from simultaneous attacks. While the kick you named, butterfly kicks might not seem a solid hit they could evade upper level attacking and back-up/away those who might try to close. A side foot threatening to clock you on your jaw might give you pause or at least delay you enough that I can get out or deal with the person I've been working with 1:1 to take person out of the equation at least long enough to turn a focus to you...iIt also could provide momentum or spring, for a shove.

Not even looking at your improved condition to do some of these seemingly to you-and-others not tactically practical kicks, you can try to trim a hedge with a lawnmower, but that can be strained and awkward. Try more to use the right tool for the right job.~Match the tool To the job. like keep them back with a tornado kick, or stomp a weakened opponent, someone who got wore down and reacts slower. Or who you positioned to be down with a priming strike .~.

If you master Kwan Dao then have Wind-Fire wheels you might have exceptionally fast hand work which translates to higher perception which means the 103 mph fast ball takes forever to get to the plate and practically seems virtually Still when you make contact. If you take the weapon out of your hands with traditional forms I think it might look like punching and blocking. the weapon and spins/deflections is weight training in application to fighting, not static~ muscle-building but muscle-interaction working. which means as I transition from/to groups the transitions have been strengthened.

If I lift for muscles, the groups are significantly more developed in load-bearing~ capacity. Yet there seemed virtualy little to no attention usually applied to the transition of one group to the others which I might think would stress/tear/strain and damage. This Actual LAck! of muscle development could hurt you in your 1:1. Much more perhaps in the More likely, 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, 10:1...

If you look at the meal before it is fully prepared/cooked Yes~ you might think O fruit! What a mess! But traditionally Kung-Fu would only taste the food and say, needs more salt, let it stew some more/(practice)...not yet, it's on it's way...

If you wouldn't serve the guests undercooked food they would respects to the Chef for a well served meal.


Some might say, some-such perhaps-ish.

I No_Know

[SPJ]

It is really up to you. If you want to fight in the ring event, you will find and take whatever works for you and practice on that.

If TKD is out of the Olympic game, will it still be popular? TKD is popular in Taiwan. MMA and BJJ start to gain popularity in young generation in Taiwan. So 10 years from now, will MMA and BJJ gain over TKD in Taiwan, we shall see.

That was what I meant in the last post.

Granted, if your aim is to fight in the ring, TCMA and weapon drills may be way out of your agenda and practice priority.

So based on your goal, you take some and discard some.

Guan Dao is also called horse chopping broadsword. It was used to chop many people or mainly the horse. And yes, this is nothing to do with MMA or UFC fights. With machine guns and other firearms, you do not have to practice to sway the heavy object.

However, it will be work out for your steps, waist, back, and arms etc. If you have to fight with a long pole or other heavy stuff, then your practice come in handy assuming you do have a gun, and the bad guys do not have guns either.

Along the same reasoning, would you say MMA and BJJ or any ring related skills will cover all fightings in real life? The answer is not either.

Will MMA events influence people to practice what styles of MA? yes, absolutely.

There are thousands of TKD schools, private, the city teams, high school and college teams everywhere in Taiwan!

How many people may sway Guan Dao in Taiwan? Mm -cough- Mm not that many.

:eek:

[Vasquez]

Kung-Fu usually had, don't mention. Recent and perhaps today, hey I take Kung-Fu! Before no mention until mastered or the such. Recent and today~ talk after first lesson(s). Comparitively, the skill level therefore, execution timing and level might be different. Perhaps people shouldn't look at their kicks while in a cocoon or caterpilar stage. Perhaps they should acknowledge them only After they have butterfly~(stage~) kicks.

You are talking 1:1 scenario. But Kung-Fu might have always been mindful and form/technique-ful of more than one on you~ at a time. Today is looking at fighting. It seems like desperation tactics, panic stage moves is what's the thing people are big on. Let's study brawling, catfighting, because I'm comming upon a untrained--though not undeveloped (fighter who will do these natural reaction moves). It's only analysis because for real, you get called out for a honor satisfying one on one just to get positiond for a Jump or attack from behind or beside when your back is turned~ turned to the person talking and distracting/luring you.

Kicks are not always about first move contact necessarily. Some might be about locomotion and set-up and move away from simultaneous attacks. While the kick you named, butterfly kicks might not seem a solid hit they could evade upper level attacking and back-up/away those who might try to close. A side foot threatening to clock you on your jaw might give you pause or at least delay you enough that I can get out or deal with the person I've been working with 1:1 to take person out of the equation at least long enough to turn a focus to you...iIt also could provide momentum or spring, for a shove.

Not even looking at your improved condition to do some of these seemingly to you-and-others not tactically practical kicks, you can try to trim a hedge with a lawnmower, but that can be strained and awkward. Try more to use the right tool for the right job.~Match the tool To the job. like keep them back with a tornado kick, or stomp a weakened opponent, someone who got wore down and reacts slower. Or who you positioned to be down with a priming strike .~.

If you master Kwan Dao then have Wind-Fire wheels you might have exceptionally fast hand work which translates to higher perception which means the 103 mph fast ball takes forever to get to the plate and practically seems virtually Still when you make contact. If you take the weapon out of your hands with traditional forms I think it might look like punching and blocking. the weapon and spins/deflections is weight training in application to fighting, not static~ muscle-building but muscle-interaction working. which means as I transition from/to groups the transitions have been strengthened.

If I lift for muscles, the groups are significantly more developed in load-bearing~ capacity. Yet there seemed virtualy little to no attention usually applied to the transition of one group to the others which I might think would stress/tear/strain and damage. This Actual LAck! of muscle development could hurt you in your 1:1. Much more perhaps in the More likely, 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, 5:1, 6:1, 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, 10:1...

If you look at the meal before it is fully prepared/cooked Yes~ you might think O fruit! What a mess! But traditionally Kung-Fu would only taste the food and say, needs more salt, let it stew some more/(practice)...not yet, it's on it's way...

If you wouldn't serve the guests undercooked food they would respects to the Chef for a well served meal.


Some might say, some-such perhaps-ish.

I No_Know


i agree. most ppl don't know how much a real broad sword weighs. if you can use that properly you can do some serious damage with a crane beak strike or dragon claws - bare hand

[SPJ]

On the political notes:

When TKD came out of south Korea, it was highly promoted in the military, schools and all public venues.

Taiwan has strong diplomatic relationships with ROK at the time.

We still do, the Korean TV soap operas are so popular in Taiwan right now.

:)

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Sometimes i think we may be too insulated from reality in our "fighting" perspectives.. within the MA world we compare skill-sets among various styles, and ultimately judge against the current "Top Dog" in Ultimate or Extreme fighting competitions.. but, in the street, when we need it most, it is unlikely we will be faced with a well trained fighter.. that is not to say that an aggressor might not have street skills, but a well trained plan from most styles will likely even the odds or give someone an advantage in a bare-hand conflict.. of course, weapons change the game!

The majority of students don't intend to be the next NHB champ, they are either looking for a good workout with MA benefits, or a social event with MA benefits.. TCMA, JKD, MMA, BJJ, TKD, whatever.. taught with a clear understanding of its use is better than nothing..

Any school that claims to be a "Martial Art" should include sparring and, if desired, actual fighting in its curriculum as a requirement.. a student that pays for "Martial Arts" training should expect to get martial arts training.. otherwise call it a Cultural Dance School or Traditional Arts School.. but, without experience against an oponent in, at least, a sparring class, there is no "martial" in the art..

It is unreasonable to think that every school trains students to compete at the extreme levels.. but, i think that every school that refers to itself as "martial" should require the student to experience that aspect of the Art..

Be well..

[Ray Pina]

There isn't really a problem in TMA unless you look for one.

The facts of the matter are that there are thousands, maybe millions of TMA out there but they can't use their skills. How do we know this? Ask them to fight.

There is a much, much smaller number of TMA out there that can fight. How do we know that? Ask them to fight.

The problem we are reffering to now is one of the information age. You have more people talking the talk on the internet then walking the walk. Before these folks were the local fool, who trained "black belts" who got beat up in the playground. Today they are authorities on the subject to millions of internet users.

In the end it doesn't matter. Folks will find training that suits their needs and wants and they'll know what they know. On one hand you really don't need this type of training in today's world. On the other there has been nothing more important to me.

[SPJ]

This is in the early 90's.

My brother had a Kuoshu Guang in Pan Qiao, Taipei County, Taiwan.

We had several classes. Tai Chi pushhands, Shuai Jiao, Tai Chi Qin Na, Shaolin Qin Na and Zhao Bao Tai Chi Qi Gong.

Guess what happened. We were overbooked with Qi Gong classes like 10 months ahead.

There was a huge attendance in Tai Chi forms and Qi Gong.

There was almost none in Shuai Jiao, Qin Na or pushhands or any body contact classes.

Guess what we did, we closed the other classes.

So the big question is that where you get your fighters into your school?

Even with the few students in Qin Na, Shuai Jiao and pushhand. Most would drop out in a few classes and some never come back.

With my family moving to the west, the school was closed.

Yes, Shuai Jiao and Qin Na are like Judo, akido and BJJ. You work or train and learn with a live partner from day 1 to day last.

A lot of tumbling on the matt. Not careful enough. A lot of injuries, too.

Ya Ya We have a problem with TMA.

How do you correct?

:D

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


How do you correct? We take a lesson from Aikido.. we teach the students how to fall, how important footwork is.. so little time is spent "concluding" a technique.. Taiji principles are extremely useful in tumbling and neutralizing the Qinna of a takedown.. Injuries are the result of too little training in receiving attacks, unfamiliarity with options correcting a failed technique.. We cannot assume we are immune to attack, recovery from someone else's well executed technique is essential in conflict survival.. we cannot assume that every technique will work every time.. many teachers i have experienced fail to recognize the potential for being in a disadvantageous situation.. to assume that we will always have the upper-hand is unrealistic.. We study in detail the connection of the feet to the ground.. there is much more of the body that can contact the ground, study is appropriate there, as well.. Forms are the beginning of the Taiji experience, a reference point from which we explore the many aspects..

When i am teaching application of technique we "conclude" each one with a tap or a pulled strike to demonstrate efficiency.. i ask all the students to either join in or observe.. if they don't feel comfortable in the contact portion of class, they should look for the Taiji principles.. we start very slow and deliberate, evaluating a technique and the options.. then we gradually increase the speed till we are at 75-85% combat speed.. it usually takes 2 or 3, 30 minute classes to get one technique to a useful point, many more to become comfortable with its use.. this is a slow process of building an arsenal of experiences and options in a semi-combat environment.. those that are inclined play at sparring speed and we have great fun, often defeated by laughter.. either at how simply well something works, or.. at how we can screw-up a simple technique.. either way, it's a good learning environment.. the students often present situations that demand fresh uses of traditional techniques, a great learning situation for the teacher, too..

But, "how do we correct it"? we simply stay focused and flexible.. blend a little application into regular class, osmosis is a great process..

Be well..

[bamboo_ leaf]

(The facts of the matter are that there are thousands, maybe millions of TMA out there but they can't use their skills. How do we know this? Ask them to fight.)

and when one gets shot or knifed because that is how some people fight one will then understand the difference between how some want things to be and how they really are.

The measure of ones effectiveness to me, to be that if one lives to reach old age with a good life ones art has served them well no matter what the art. I know of a number of people that do not fight (in the sportive sense) or spar and yet have defended themselves quite nicely when they had to using taiji. these people would probbly be listed among the millions.

The problem if there is one, seems to me to be one of not knowing the difference between sport and fight, in one sense there is many carry overs, in another they are quite different animals.

[David Jamieson]

I think you could live a very long and fruitful life and never study any martial art ever. So I don't think MA has a role in one's longevity definitively speaking.

secondly, anyone can be shot, stabbed, beat up whatever, doesn't matter what they train.

Getting around to sportiveness. Here's the kicker. Traditional martial arts have consistently done poorly in venues where one has an opportunity to show their martial art in as close to a real fight as it is possible to get without the police getting involved.

It is equally surprising how many TMA folks out their stick to the traditionalist mindset and follow all the antiquated rules that often times do disservice to the reality at hand.

So, while a lot of people like to talk about side effects of traditional martial art, it is a difficult subject to breach when you are talking about the failures of traditional martial art held up against the successes of the much more cut to the quick modern martial arts that we are seeing become an art in their own right as far as martial arts are concerned.

mma glean the very best of the high percentage techniques from many of those same traditional arts and pretty much dump all the rest of the stuff that is ineffective or quite simply, not martial at all.

Can you blame them?

I ask people who are into martial arts, "what is your objective in study of martial art?"

You would be surprised at how many people have as their objective to hone their ability to fight. Many of these people get robbed of that opportunity by spending all their time learning patterns that are not martially applicable for the most part, doing fitness routines they could get at any gym, plus getting a healthy does of moral and ethics according to their teachers world view and so on.

The last one on that list is a big one. It is not acceptable to hammer down a moral and ethics tale in the public school system under strict controls of curriculum, and yet somehow, there are many sensei and sifu who for some reason feel obligated to ensure that their students are ethical and morally fit! Adult students no less, many of which have lived pretty good lives before they even met the person.

Anyway, I've practiced and studied traditional martial arts for a goodly portion of my life and I have come to see that the mechanism is quite broken and needs to be remedied. The filter needs to be reapplied and the masks need to come off and the work needs to get started.

It's been said: "The unexamined life, is not worth living". This is as true of the traditional martial arts as well. They need to be brought forward in method, they need to be brought forward conceptually and they need to be brought into the modern world.

Hopefully Billy Blanks will not be involved in this transistion, cause it's worse when opportunists like him jump into the mix. He's like the retarded bag boy squishing your tomatoes under the box of tide and thinking he's doing a great job for you. (nod to maddox :p)

anyway, keep on keeping on. and remember, Cryptic fortune cookie speak only makes the water muddier and certainly doesn't help the matter any.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

I think it is also a dis-service to simply discard, out of hand, traditional martial arts.. there are hundreds and thousands of years of fighting experiences behind some of these "traditional" styles.. Yet, i agree that there is room for improvement.. Why not preserve the traditions (at the very least a good workout), and incorporate the more pragmatic modern fighting methods..
It is not acceptable to hammer down a moral and ethics tale in the public school system under strict controls of curriculum, and yet somehow, there are many sensei and sifu who for some reason feel obligated to ensure that their students are ethical and morally fit! First, it is indeed acceptable to instill morals and ethics in the public schools, it happens every day.. there are rewards and punishments for behavior characteristics.. in hopes of improving our social condition.. i approve of ethics as a part of martial arts instruction, morals are a bit too subjective.. Religion is a personal matter, not suitable for Martial Arts.. But, the appropriate use of MA through ethics instruction is a value to society.. teaching raw violence without an ethical balance lacks character and is irresponsible.. i wouldn't give my son a weapon without teaching him how to use it appropriately.. including the legalities.. I think we all have a responsibility to contribute to social harmony.. we teach a violent and deadly art.

Be well..

[TenTigers]

All nice posts, all thought-provoking ideas...all missing the mark.

The problem with Traditional Chinese Martial Arts is that..(ready?).......

THEY ARE NOT BEING TAUGHT TRADITIONALLY !!!!!!!

I really have to credit Dixon Fung for this, as it comes from a conversation we had awhile back. Basically, you need to look at history.
In ancient China when kingdom fought kingdom, do you think that they taught forms first, or drills, drills, drills, fighting application,etc?
Fast forward to when China fought Ming vs Ching Dynasty-if you trained your soldiers, would you teach forms firs, or drills,drills,drills, and fighting application?
Fast forward again, Euraopeans invade, China is fighting in the streets, do you teach your men forms first, or drills, drills, drills, and fighting application?
Fast forward again, school fighting school-do you teach your students forms first, or drills, drills, drills and fighting application? (you see a pattern yet?)
Ok, fast forward one more time..to the past 50 or so years..
You are no longer fighting for your lives, you are fighting to promote your schools, and get students and make a nice name for yourself.
Do you teach forms and two man sets, and fancy weapon sets, or do you teach drills, drills, drills, and fighting? The emphasis has changed. People want to learn the next form, the cooler weapon, the super secret fighting technique that they will never use.
TRADITIONALLY, drills were all you learned, drills and fighting. THEN after your body had developed the neuropathways, the skills, power, etc, Then you were taught the form,which was more or less a diploma. Now you had a method to pass on your art to the next generation, but the skills were learned first.
I recently started teaching "backwards"-meaning traditionally-I teach the drills first, application and drills, and pressure testing FIRST. Then I teach the forms. And you know what? The students learn the forms quicker, easier, and with much better form. I show them a move from the form and they say, "Oh! I KNOW this technique. We do it in class!" This is sssoooo much easier than saying "No, your OTHER left foot"
-And they can fight using their Kung-Fu, as opposed to learning kewl forms and fighting with kickboxing. What a concept!

Ray is right-there are traditional schools that are fighting using Kung-Fu. His school(Chan Bond) is one, DF's is another, Alan Lee and Duncan Leong are two others, and I am trying to get there as well-give me time, I'll get there. I still have some more unlearning to do!
David's problem with his learning in a traditional enviornment to be unuseable in a realistic scenerio, might be that what he thought was a traditional enviornment was not traditional at all. A traditional Chinese Martial Arts enviornment is not about ritual,,altars, insence,quoting sutras, etc, but about blood, sweat, and hitting. Period.
What about spirituality? I think that we often mistake the fact that Martial Arts develops the spirit, with quoting sutras, and Tao Te Ching.
Real training develops the human spirit. And this is why I say that the REAL reason why people quit Martial Arts, is NOT because you didn't give them their next belt, or that the technique was too difficult for them to learn, or they got bored, or they have too busy a schedule, or anything else (aside from moving,losing their job, or terminall illness)
But , it is that when you train in Martial Arts, you face yourself, and your weaknesses, all your inadequacies, EVERY DAY .
You look at yourself in the mirror and you see, as well as everyone else, all your faults, all your mistakes, all your weaknesses. We, as Martial Artists, EMBRACE them, grabbing the bull by the horns and struggle to work through them.
My teacher once told me, "It all comes out on the floor" He was referring to sparring. If you are weak, or timid, or scared, or passive, or lose control, or overly confident, it will be right there for you and everyone else to see.
Tak Kubota said, "Karate is training to overcome your greatest opponent-yourself"
This is where your strength will develop. This is how you develop your spirit, your iron will. This knowledge of self. This only comes through facing yourself on a regular basis. This is what Sun Tzu meant by knowing yourself first.
Meditation, will help you connect with yourself, observe yourself, and break through your emotional bonds which prevent you from reaching your true potential.
Philosophy can help you understand yourself, others around you who get lost in the world of materialism, and how we get distracted by clinging to twisted beliefs.
But it is not to get caught up in being Kwai Chang Caine, or Bruce LeRoy.
It is there to help you get through the tempering of the spirit. "To strengthen the steel, you must first put it through fire."
This is TRADITIONAL CHINESE MARTIAL ARTS
. And when done correctly, when done traditionally,
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH TRADITIONAL CHINESE MARTIAL ARTS !!!!!!

[David Jamieson]

Greetings..

I think it is also a dis-service to simply discard, out of hand, traditional martial arts.. there are hundreds and thousands of years of fighting experiences behind some of these "traditional" styles.. Yet, i agree that there is room for improvement.. Why not preserve the traditions (at the very least a good workout), and incorporate the more pragmatic modern fighting methods.. First, it is indeed acceptable to instill morals and ethics in the public schools, it happens every day.. there are rewards and punishments for behavior characteristics.. in hopes of improving our social condition.. i approve of ethics as a part of martial arts instruction, morals are a bit too subjective.. Religion is a personal matter, not suitable for Martial Arts.. But, the appropriate use of MA through ethics instruction is a value to society.. teaching raw violence without an ethical balance lacks character and is irresponsible.. i wouldn't give my son a weapon without teaching him how to use it appropriately.. including the legalities.. I think we all have a responsibility to contribute to social harmony.. we teach a violent and deadly art.

Be well..

First off, I'm not discarding anything out of hand. I have my time in and still put it in daily. I am indicating that there is a problem with the machine as a whole. Hundreds or thousands of years of fighting experience equates to nothing for anyone. One's kungfu is ultimately their own as are their experiences both of conflict and conflict resolution and of peace. Also, If I was learning to shoot a gun (analagously speaking) I wouldn't learn with a black powder rifle that although it works it is quite obsolete.

Lessons in Ethics and morality are strictly guided in the school system where I live, I don't know about where you are and I guess it's different, but the whole topic of ethics is in an overhaul from government to school to family to the general idea of it. Overall, I would say that there is a lot of problems with ethics in society today and I wouldn't think that a martial arts school is the place to begin to make those reparations and renovations. We certainly can readily observe the decline and decay of ethics and morals in our society. But that's a whole other topic, and I still think that the matter at hand should be the matter at hand. teach martial arts that is.

On preservation of tradition, i see this as only something that serves the inflexible. :p It also makes way for delusion in many respects. IE: court robes or saffron robes worn in ma classes that are as far away from monastaries as one can get. This is something pretty quirky in my books, dunno bout some of you other guys.

getting a good workout is hardly a tradition. It's the presentation and ultimately the results that are most important in a field of endeavour. Many art forms are presented and taught as bonafide methodologies of instilling martial ability in those who undertake their practice, and especially over the last ten years with the advent of the venue of test your skeelz, we have seen agaion and again that this is most certainly not the case. And yet, to hold with tradition often prevents progress and improvement in an artform.

Any artform, not just martial arts. Art is creation of something new, not copyism. Persisting in an ungrowing style is capitulation in it's worst form. If I set out to study something, I want it to be the latest proven methods and technologies. I want guiding principles, not antiquated concepts. I want to learn martial art, not pseudo religio-philosophy combined with my exercise routines and coupled with the keeping of old and rusted and not recently fire tested techs and methods.

For TMA to keep growing and flourishing, there are some hard pills that gotta be swallowed by the traditionalists. Time and again it has been shown that adaptation and flexibility needs to be looked at and addressed. In many senses, in the traditional formats, this is not so.

The successful martial arts are going to be the ones that can be shown to be effective in an upfront and truthful manner. Those that continue to shroud themselves in face games, antiquated methods, and self created social strata within, will decay from lack of interest, but moreso from the plain and simple cause and effect rules.

[Fu-Pow]

TRADITIONALLY, drills were all you learned, drills and fighting. THEN after your body had developed the neuropathways, the skills, power, etc, Then you were taught the form,which was more or less a diploma. Now you had a method to pass on your art to the next generation, but the skills were learned first.


Interesting. When you say "drills" I assume you mean short patterns of movements or combos?

How did you build a foundation in order to be able to execute the drills?

Or were the drills to build the foundation ( what about horse stance training and those kind of foundational exercises?)

I've always thought of Tao Lu as a training tool but perhaps you and Royal Dragon are right in that the form was just a "record" of techniques for transmission. Or perhaps a little of both....but more of an advanced training tool.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Considering TenTigers' post, i largely agree.. and, another consideration is the number of "fatal" or seriously maiming techniques that we simply can't train in a "live" classroom situation.. well, we can, but we will soon run out of students.. The point is, that to dismiss TCMA as ineffective is largely a function of current "competition" mind-sets.. UFC, NHB, the Cage, etc... still don't utilize many of the traditional techniques that violate rules of common decency..

Tradition, is how we got to this point.. it is largely through the efforts of traditionalists that "modern" martial arts evolved.. if much of the traditional styles are not suited to current fight venues, that doesn't negate their street value.. there are many traditional techniques i wouldn't use in a competition fight.. there are many MMA techniques that i favor in a street fight.. Preservation of tradition has value, developing current fighting strategies and training has value.. robes, uniforms whatever, has no bearing on a fighter's abilities.. skill is skill regardless of how it's packaged.. some people rail against TCMA because they think it's cool, or makes them look like the next best thing.. for me, it shows a shallowness of character.. what will be the next "best thing"?.. TCMA is my foundation, but.. i also train JKD, Muay Thai, Mo Hahn, Kali/Escrima.. i enjoy the history, the philosophy and the energy work developed through TCMA.. and the value of its MA applications (when studied at depth).. TCMA has some very useful conditioning and stamina methodoligies.. and, it has some useful philosophy.. but, if one's only consideration is some form of NHB competition, so be it.. i am more concerned with the development of the whole person..

In no way do i discount the value of MMA training as a fighting application, it is excellent for that purpose.. and, i utilize many of its systems in my own practice.. but, that use is supplemental to a value system, TCMA..

David Jamieson: Considering your position on TCMA, your Icon seems inconsistent..

Be well..

[TenTigers]

Fu-Pow, when I say drills, we do line drills, horse stance, etc, but we mainly do alot of pad drills, reaction drills, conditioning, hands on, banging, self defense application,falling,pressure testing, fighting, everything. It is only after the student builds up these skill sets that they are taught the forms, last in each level of their curriculum, as opposed to first-which is what I used to do. They pick it up sooo much faster and easier, and they know exactly what and why they are doing each movement, rather than struggling to do moves which have no rhyme or reason, until they are taught applications. When you look at it, it is truly backwards. But that is the way most schools have taught it. Why? Because then they have more time to develop their forms. They will look better in demos, and in tournaments. Ass-backwards.
Time for a paradigm shift.
Don't ask me how I'm gonna fit in Lion Dance in all this, but like I said, I'm working on it. My curriculum is always a work in progress.

[Fu-Pow]

Ok...I'm gonna take this in a totally different direction.....

I seriously wonder if the current railing against TCMA is that it contains a subjective "artistic" factor. Modern society has become increasingly pragmatic interested in only in objective data to the suppression of subjective data. Note: I've been reading alot of Carl Jung's work lately.

Basically, TCMA contains a factor that is represented as symmetry. For example, in Taiji Quan and Ba Gua Zhang the art is designed around an archetypal symbol from the subconcious (ie Ba Gua and Taiji symbol) .

Where as so called "modern martial arts" is a collection of pragmatic techniques with no coherent subjective structure, only what "works." Furthermore, techniques and strategies are rejected based on the fact that can't be "demonstrated" in a "live" situation. Basically, this is completely extroverted standpoint. If it doesn't exist in the objective world, then it is not "real."

China is an introverted society. The masters of old tried to extract principles from the compendium of techniques that they had accumulated and then link those to the subjective archetypal symbols alreay present in their society. They would then use that as framework to explore new ideas and then based on objective confirmation they would integrate those new ideas into the framework.

This is much like how modern science works, although their is huge denial in science about the "subjective" factor (even though intuition and symmetry play a huge role in science. )

[WinterPalm]

There is much to think about in these posts and I have enjoyed reading many. It is good to see people revamping their approach instead of dismissing the whole thing and moving on to whatever happens to be the current craze. The fellow who mentioned they were having trouble fighting and couldn't quite get it at first but stuck with it and after five years is now doing much better and utilizing many techniques successfully in sparring. That is what kung fu is! I believe that was a Praying Mantis practioner??? Anyway, many people don't understand that very few can stick it out and take the training to the next level. We expect our Sifu to make us into a fighting machine or to spoon feed us the next lesson. Not so in my opinion. Sifu is there to guide you and show you the proper way of doing things and make sure you are on track. But it is up to you and you ALONE, to make it work and to practice it and ingrain it within yourself. This is not what many people want as they do not have the dedication to spend time on these things. They want the simple road that can be done with mere physical exertion and minimal mental consideration. I am nowhere near a level of deep understanding but what I've learned over the years, and the time and effort to get where I am has been very exciting.

TenTigers put it excellently with the idea that we are looking at our own fallacies and every time we step up and spar, we are facing our own fears and through time hopefully overcoming them. That was a very interesting perspective and I thank you for it.

[FatherDog]

Where as so called "modern martial arts" is a collection of pragmatic techniques with no coherent subjective structure, only what "works." Furthermore, techniques and strategies are rejected based on the fact that can't be "demonstrated" in a "live" situation. Basically, this is completely extroverted standpoint. If it doesn't exist in the objective world, then it is not "real."

I'm not going to get into a philosophical discussion about what's "real" and what isn't. But if your techniques and strategies don't "work" in the "objective world", what the hell good are they? The objective world is the one where people are trying to punch you in the face, so I would view it as the most important place for your strategies and techniques to "work".

[mantis108]

Ok...I'm gonna take this in a totally different direction.....

I seriously wonder if the current railing against TCMA is that it contains a subjective "artistic" factor. Modern society has become increasingly pragmatic interested in only in objective data to the suppression of subjective data. Note: I've been reading alot of Carl Jung's work lately.

Basically, TCMA contains a factor that is represented as symmetry. For example, in Taiji Quan and Ba Gua Zhang the art is designed around an archetypal symbol from the subconcious (ie Ba Gua and Taiji symbol) .

Where as so called "modern martial arts" is a collection of pragmatic techniques with no coherent subjective structure, only what "works." Furthermore, techniques and strategies are rejected based on the fact that can't be "demonstrated" in a "live" situation. Basically, this is completely extroverted standpoint. If it doesn't exist in the objective world, then it is not "real."

China is an introverted society. The masters of old tried to extract principles from the compendium of techniques that they had accumulated and then link those to the subjective archetypal symbols alreay present in their society. They would then use that as framework to explore new ideas and then based on objective confirmation they would integrate those new ideas into the framework.

This is much like how modern science works, although their is huge denial in science about the "subjective" factor (even though intuition and symmetry play a huge role in science. )

Nicely put, Fu-Pow.

Chinese Pugilism = integrated framework of subjective archtypical symbolism in combative form.

In a nutshell, that's about it.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[MonkeySlap Too]

The arguments of modern versus TMA are pollutted by the sheer number of crap TMA out there, which gets proliferated by the lack of any objective testing.

I've found I get along really well with MMA types, often better than CMA types - which surprises me. They don't care if I decked them with Xing Yi or whipped into the ground via Shuai Chiao. It's just hitting and throwing. If I do it better than them, they learn from me. If they do something better than me, I learn from them.

The problem with most CMA is the 'stinking bog of tradition' - to steal a phrase from Brandon Jones. People get caught up in 'this is the way it has alaways been done.', whereas the innovators like Wang Lang or Chung Tung-Sheng, or Wang Xiangzhai were the standouts.

This leads into the real issue - training methodology. CMA is often taught by people with little or no actual physical training knowledge. Often they have limited perspectives on thier material. This is true in other arts too. Look at your average 'jkd/kali' school, then look at the Dog Brothers - the discerning eye can see the difference in practice created by confronting reality.

Not all moves/methods translate easily into sparring regimes, but the knowledge you get from free sparrng regimes gives you a significant advantage over not doing it. And you WILL be better at the stuff you can't spar with, as long as you keep it in your regimin.

I digress - the biggest issues are lack of practical experience, and coaching knowledge amongst 'sifus.' You can produce more better fighters using modern science to augment the lessons learned by ancestors.

[DoGcHoW108]

I guess it comes down to what we mean when we say "traditional". Chinese MA is part of and very much like Chinese culture. You cant look at something the way it was done, say, 1000 years ago and say "ok, thats traditional". cultures do not just crystallize and remain the same throughout the ages. That one instance in time that we are looking at is not representational of an entire culture's history. If i'm not mistaken, this is by the way, a foundational mindset throughout most Anthropological work.

Way i see it, the martial arts that today are considered "classical" or "traditional" do quite consistently have an underlying philosophical and artistic intuition that i, peronally, think is essential. I agree with Fu-Pow's commentary, and if i udnerstand him right what he meant was that people tend to obsess over "practicality".

However, these systems are old. and considering that the old history of most Chinese MA systems are vague at best, one knows not which came first- the philosophy or the martial art. The martial techniques of any given system could have come from just such an approach as the modern "if it dosent work on the street, we dont wanna hear about it" and then, someone could have glued everything together to work as a system with the aid of certain philosophical links between everything. people practicing at a time that people tent to think of as "back in the day when things were tradish" may have been thinking "man, back in the day they just tought us how to kick ass".

If you take for example some of the basic Shaolin forms, they are very very mechanics-based. one need not much of an understanding of Qi or anything of that nature to see pretty quickly how some of this stuff can work. Concepts such as Qi could have, for all we know, been slapped onto the system for coherence and as a tool for education. to make things set in more consistently with each other- and in my opinion it works. see the point?

I think the trouble starts when people start to relize that it takes a hell of a lot longer when you have to do everything with the philosophy and some of the training methods that have evolved out of them. Many people say its a waste of time; whether they are right or not depends on what they want from the MA.

Anyway, i better stop before i do the usual and confuse myself, heh.

[TenTigers]

I think this thread is exactly the model for what is wrong with traditional Chinese Martial Arts. The answers are there, yet you continue to philosophize.
Yeah, yeah, we've heard it, now shaddap and train! :p

[DoGcHoW108]

I think this thread is exactly the model for what is wrong with traditional Chinese Martial Arts. The answers are there, yet you continue to philosophize.
Yeah, yeah, we've heard it, now shaddap and train! :p

I disagree, i personally think that if there seems to be a problem within the TCMA comunity, talking about it is a healthy way of possibly resolving it, at the very least on an individual level.

However, for topics such as "i can pwn your ass" and "my school's so sooo much more l33t than urs", i totally agree with you.

[TenTigers]

What I meant was not the thread, but the continuation of the thread after the answer is already in your hands. "You arestanding in your own shadow, and yet you wonder why it is dark"
It is not that TCMA is antiquated,outdated, ineffective, whatever, but that only recently, it has been taught completely wrong, by most people. Between that and the catering to the granola eating Kwai Chang Caine wannabes, there are no more Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. (almost) Like I said, there are schools that are doing it right, but I can only name a few. The rest, sad to say, are decieving not only their students, but themselves as well.

[DoGcHoW108]

In that case, well put. But what do you do about those who have chosen a particular art because of an affinity for it? Check out post 85 on this thread, maybe you will see where i am coming from. there is a cure for the "granola eating Kwai Chang Caine wannabes" (wonderfully put by the way). its called innovation.

People are violent- you'll have to convince me otherwise. thus, i have no doubt that the violence within "traditional" MA can be restored by the right people, or with the right mindset. You know, the guitar was a dead instrument before someone revived it. Today it is one of the most amazing vesels of human creativity and by far one of the most popular. The same can happen to TCMA.

[Royal Dragon]

Ultimately, I don't think it matters wheather you learn the form first, or the apps. So long as you learn both. I do believe that originally the forms were not even for advanced trianing, but for the Sifu's personal solo practice so he could keep an ordered, and structured currciulem fresh in his head, and maintain his athletic abilities.

Today though, If you teach the form first, then really dive deep into it's apps and usaege, you are going to get some really tough fighters. However, If you teach the apps and useage first, and THEN the form last, you are STILL going to get some tough fighters! You can also teach them at the same time, as in work some form for part of a class, followed by apps and usage, or Vica Versa (probably what i will do when I'm teaching agian).

The real point is that for Kung Fu to be truely traditional, you must really learn, practice and master the whole art. Forms help refine mechanics, and develop and *MAINTAIN* strong fundementals. They are important. But they are not necisarily the whole game. infact they are realy ony one "Way" of practicing the content within them.


The form is your guide for the level you are at. How you learn, and practice it, or "When" you do so in relation to other skills is irrelevent. if anything it should be a fluid, practice based on what needs to be done at the moment. If you need form work the most, do that, if you need two man the most, do that. If you need ring time the most, do that. What is your highest priority at the moment?

A Monk, who lived in a peaceful monastary on a remote mountain top rarely fought for his life. Forms, Qi Gong and strength and power developement for health, and enligtenment was more important. He had the luxury of doing is twoman drills and sparring at the end of the day or even skiping them for the evening if he wished.

A soldier needed fighting skills FIRST!!, so he may review his form last after spending the day working the skills he needs on the battle field. That's if he even had a form at all...and cared to work it...I'd bet only the commander knew the form... as training aid to keep track of what he was teaching his troops.

When you look at it this way, BOTH forms first, and fighting first were part of traditional practice, and teaching. My guess is reguardless of how or what order it was all taught, the ratio of forms to fight was probably anywhere form 70/30 to 50/50 Depending on if you were a monk, a soldier, or somewhere in between.

The point is, traditionally BOTH were taught and practiced as needed, and neither was neglected. Today, the "Fight" is often neglected, and the over emphisis is on reciteing the form. This is not, nor was it ever a traditonal teaching method...it is a modern thing. Those who teach this way and then call themselves "Traditional" when they are not, are one of TCMA's big problems.

[TenTigers]

"You know, the guitar was a dead instrument before someone revived it. Today it is one of the most amazing vesels of human creativity and by far one of the most popular. The same can happen to TCMA."

YES!! We will be the Eddie VanHalens,Jimi Hendrix's,and Steve Vais of Kung-Fu!!!! :cool:

[David Jamieson]

The arguments of modern versus TMA are pollutted by the sheer number of crap TMA out there, which gets proliferated by the lack of any objective testing.

I've found I get along really well with MMA types, often better than CMA types - which surprises me. They don't care if I decked them with Xing Yi or whipped into the ground via Shuai Chiao. It's just hitting and throwing. If I do it better than them, they learn from me. If they do something better than me, I learn from them.

The problem with most CMA is the 'stinking bog of tradition' - to steal a phrase from Brandon Jones. People get caught up in 'this is the way it has alaways been done.', whereas the innovators like Wang Lang or Chung Tung-Sheng, or Wang Xiangzhai were the standouts.

This leads into the real issue - training methodology. CMA is often taught by people with little or no actual physical training knowledge. Often they have limited perspectives on thier material. This is true in other arts too. Look at your average 'jkd/kali' school, then look at the Dog Brothers - the discerning eye can see the difference in practice created by confronting reality.

Not all moves/methods translate easily into sparring regimes, but the knowledge you get from free sparrng regimes gives you a significant advantage over not doing it. And you WILL be better at the stuff you can't spar with, as long as you keep it in your regimin.

I digress - the biggest issues are lack of practical experience, and coaching knowledge amongst 'sifus.' You can produce more better fighters using modern science to augment the lessons learned by ancestors.

This is also my observation and more or less my position. I would add in regards to the Dog brothers type folks out there is that they have a distinct element of aliveness in what they do that to the unseasoned eye is frightening and often looks too brutal. However, the method employed by DB and others of that ilk are extremely effective in producing proficient fighters in a much shorter timeline than a given old school tma. Form and two man drills are more or less "dead" and are not always going to get results all the time. They are simply more repititous patterns that lack a free flow and therefore do not bring much more than another pattern into the practitioners toolset.

-bob, an icon/avatar is hardly an indication of anything other than a 50x50pixel square getting filled with something. :p

[Royal Dragon]

I submitt Two Man sets are launching grounds for spontanious sparring. I have a Louhan set that is full of holes, and when you stop trying to do the set verbatum, and instead look at it with the eyes of principal, the holes become apparent. The next natural thing is to attack them, and force your opponent to defend the unexpected attack. This leads to countless drills, and senarios that can be explored, but within a structured frame work. My guess is Two man forms, like their oneman form counterparts, are over emphisised in modern times. I bet they are ment to be drilled for a time, or "Warmedup" with, and then free play should spontainiously occur.

Like someone said above, the Traditional arts are fine, it's just that noone knows how to actually teach them correctly, so they have de-evolved into an empty practice that is mindlessly repeted without ryme or reason.

[DoGcHoW108]

YES!! We will be the Eddie VanHalens,Jimi Hendrix's,and Steve Vais of Kung-Fu!!!! :cool:


who's Steve Vais?

[Anthony]

"Steve Vai" is a highly overrated, fast-fingered poser guitarist that only other guitarists know about.

[TenTigers]

Steve Vai is a total guitar god. He ws the guitarist for Frank Zappa, David Lee Roth (remember Yankee Rose?) Whitesnake during the Hair Band days,he was also the Devil's guitarist in the movie 'Crossroads" and his solo career is doing great. Among his students are Joe Satriani, and Kirk Hammet-(Metallica) he has not only amazing technical skill, but takes a very spiritual approach to playing an music as an extension of the soul. Definately worth looking into.

[Anthony]

Um....it was Joe Satriani that taught both Steve Vai and Kirk Hammett. Music is subjective so I won't get into a whole "who's the best" thing on this forum. I'll just say that Steve Vai never really impressed me and I have heard most of his work.

[TenTigers]

Jeez! yer right. must be my dyslexia. I stand corrected. I knew that too, I guess I just reacted faster than I thought. And yes, although I appreciate his technique and his originality, sometimes he goes a bit off the deep end for me, but every once in awhile there are songs or even passages in songs that totally move me.

[rogue]

"Steve Vai" is a highly overrated, fast-fingered poser guitarist that only other guitarists know about.
And your fretboard accomplishments are?????

I wonder what Hammet did with the money his mom gave him for the guitar lessons?

[SPJ]

A lot of good points raised.

1. Drill the move over and over till proficiecy and pressure test with a live first cooperative then resistent partners. Trainining methodolgy the modern way also the old way.

2. Forms are just forms or sequences of moves. Nothing more. If the school only teaches forms and not the first. It is WRONG. It is done so, so that students would pay money for collection of moves. More moves, more forms, more money. Commercialism. fightings and apps. You are on your own. Drill them in your own time.

3. What works and what does not work. Something works only under certain conditions. If some of the factors change, the techniques will not work. This applies both old and new methods. So new is modified from the old or just brand new to work under new conditions. What if the new conditions change, you have to update again. So the old did not work because the condition changes or not taught right or not drilled. Fighting is a random event as TCB pointed out. We practice a set of techniques assuming all the conditions are there and we are in upper hand. Actually, our moves will be neutralized or the conditions change, how to change accordingly and Tai Chi has a lot of neutralization methods to get out of Qin Na, throw, strike etc.

4. Western new fighting methods are effective and proven in MMA and UFC. Everything else is obsolete and not worth the trouble. TCB said do not discard the collections of fighting methods outright from life and death combat over thousand of years.

:cool:

[SevenStar]

TCB said do not discard the collections of fighting methods outright from life and death combat over thousand of years.



But combat from thousands of years ago is not completely relevant to combat of today...

[WinterPalm]

I don't understand how combat has changed in the past thousand years. Hand to hand that is. People still punch, kick, grab, push, throw, grapple, etc. If anything it is only the various approaches of a minority of people that train in any martial art that have changed. Most of us are not interested in cage combat and so where we would expect an encounter, the street, is basically no rules and probably limited to very few trained individuals. I would even say that systems like BJJ have become traditional and are seperated by the new sport BJJ which has many manuevers considered by the Gracie family to be unfavorable due to their risk factors on the street. Is it possible that all the MMA is training towards one venue but missing out on lots of others points? I'm not going to dismiss the value of MMA or the skill involved but hand to hand combat is not going to change. Humans can only do a limited amount of things with their bodies and martial art paradigms take factors they consider the most important and espouse them on the next generation in order to give them what they feel are the most important fundamentals of fighting.

Not every move in a style of CMA is going to be your favorite or even ever used. But the next generation might appreciate it as an ideal technique. Like I said earlier, what one person loves from a style the next may find useless or impractical for themselves and pursue something different either within the system or without. However, systems are what give us a focus and a toolbox of techniques in which to develop our skills. Many forms have purposes that are not just for fighting, but increase conditioning, expand your lung capacity, create a high level of coordination within a movement pattern that requires extreme discilpline to perform. In sparring the same kick used twice may look different, but in a form, the technique must be retained and this takes discipline and focus, not to say that bag work does not, but form trains you to understand the mechanics of body movement and how a technique should function ideally. Of course it is always hard to recognize this or do it, but one can incorporate forms into sparring, heck, that's what sparring is supposed to be! That is, using the style and to do that you need to pay close attention to the lessons. Many people cannot handle this sort of thought provoking practice and that is fine, but I wouldn't dismiss CMA as a whole just because it has not produced any cage fighter champs.

[PangQuan]

I think it was said best by a proficient martial artist some odd 40 or so years ago;

"Until we have 4 arms and 4 legs we will only have one style of fighting."

Meaning that we are a specific design, with limits. We must function around those limits. Its all about finding the way to best exploit all of the ground givin within those limits.

With this outlook, it seems apparent that the only thing that can change "combat" as a whole, in relation to our species, would be physical evolution.

I am no expert but im pretty sure that humans are not that much different today than we were 2000 years ago.

Of course this is not to say that 2000 years ago people had found the best way to exploit those boundaries placed upon us by our natural design. This is a continual process.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Actually, this is what i said..
there are hundreds and thousands of years of fighting experiences behind some of these "traditional" styles and, excepting the evolution of weapons, these are valid arts.. not many people willing to invest the time, sweat, pain and dedication to reap the rewards, but the rewards are there.. The newer more "realistic" fighting competitions are still held to certain rules, rules that go out the window on the street.. While i sincerely respect the "new" arts, i also respect the old as well.. sure, some of the old forms and techniques have little in common with today's MMA game.. but, i am surprised at the times i use these antiquated moves and catch the MMA kids off guard.. (of course, i eat a few, too.. but it's worth the try..).. we don't crush the wind-pipe with a spear-hand, we don't gouge the eyes or snap someone's fingers.. we don't drop a knee on someone's head against the ground or fully crank a neck.. real fighting is brutal and many of the traditional arts emphasize decisively concluding techniques like i have just mentioned.. regardless of the venue, the ring is not the street.. any training is better than none, in the street..

I suppose it comes down to one's goals.. if it is to simply dominate others in a brutal world, MMA's the game.. if it is to develop a well rounded person AND a self-defense, TCMA is a good path.. now, that must be qualified with the caveat, "traditional as in real traditional training", not dance class.. if sparring is not required , the student is not learning a "martial Art".

"This too will pass".. is hopefully, the situation where some people feel empowered to harshly criticize the dedication and hard work of others simply because they enjoy the "style du jour".. Things will change, they always do.. change need not include disposing of tradition.. if so, i suggest those that assert the traditional folly examine the rest of their lives and be certain to dispose of any other "useless" traditions.. like Christmas, funerals, marriage, nationalism, patriotism, honor, dignity, etc.........

Be well..

[David Jamieson]

It really has more to do with reality and effective methods than combat, but for the heck of it, let's discuss the differences between ritual combat, sportive combative and for real knock down drag em out fighting.

In a typical tma class, form, drills, two man sets and monitored and metered sparring are methods that seek to develop martial ability in the practitioners. However, you get out of your training what you put into it. This description is a stage at the lower level of understanding combat, but above total newb. It must be transcended by taking these principles to the next level. This next level, imo, would be the sportive stage.

Granted, the death touch is not applicable at this stage :rolleyes: , but it's not in the metered, two man sets or light sparring that one finds in your run of the mill tma school. NOr is the death touch really even worth considering...because, well, I can't think of any actual working examples of these "deadly fatal moves" being trained in the here and now and actually being used, so, that whole point is moot. Let's move on.

The sportive combative is as close as you can get to a real fight without having to worry too much and being in a still relatively safe (albeit hurtin yo ass) environment. This stage really pressure tests the learned skills of the prac and is often very, very frustrating for the traditionalist because in my experience and observation, the HC Trad player is simply not used to someone actually hitting them really friggin hadr in the face and not stopping after the first one in. TMA schools, for the most part in my observation and experience do not even make this bridge to understanding the dynamics and mechanics of real fighting. It's a bridge well worth crossing and to not walk over it is to sell yourself and your art short. imo. If your art is so unflexible it cannot be adapted to this format for the purpose of increasing skills overall, then, well, imo your art is dead and not of much value martially speaking. Make it work in teh simplest of terms or take a walk in other words. Sportive combative as we can now see in venues such as Muay Thai matches, San Shou matches and full on UFC matches is as real as it gets without being a street fight with absolutely no rules. This is a level worth looking at and most certainly worth training at. To pish posh it is imo extremely short sighted and indicative of not even wanting to see what workls and what doesn't.

The real fight stage. This is where most sane people don't want to be, but of these sane people, who are involved in the martial arts, it is certainly worth the while to look at what is effective in some scenarios and to pressure test it to a point where you can truly grasp what does and does not work. Remeber theflick posted here a little while ago of the two kids fighting. Where one does a lot of horse stance posing and the other ties his shoes, then they set to it and they both flail their limbs about until finally shoe tying guy goes down. This is an example only of course, but it is typical in so many lights. It is also not representative of intense street fighting which generally involves weapons of some sort, and all sorts of dirty, filthy dirty tactics.

I have yet to see anyone instructing for these scenarios. some people touch on this knife defense or that attack defense and of course everyone gets 20 minutes or so a week of wrist grabbing chin na and so on. But who gears up and goes for it? Dang few of the traditionalists, that is for sure. Pretty much 0 mcdojo types and again 0 of the health types understand this aspect of martial arts.

So who, out of all of these is actually realistically looking at the nature of combat and where they fit in? Those clubs and their players that explore the sportive aspects. They hit, they get hit, they knock out, choke out, elbow, knee and get hurt. That is real. Everything else is either leading up to this or is just plain old pretending.

How many peeps out there can honestly say they approach the reality of fighting at this level from tarditional schools? How many traditionalists can make that crossover in the sportive combative and go to that next level without sever adaptation to the curriculum they run?

I know there are a few guys here that have grown with the times. But I equally know there are many in the tma world who just don't have the type of training required to even get to that level. It is unfortunate that these arts either cannot or will not come forward in time and seriously look at this material.

Over the last 4 years I have been making this bridge and have been schooled more than once by guys who have less time in, but simply more effective methods of training than I had. However, I will say that the conditioning and strengthening methods I had from my trad training have helped me endure more than a few kicks to the ribs. :D

But the methods of training have pretty much 180'ed and in so doing, I have had the good fortune of being able to legitamize and adapt some of the stuff I had from CMA, JMA and KMA into this format and to make it work.

Still got a ways to go with ground work, but my stand up and clinch is getting to the level of moderately skilled now and it's ONLY because i changed my path away from the static and choreographed methods that I had been taught.

Fighting is no joke. If you truly want your art to be strong, you must bring it forward and help it survive.

On the other hand if you want to be only perceived as something you really aren't, then carry on, but you're not fooling anyone who has tasted bitter and you will be schooled eventually if you take it far enough.

anywho... this is a pretty good thread oso. nice play.

[Fu-Pow]

The world "tradition" is so loaded with meaning. The way its being applied here by the MMA crew it might as well mean "conservative." :p

And I sure as hell didn't vote for Bush!!! :eek: :D :p

[David Jamieson]

The world "tradition" is so loaded with meaning. The way its being applied here by the MMA crew it might as well mean "conservative." :p

And I sure as hell didn't vote for Bush!!! :eek: :D :p

you are seperating tma and mma in such a way as is not intended in the spirit of the thread fu.

many traditions in tma are just that. They have little or no bearing on actual practical fighting ability. Also, in traditional schools, the reality of fighting doesn't get to the level required to put the zen into it as is gone on and on about.

knowing forty forms and slap fighting your younger bothers doesn't amount to sh1t in other words.

Guys like "O" who take their stuff into the next level venues and check it are imo where it's at. Or even guys like Deluca who give it thei best shot and even kempo guys like lidell. Many of these so called "mma" guys come from traditional schools and many of them have new understanding because of their experiences away from the trad methods and teachings. And they are better fighters for it Q.E.D.

[SevenStar]

I don't understand how combat has changed in the past thousand years. Hand to hand that is. People still punch, kick, grab, push, throw, grapple, etc. If anything it is only the various approaches of a minority of people that train in any martial art that have changed. Most of us are not interested in cage combat and so where we would expect an encounter, the street, is basically no rules and probably limited to very few trained individuals. I would even say that systems like BJJ have become traditional and are seperated by the new sport BJJ which has many manuevers considered by the Gracie family to be unfavorable due to their risk factors on the street. Is it possible that all the MMA is training towards one venue but missing out on lots of others points? I'm not going to dismiss the value of MMA or the skill involved but hand to hand combat is not going to change. Humans can only do a limited amount of things with their bodies and martial art paradigms take factors they consider the most important and espouse them on the next generation in order to give them what they feel are the most important fundamentals of fighting.


I was actually referring to weapons fighting. However, in terms of hand to hand, tactics have changed, which technically changes fighting.



Many forms have purposes that are not just for fighting, but increase conditioning, expand your lung capacity, create a high level of coordination within a movement pattern that requires extreme discilpline to perform.


We realize that. It's just a different method. Using a spear to strengthen the forearm vs. using dumbells, for example, or doing iron body vs. plenty of hard sparring. The typical MMA question is more one of efficiency - Why should I do stance training for leg endurance when I can do something more fighting specific, like sparring for several rounds?


In sparring the same kick used twice may look different, but in a form, the technique must be retained and this takes discipline and focus, not to say that bag work does not, but form trains you to understand the mechanics of body movement and how a technique should function ideally.

How does that differ from shadowboxing?



Of course it is always hard to recognize this or do it, but one can incorporate forms into sparring, heck, that's what sparring is supposed to be! That is, using the style and to do that you need to pay close attention to the lessons. Many people cannot handle this sort of thought provoking practice and that is fine, but I wouldn't dismiss CMA as a whole just because it has not produced any cage fighter champs.


Actually, we don't. The ones that dismiss it (the ones I know, anyway) dismiss it because of it's training methods. And even then, they don't dismiss ALL CMA. If you can spar and show that you cam make what you use work, they respect it.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

David Jamieson: I largely agree with your methods.. yet, disagree with your presentation.. there is value in tradition, even if only an Art form.. but, it is more, it is a path to personal development.. I am 54 and have spent the last 4 years supplementing traditional training that goes back to the mid '60s.. i have studied with some profoundly capable NHB types.. and, you are right, they can school you in the art of the scuffle.. now that i have reconditioned my body for ground work and those nasty Muay Thai guys, i am seeing and using some of those traditional techniques in places that even a year ago i didn't have enough experience in NHB to use those same techniques.. as traditionalists become more familiar with extreme events it is likely they will find more opportunities to demonstrate some usefulness of the same techniques being criticized today.. time will tell.. it seems a bit arrogant to dispose of tradition so early in the rise of "new" fighting styles.. i suggest that given TCMA people willing to "cross the bridge" and time to adapt, we will likely see some TCMA re-emerge in the extreme events.. Look at Chris Heintzman, he attributes much of his success to Taiji, AND you can see it in his combat.. i think it's too early to dismiss TCMA..

Any reference made by me to "deadly arts" has nothing to do with the "death touch".. the system i learned has numerous practical "fatal" conclusions from snapped necks to crushed tracheas to breaking the occipital prominence (behind the ear).. although scientifically do-able, the "death-touch" requires such accuracy and opportunity as to be impractical in actual combat..

Be well..

Be well..

[David Jamieson]

Bob-

My presentation is akin to a cane across the back of the slouching meditator. :p

I really ain't saying anything new. I am addressing what I see to be a real problem in tma inasmuch as they will leave behind that which is of value in favour of keeping face and all too often.

That's the driving point in my argument and I would love nothing more than to see tma step up and ktfo some dudes as is the point of martial art in the first place. However, the record shows that this is the oddity and not the norm. I believe it should be the other way around.

[KC Elbows]

The ones that dismiss it (the ones I know, anyway) dismiss it because of it's training methods. And even then, they don't dismiss ALL CMA. If you can spar and show that you cam make what you use work, they respect it.

It's my opinion that the form should be tertiary to applying the style. The style cannot be encapsulated in the form, because the style cannot be expressed unopposed, and the style cannot be encapsulated in a two man set, because no second man can be archetypal of all opponents. I think the so-called traditional approach, a title that is obviously questionable, is to train in isolation a skill that can only be gained in tandem. I find it doubtful that traditional chinese warriors in armor were so hesitant to fight unscripted as current ideas of tradition would have us believe. Especially unarmed.

[David Jamieson]

It's my opinion that the form should be tertiary to applying the style. The style cannot be encapsulated in the form, because the style cannot be expressed unopposed, and the style cannot be encapsulated in a two man set, because no second man can be archetypal of all opponents. I think the so-called traditional approach, a title that is obviously questionable, is to train in isolation a skill that can only be gained in tandem. I find it doubtful that traditional chinese warriors in armor were so hesitant to fight unscripted as current ideas of tradition would have us believe. Especially unarmed.

the martial arts of then compared to now in traditional formats are obviously quite different. The soldier versed in h2h even 100 years ago trained in a completely different fashion from the way trad schools train now. They trained to not be killed and to kill. This is not true of pretty much any ma school either either tma or mma or what have you. Unless of course you are talking about spec ops training in the various military forces in which case, killing is the focus and the training is geared towards that. Soldiers don't train to box or wrestle, they train to frag yer ass and some of them go on to refining that skill to fairly high levels that would make civ maists look like tools in many respects.

[KC Elbows]

the martial arts of then compared to now in traditional formats are obviously quite different. The soldier versed in h2h even 100 years ago trained in a completely different fashion from the way trad schools train now. They trained to not be killed and to kill. This is not true of pretty much any ma school either either tma or mma or what have you. Unless of course you are talking about spec ops training in the various military forces in which case, killing is the focus and the training is geared towards that. Soldiers don't train to box or wrestle, they train to frag yer ass and some of them go on to refining that skill to fairly high levels that would make civ maists look like tools in many respects.


I'm not sure which point you are countering of my post. It seems to me that nothing in my post precludes learning non-lethal techniques. In fact, they require even more of the kind of training I'm referring to, not more forms.

EDIT- Are you saying that tmaists are better now because they don't have to train killing techniques? Also, what modern military trains good hth people? Most of the military I've known who were good in hth were into that before they got in.

[WinterPalm]

Sevenstar, you make some good points. I admit I overgeneralize on what MMA people feel or say about TMA.

As to shadow boxing, my point was that a form contains a technique, and that when done in the form, is stretched out, in a very low stance, and performed at full speed and then abruptly stopped without hitting any surface. Similar to shadowboxing except shadowboxing is training the application from a fighting stance and although it is done for repetitions, it is not trained like in TMA. I suppose the benefit of the TMA is that the form contains the ideal, as opposed to the real. Therefore, you train this technique in such a manner so as to develop speed and strength in a compromised position so that when applied to sparring, it is very quick and has been ingrained from a compromised standpoint that fighting with it becomes so much easier to execute, of course once you get past some initial reluctance and fear.

But I certainly value shadowboxing, as I do hitting the bag and other components. But for conditioning. Take an iron ring training session. Your are in affect hitting your body and arms with iron or brass rings that are vastly harded than any other opponent you will face. This gives a definite advantage over being hit my bone, muscle, etc. IT also builds some very good concentration and determination, as do many forms. However, I am not going to sell sparring short here. Without any doubt that is integral to training in a combat art. I would not consider training without it. But the forms can give one both solo time to train similar skill sets to sparring, as does shadowboxing, but contains within, pending the discipline of the practioner is there, an example from which to draw all the components one needs to fight. Also, if one spars all the time they will both lose technique and get wrapped up in an almost tag match, which has happened to me and I've seen happen to others, and, if you are sparring people that have some skill, even with basic padding there is going to be more injuries.

Personally I can see the value in both traditional and modern approaches, and each and every one of us will find what works for them and enjoy it.

These past few posts have been very long but I'm really enjoying this thread and am articulating feelings that is giving me even more insight.

[Oso]

All nice posts, all thought-provoking ideas...all missing the mark.

The problem with Traditional Chinese Martial Arts is that..(ready?).......

THEY ARE NOT BEING TAUGHT TRADITIONALLY !!!!!!!

I really have to credit Dixon Fung for this, as it comes from a conversation we had awhile back. Basically, you need to look at history.
In ancient China when kingdom fought kingdom, do you think that they taught forms first, or drills, drills, drills, fighting application,etc?
Fast forward to when China fought Ming vs Ching Dynasty-if you trained your soldiers, would you teach forms firs, or drills,drills,drills, and fighting application?
Fast forward again, Euraopeans invade, China is fighting in the streets, do you teach your men forms first, or drills, drills, drills, and fighting application?
Fast forward again, school fighting school-do you teach your students forms first, or drills, drills, drills and fighting application? (you see a pattern yet?)
Ok, fast forward one more time..to the past 50 or so years..
You are no longer fighting for your lives, you are fighting to promote

.......................................snip....... ........................................

Philosophy can help you understand yourself, others around you who get lost in the world of materialism, and how we get distracted by clinging to twisted beliefs.
But it is not to get caught up in being Kwai Chang Caine, or Bruce LeRoy.
It is there to help you get through the tempering of the spirit. "To strengthen the steel, you must first put it through fire."
This is TRADITIONAL CHINESE MARTIAL ARTS
. And when done correctly, when done traditionally,
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH TRADITIONAL CHINESE MARTIAL ARTS !!!!!!

great post...

I don't ever go on too much about my early training. It was supposed to be Hung Gar. The thing is, when I finally met someone else, a couple of years after not learning from that teacher any more, and told them I had studied hung gar for 7 years they asked to see a particular form....I was like...uhhh, I never learned any...and so I was told that I couldn't have been learning hung gar if I didn't know any forms.

it was as TT says...drills, drills, drills...and then some more drills then fighting.

I was doing 'kung fu' for 8 or more years before i learned a form...

[MonkeySlap Too]

Hmmm, it depends on the CMA. There are some methods require that you develop a certain structure or physic first, and only then can you drill. Before that basic level is acheived, you are considered pretty useless.

Ironically, these are the CMA I respect the most.

But yeah, this forms obsession, it's destroyed CMA. I've had people come to me and 'show' me all the 'styles' they 'knew'. Then I'd invite onto the floor to see how eight years of forms without true training in those systems fares against an eight-month student. It's never pretty, but at least it is fast.

[David Jamieson]

kc- i wasn't countering your post, i was standing on it. :p

I shoulda probably been a little further back than the widespread use of the gun to define h2h training or weapons training or even more specifically, martial training in military forces. Although, even after this there was still close combat training.

Nowadays, training is centred on marksmanship moreso than h2h and you are correct, a lot of guys who are into it are into it already. Though there is, at least where I live, training that addresses close combat skills in the specialty levels following bootcamp.

The body conditioning methods of kungfu are imo one of the gems of it, the tactical alive applications are not so much methodologically speaking. Seeing as there isn't a lot of alive training in many systems of chinese martial arts. At least, it doesn't seem so until much time has passed.

Not forgetting that there are a lot of people in many martial arts schools who themselves do not want to fight and do not even want to experience what it is like. They are there for more esoteric reasons or perhaps it is fair to say some are just trying it out, scoping it, that kind of thing. Probably every school has at least one or two players that can bang though. More often than not it is these same guys who are into martial art, for the martial part.

streamlining and making your system work in a combat or sportive combative setting is a challenge and it is an important level in anyones training. I feel a lot of traditionalists are missing the bus on this these days. But I also see that maybe the momentum of what's going on may change some of these ways of thinking and modalities of training.

But the conditioning methods in trad shaolin, or goju, or a number of other ancient arts are good. If you have to be a punching bag, you may as well be able to take it. :p

[KC Elbows]

Hmmm, it depends on the CMA. There are some methods require that you develop a certain structure or physic first, and only then can you drill. Before that basic level is acheived, you are considered pretty useless.

Ironically, these are the CMA I respect the most.



Would you say in most such systems, the physics you're talking about is usually contained in a series of chi kungs, and the forms are usually just those chi kungs applied over and over with slight variations that could be implied in the chi kungs?

For example, the palm changes in pa kua, or the five fists in hsing yi.

[KC Elbows]

kc- i wasn't countering your post, i was standing on it. :p
Nowadays, training is centred on marksmanship moreso than h2h and you are correct, a lot of guys who are into it are into it already. Though there is, at least where I live, training that addresses close combat skills in the specialty levels following bootcamp.

To be sure, the same is true all over. A friend of mine was a recon marine, and trained recon marines after that. He was very skilled hand to hand, but he came to them already more skilled in hth than the training was intended to make him. While he picked up some basic ground work, he was a greater asset to them as a hth trainer than they were to him in that field. Many members of his unit went to train with him when they got out. While he is a better hth fighter than me, the others from that unit are not generally as good. This is not a slam on them, or me bragging, but simply due to the fact that, while they certainly had more hth than boot camp, there is a limit to what modern militaries place on hth.




streamlining and making your system work in a combat or sportive combative setting is a challenge and it is an important level in anyones training. I feel a lot of traditionalists are missing the bus on this these days. But I also see that maybe the momentum of what's going on may change some of these ways of thinking and modalities of training.

To be sure. However, I think, because it is easier to simply train forms oneself, and train others on forms, and never touch the heartof the system, that will always be the tendency, so that forms based kung fu styles will always have a problem with that. On the flip side, many krav maga schools are no more martial- they simply practice applications endlessly without any more aliveness. So I guess there is a flip side.

[MaxwellUppercut]

Well i dont know maybe ive just been lucky to find a good school, which is Jim Fungs wing chun school in sydney, and after doing that for awhile i must say it ticks me off all these people saying that kung fu is to flowery etc and does not work in real fights, because i know that the people at decent levels in that school truly kick ass. But the main problem i think with most wing chun fighters is they think " I dont train in ground fighting because no one can take me to the ground" Well in some ways they have a point, because one of my friends is high level in wing chun and its preety much impossible to take him to the ground with out getting smashed real badly, but what if your in a multiple attacker situation and one of them tackles you to the ground from behind? Then the wing chun fighter is going to get slammed., no matter whether they can kill someone with one punch ( Which many can :D ). So i would say learn to grapple as well, because its actually really cool and turns you into a psychotic fighter, hehehehe some of the moves make you feel like an assasin, just sneak up behind someone put them in a choke hold and drag them off into the bushes in complete silence........ hehehehe i like it :cool: .

[David Jamieson]

Well i dont know maybe ive just been lucky to find a good school, which is Jim Fungs wing chun school in sydney, and after doing that for awhile i must say it ticks me off all these people saying that kung fu is to flowery etc and does not work in real fights, because i know that the people at decent levels in that school truly kick ass. But the main problem i think with most wing chun fighters is they think " I dont train in ground fighting because no one can take me to the ground" Well in some ways they have a point, because one of my friends is high level in wing chun and its preety much impossible to take him to the ground with out getting smashed real badly, but what if your in a multiple attacker situation and one of them tackles you to the ground from behind? Then the wing chun fighter is going to get slammed., no matter whether they can kill someone with one punch ( Which many can :D ). So i would say learn to grapple as well, because its actually really cool and turns you into a psychotic fighter, hehehehe some of the moves make you feel like an assasin, just sneak up behind someone put them in a choke hold and drag them off into the bushes in complete silence........ hehehehe i like it :cool: .

The clinch can often lead to the ground. Maybe your friend hasn't come up against a decent shooter yet who can also get to the ground quickly.

The ranges being stand-up/clinch/ground are not all dealt with in tma systems.

mma deals with all these ranges and likely, kungfu should too.

[AndyM]

mma deals with all these ranges and likely, kungfu should too.

It's all there if you know where to look.

MMA is an approach to training, whereas Kung Fu, while it should perhaps literally mean the same, is taken by most to mean fancy silk pyjamas and mysterious rituals.

There's many an internet MMA dude who should be wearing pyjamas (tucked up with Teddy and kissed goodnight by mommy).
It's easier for them to see Kung Fu in these terms than look any deeper.

It's all evolution.
Who cares who invented the wheel?
We all use them, so let's just get on with it.

[David Jamieson]

It's all there if you know where to look.

MMA is an approach to training, whereas Kung Fu, while it should perhaps literally mean the same, is taken by most to mean fancy silk pyjamas and mysterious rituals.

There's many an internet MMA dude who should be wearing pyjamas (tucked up with Teddy and kissed goodnight by mommy).
It's easier for them to see Kung Fu in these terms than look any deeper.

It's all evolution.
Who cares who invented the wheel?
We all use them, so let's just get on with it.

I agree, there's a lot of wannabe this and that's on the net, but all internet posturing aside :p I would have to say It's not all there despite how hard you look. There is something there and there is a lot of good stuff and yes, it's the approach to training and even more importantly, the method.

There are also some kungfu clubs that do make the bridge and maintain both the traditional and the modern aspect of martial art. I can think of a couple of kungfu sifu who take this walk and have had pretty good success in both areas. But for the most part, there is still too much face game and not enough free application of tactics in kungfu systems. It is the heirarchical structure, face games, and a few other factors that bar this in many cases. Face games are imo one of the greatest hinderances to the growth of chinese martial arts and the ushering of them into their seat as a top line of study for martial proficiency.

In the meantime, long time ractitioners of traditional will continue to be schooled in the combat venues until they get over that hump.

[Oso]

Hmmm, it depends on the CMA. There are some methods require that you develop a certain structure or physic first, and only then can you drill. Before that basic level is acheived, you are considered pretty useless.

Ironically, these are the CMA I respect the most.

But yeah, this forms obsession, it's destroyed CMA. I've had people come to me and 'show' me all the 'styles' they 'knew'. Then I'd invite onto the floor to see how eight years of forms without true training in those systems fares against an eight-month student. It's never pretty, but at least it is fast.

not sure if this was a response to my last post or not...

we certainly did conditioning: lot's of horse, lot's of body striking...getting hit or kicked in the body was 'punishment' for doing something wrong. My old teacher was a freak about control. If you went harder OR lighter then exactly what he said then we got in a horse, did a specific chi kung and then he hit you in the belly. It started as back fists with the whole arm then went to round kicks and eventually straight kicks as we got better.

It's been a while but I seem to remember that as we were taught strikes and blocks they were paired (this strike needs this block etc.) then there was a lot of repetition of each strike w/ each block. Then it would be two attacks in succesion each being answered by a block...then three...then four....this was done at first stationary then as a line drill then as a randomly moving drill...by the time we were randomly moving and doing 3 and 4 step combinations we were basically sparring and then free sparring was just a step beyond that.



Forms: yea, I spend a lot of time wondering about that. I generally don't care how my students LOOK when doing the forms as long as they get how the movements are supposed to work. But then, I have the students who are only interested in the exercise and not the fighting so I tend to try to get them to LOOK better and the students who want to learn to use it to understand it more by way of drills and sparring.

[AndyM]

I agree, there's a lot of wannabe this and that's on the net, but all internet posturing aside :p I would have to say It's not all there despite how hard you look. There is something there and there is a lot of good stuff and yes, it's the approach to training and even more importantly, the method.

There are also some kungfu clubs that do make the bridge and maintain both the traditional and the modern aspect of martial art. I can think of a couple of kungfu sifu who take this walk and have had pretty good success in both areas.
You contradict yourself in those two paragraphs.





But for the most part, there is still too much face game and not enough free application of tactics in kungfu systems. It is the heirarchical structure, face games, and a few other factors that bar this in many cases. Face games are imo one of the greatest hinderances to the growth of chinese martial arts and the ushering of them into their seat as a top line of study for martial proficiency.
Possibly indicitave of your own, if not most people heres experience, but there are a fortunate few, amongst which I do not really count myself, whose experience is different.

[David Jamieson]

You contradict yourself in those two paragraphs.





Possibly indicitave of your own, if not most people heres experience, but there are a fortunate few, amongst which I do not really count myself, whose experience is different.


Not sure where I contradict myself by saying that there are a few that made or are making the bridge to realistic tactical application of the art form that is their system of kungfu. imo and personal observation, this is not true of the greater majority of the whole.

Secondly, I've already pointed at a few of the flaws in teh methodology of my own and have also indicated that this is a trend in most of the schools I've visited, and practitioenrs from those schools.

there are one or two exceptions to the rule in tma, but I'd reiterate that the classical mess is still just that.

[MaxwellUppercut]

Well my friend who does wing chun also does grappling, so he is a bit of a monster on the ground as well as standing up. But you know how hard it is to get a good wing chun fighter into a clinch situation, its preety much impossible trust me, i try to get him into a clinch so i can trip him and take him to the ground but he is just to skill full, i really cant do it he always traps me or just throws me off because the angles in his arms are so perfect. So i always just end up taking him down by going for his ankles and takling him by surprise, this works but then he kicks my ass in grappling too :D Oh well one day ill beat him. But Jim Fungs school is actually having confrences in china where there thinking about adding ground fighting techniques into the style which also use wing chun principles, i hope they do, that would be really cool, but i wonder how it would work?

[SifuAbel]

So to put this thread in a nutshell (and hopefully to bed) we can say that it boils down to:

1: Schools that don't fight.

2: Schools that don't train with the fighting spirit as the mission, regardless of "method".

3: Schools that don't fight with hard contact at some point.

4: Circular, endless, tangent, "reasoning" as shown above. :eek:

[MaxwellUppercut]

circular, endless tangent reasoning.... sorry i dont get it....

[AndyM]

Not sure where I contradict myself by saying that there are a few that made or are making the bridge to realistic tactical application of the art form that is their system of kungfu. imo and personal observation, this is not true of the greater majority of the whole.

Then just say some Kung Fu good, most Kung Fu bad.
It saves a lot of time and Waffles.

[TenTigers]

Hey guys, this isn't a new concept. The expression,"Fa Kuen, Sow Geurk"-"Flower Fists, Embroidered Feet" has been in CMA for eons. Evidently others have also spent lots of time and waffles.
(time and waffles? WTF does that mean?) :p :D

[AndyM]

(time and waffles? WTF does that mean?) :p :D
It means- say what you mean without attempting to baffle the casual viewer with literary ambivalence, while at the same time reccomending a lower Carbohydrate diet. ;)
Sorry if that has a negative affect on anyones store of Chi.

Speak plain, know what you are talking about, and cut the crap!

[David Jamieson]

andy-

language allows us to go into detail.

too say some kungfu good, most bad. is not exactly the point i am trying to make because frankly, it all has potential to be very good.

my points are indicating a need for change and are soliciting feedback in regards to how to make that change.

there is nothing wrong with being erudite and certainly nothing wrong with using the appropriate words to express the detail idea.

It is not the failing of the speaker that the listener may not completely understand but it is up to the speaker to massage the message so that the wider audience may understand it.

Did you have trouble understanding anything here because someone was waxing eloquent in their verbiage on the matter? :D

Leave the dumbing down to others. I prefer to speak to the level of the audience that is reading this stuff or listening to it. Imo, many here if not the majority are more than capable of understanding complexity in ones way of presenting their ideas.

[AndyM]

andy-


Did you have trouble understanding anything here because someone was waxing eloquent in their verbiage on the matter? :D


Classic example of what provoked me to respond right there!
You need a surgical team (maybe with time travelling equipment) to extract you from your own arse.

I can understand you fine, but you are the stereotypical example of what is wrong with Kung Fu.

You feel the need to dress up even your words in fancy silk pyjama's and perform literary flips and tumbles before simply saying Yes or No.


Leave the dumbing down to others. I prefer to speak to the level of the audience that is reading this stuff or listening to it. Imo, many here if not the majority are more than capable of understanding complexity in ones way of presenting their ideas. Yes, but you make it a tedious procedure, by using vocabulary and grammar one does not yet comprehend.

[David Jamieson]

TCMA is for killing and not for sport. For example:

- long weapon fight
- short weapon fight
- dagger fight
- flying dagger throwing and dodging
- one against many fight
- group fight
- entering strategy
- finish strategy

Which do not exist in most of the foreign MA.

There are 3 level of fighting:

- friendly challenge
- tournament competation
- survival

TCMA has them all.

Whether one trains all those situation or not is individual's problem but not the problem of TCMA.

The TCMA forms competation is the major problem. After one had won gold metals in the form competation and people start to call him "master", he would be afriad to compete in fighting for the rest of his life.

Before the age of 30, anybody should not concern about winning or losing. It's just the period of time to "accumulate experience". Everybody would lose in his earlier stage. Hopefully, he will have more winning and less losing when time goes by.

Lose face? compare to Geroge Bush, all American are loser because there is only one president in US.

If we put the whole earth population in one ring, there will be only one winner came out of that ring. After that person is dead, the whole earth are full of "losers".

foreign ma? tcma is foreign ma to most people on this board. :D

also, f16's, f18's the gun in all it's variations and the associated skills with using them in tactical situations are much more efficient ways of killing than spears and daggers. So, in that sense, tcma is like a rendezvous black powder club when it comes to "killing". Hardly effective or efficient in that sense and if the boxer rebellion taught us anything, it's that tcma is not the best way to advance your cause through violence.

in other words, tcma has almost 0 role in ones survival, but certainly is a great candidate for adaptation into more sportiveness and venues of that like as opposed to being some esoteric back room delusion as is so often portrayed in regards to the realities of life and death.

There's no time to find that Kwan Dao in a street fight.

Forms and how they are doled out, explained and taught is indeed part of the problem. I think that has been addressed fairly thoroughly in this thread.

the competition format of tma in general is all too often goofy politics perpetrated by those who arrange these competitions. They are not put forward as what they are and they are dressed up as something they are not.

AndyM- I have no idea what you're going on about other than you are asking me to dumb down what I say. I don't think it's required. The more distinct and targeted the verbiage, the less likely the phrase is subject to interpretation ergo the intention and meaning of the message is more intact for the reader for the most part.

I think people get it. But if you have a personal problem with it, then that's your's to own and isn't really my concern. What can I say, read more? Go back to school? I don't know, I'm ok with adult conversation and a higher level usage of the language.

[negativecr33p]

David Jamieson said:



I basically agree with most of this...and my purpose is to expand upon the thought, not contest the post.

so, a list of random, incohesive thoughts on the subject:

There is a problem is lack of 'pressure testing' the techniques.

There is a problem of over complication of movement.

There is a problem of 'traditionalists' argueing that CMA needs to be 'maintained' with no changes.

There is the problem with ego that, IMO, stems from not getting your ass whupped enough times because you've never stepped up.

I think Judo is a great example of a traditional art that went modern. Judo is the result of the modernization of a traditional art that culminated in a martial style that can stand the test of the street as well as the ring.

CMA is not going to get anywhere if the only people we ever fight are other CMA peeps.

................


I'm probably going to get called names and otherwise catch a bunch of crap by uber traditionalists and probably be told that I really don't know CMA...but that's fine.

The one point, I diverge on from David's post is that I still believe that TCMA can be used as an effective fighting method against any other method, the training paradigm needs to change though.

My goal is to take my traditional kung fu and make it work and more importantly, at this stage of my life, make it work for my students.

Thank you. I completely agree. http://www.jkd-kbh.dk/sbg2.wmv

[WinterPalm]

That last clip was hilarious! Thanks for posting that it made my day!

[SifuAbel]

Round and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows.................. :rolleyes:

"There is a problem is lack of 'pressure testing' the techniques.'

Dainty words for hard sparring. NEXT! This has been said a billion times.

"There is a problem of over complication of movement."

To me kung fu is rather straight forward and simple. All I see are blocks, strikes, kicks, throws and locks. There is plenty of variation in all; but so what?
You can get caught up in making it overcomplicated or not. Thats not the style's fault.

"Change"

This usaully means making things sloppy. Change what? A clean punch to a sloppy one? A clean kick to a sloppy one? Change from no sparring to hard sparring?(which is a given) To go from having many options to just a few?

This is where the "dumbing down" begins. Suddenly, its O.K. to do less and less.

I asked for a specific example of what you are trying to convey. So far its just vague generalizations.

[Shaolinlueb]

or how about

theres nothing wrong with CMA. sorry if you have had a bad experience.

[David Jamieson]

I would suggest that some of you dudes watch that SB clip that negative has posted. It is along the lines of exactly what I'm talking about.

In all the tma schools I went to, the training was not close to alive. All dead drills that ultimately don't teach you how to use the art you are being taught. Occaisionally a lively sparring round, but most of the time, well, it wasn't really giving me much more than dead patterns.

Abel, you and a couple others here are a special case. You have shown on a couple of occasions how your sparring and drilling is not the dead crap that Thornton is talking about in Negative's clip. However, this is not a dead horse, it's raising a point that you probably know is true. TMA training doesn't incorporate alive training as much as it could or should. Not that it can't, just that more often than not, it doesn't.

regards

[SifuAbel]

TMA training doesn't incorporate alive training as much as it could or should. Not that it can't, just that more often than not, it doesn't.

regards

This is the crux of the problem. "TMA" isn't the issue here. Because "TMA" DOES, and always HAS, include live training. Its the people who DEVIATE from this that cause the problems.

Thorton is throwing the word around like he invented it. And all I see are peope that are in dire need of some simple drills to get their form right. They're so worried about not being "alive" that they forgo very basic and very neccessary basic repetition. I.E. sloppyness.

Its not "TMA's" fault if there are people who are in it for the money and don't want to lose students due to hard contact.

[David Jamieson]

This is the crux of the problem. "TMA" isn't the issue here. Because "TMA" DOES, and always HAS, include live training. Its the people who DEVIATE from this that cause the problems.

Thorton is throwing the word around like he invented it. And all I see are peope that are in dire need of some simple drills to get their form right. They're so worried about not being "alive" that they forgo very basic and very neccessary basic repetition. I.E. sloppyness.

Its not "TMA's" fault if there are people who are in it for the money and don't want to lose students due to hard contact.

TMA is it's people. The majority of which do not seem to have this aspect to their training. Alive training doesn't mean no drills, no shadow, no repitition before entering into engagement. Alive training is the end process before the show.

You're right, it is excluded all too often and yet many that do exclude this important aspect still insist on calling what they do the street deadly.

As for Thornton, well of course he is co-opting, but he is not bullshiiting himself or his students about what's what.

And where else to get decent recourse on the subject but here? I mean this is one of the, if the not premier site for at least the traditional chinese martial arts.

How many of you guys who teach an art include this aspect?

[Fu-Pow]

the competition format of tma in general is all too often goofy politics perpetrated by those who arrange these competitions. They are not put forward as what they are and they are dressed up as something they are not.

You could make that charge against just about any organized "fighting" competition. I realized that when I saw Oscar De La Hoya run around the ring for 2 rounds and still win the fight. :rolleyes:

[Fu-Pow]

Round and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows.................. :rolleyes:

"There is a problem is lack of 'pressure testing' the techniques.'

Dainty words for hard sparring. NEXT! This has been said a billion times.

"There is a problem of over complication of movement."

To me kung fu is rather straight forward and simple. All I see are blocks, strikes, kicks, throws and locks. There is plenty of variation in all; but so what?
You can get caught up in making it overcomplicated or not. Thats not the style's fault.

"

This is where the "dumbing down" begins. Suddenly, its O.K. to do less and less.

.

Amen to all of this. ;)

[WinterPalm]

The clip posted was ridiculous. If one wantst to be able to learn a martial art, it is impossible not to learn technique. It would seem by his way of going about it that he wants you to just fight and whatever happens, happens. That is nonsense, otherwise you could just go to the bar and have a couple rounds with the locals. The point, even in boxing, is to learn and memorize proper technique. In kung fu your technique base is incredibly wide because you are preparing for anything that can happen on the street.

His chess analogy was ridiculous. It looked like a farce. You think if you want to work your opening in chess that the opponent you are playing with is going to do the same thing each time? Please... I've played a lot of chess and I know that if you practice the opening sequences, you can expect the other person to mix it up and act differently. Besides, in chess you have limitations that you are preparing to act within. On the street, and this is a mental training, there are no limitations and you must act within no parameters but whatever happens, happens.

The school I train at has a very large focus on forms and proper application and development of a person's physical and mental attributes. We also do a lot of sparring and this is done on a progressive level so that beginners start light and as you progress in skill and ability the intensity is ever increasing. We spar with no gear of any sort and as you go along, the attacks become more intent so that if you miss a slip or a block, bang, there go a few teeth or you end up on the floor. If you aren't dedicating your mind and body to what you are doing, you fail once even in the kwoon and it could be serious. This is brutal but I believe it is effective. With gloves and pads and helmets and various other gear you can get hit in the face and it isn't a big deal. But on the street it is. This may be fine if you are training for competition but I think if your goal is personal protection, then training in a realistic fashion is your best bet.
I suppose this may be knocking gear but I have nothing against it just saying that when it comes down to it, you aren't going to have that on the street and you better know that a hit to the head doesn't have a couple inches of padding but a solid skull and some knuckles.

I definately agree with training with aliveness, and the more honest you are with yourself and the harder you train, the better you will get and the more alive you can feel the sparring. I would never train where sparring wasn't considere, that is just not the goal in my opinion and besides, sparring is fun, pending you don't get rattled or take it too seriously.

[David Jamieson]

ok then...where to start...lol

first of all sbg trains technique from a variety of martial formats and they do gear their stuff to competitive fighting and as well street tactics. The clip is about alive training, not the course of training at SBG. You have misinterpreted if you think that it's all about banging and technique is not looked at extensively, it is. And I would add, it is done effectively and efficiently. The straightest line to the result.
It's a concept being discussed, not a curriculum :rolleyes:

second, training without gear is teaches you very little about fighting other than to take it easy on each other and you learn nothing. You will not take it easy on the street and you will not take it easy in the ring. Also, wearing gear is to protect the participants and allows you to train realistically and allows you to come back again in a short period of time. Tag and slap fights are not realistic at any level.

I would encourage anyone to go to open mat night at a club that does train alive and see how their shiit fairs.

[Fu-Pow]

Haha...the stuff on that wmv was pretty sloppy. No Xing, no Jin=no power, no crispness to the technique.

The people in that video obviously need more of a mechanical foundation before they move onto "aliveness" training.

The concept is correct but you need to have some fundamentals to hang it on.

And I certainly hope that wasn't there idea of hard sparring....that looks like our concept of very light sparring.

[PangQuan]

just an experience...

When I first began training in kung fu I understood that I needed to train very hard to build a proper set of skills.

I had been in fights before, I had been kicked, and I had been punched. I knew very well what pain felt like.

The very first time I sparred in class it was against three people consecutively. The first two people were not that bad, I felt I had done pretty good.

The last person I fought was deffinately more comfortable with the proper execution of the techniques we use.

I was caught with my guard down (endurance really sucked at this point and I was tired) and then BAM inside cresent to my jaw. The kick hit me in between the chin and the rear of the jaw, the helmet I was wearing had padding where I was kicked and I had a mouth piece in. The force of the kick spun me around and layed me out, further more I bit through the mouth peice and chipped 2 teeth. Needless to say it was a good kick. I got back up and we readied up and went at it again. He hit me with the same exact kick...LOL but this time I did not fall, i stumbled but regained my footing and continued. He tried the kick again, this time I dodged it. The rest of the time was pretty standard.

If I had not had a mouth peice and helmet, I would have really screwed up my teeth, and jaw. Who knows what kind of damage I would have taken from that first kick.

I know what a baseball bat to my ribs feels like, I know what a boot to my head feels like, and I know what it feels like to jump from a moving vehicle onto asphalt going 35 mph.

Having the protective equipment certainly lets me take those devistating kicks to my head and lets me get back up and take another.

If someone wants to know what it feels like to get hit in the head really hard to understand that a punch or kick hurts, all they need to do is try it out. But IMO not during training. Not to the point it may completely ruin your entire life and livelyhood. One trains in order to help them resist a person trying to harm them, one need not suffer the injury the attacker before they get attacked.

I know if I was sparring someone with no gear and had an opportunity to smash them to a tender spot, I would hold back for fear of severly disabling them, because I KNOW certain techniques to certain spots will drop you for a long time. Now if they had gear, I would not hold back, they would eat it, and they would eat it hard.

This is the difference. Gear lets you fight to your full potential without breaking, maiming or killing your brothers and sisters. I think this is one of the main reasons many CMA did not spar much in the past. No martialartsmart.com

this is not saying to never sparr with out gear, I sparr with out gear all the time, but then I only give a portion of what i have and i pull my attacks.

Gear is the moderator of the intensity of the activity. you have a chest pad on I will side kick you as hard as i can, if you dont, im not going to because i know i can break some ribs. And I dont WANT to break anyones ribs.

[Knifefighter]

Basic problems with many TMA’s:

1- Use of forms for anything more than a small supplemental part of training, such as warming up.
2- Unwillingness to enter full contact competitions or to set up and document challenge matches.
3- Assuming that fights will not end up on the ground or that one cannot be taken down.
4- Dismissal of modern conditioning techniques such as weight training.
5- Thinking that the training of soldiers hundreds of years ago is somehow applicable to modern needs.
6- Thinking that training in "compromised" positions such as low horse stances somehow is applicable to fighting.
7- Trying to "pull" techniques out of forms.

[Oso]

Round and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows.................. :rolleyes:

"There is a problem is lack of 'pressure testing' the techniques.'

Dainty words for hard sparring. NEXT! This has been said a billion times.

Sure it has, but it's the main point. The majority of schools out there that call themselves "kung fu'' schools DON'T spar. At all. Now, if they are a commercial school then they can't make all their students spar but if they are more concerned with finding out what each student wants to do then any school should have at least a fighter or two to represent what the teacher can show them.

"There is a problem of over complication of movement."

To me kung fu is rather straight forward and simple. All I see are blocks, strikes, kicks, throws and locks. There is plenty of variation in all; but so what?
You can get caught up in making it overcomplicated or not. Thats not the style's fault.

No, it's not the styles fault it's the teacher's fault in relying on ultra-complicated techniques that only work on compliant partners. It's also the fault of people that think 'kung fu' fighting has to look like the forms you do.

"Change"

This usaully means making things sloppy. Change what? A clean punch to a sloppy one? A clean kick to a sloppy one? Change from no sparring to hard sparring?(which is a given) To go from having many options to just a few?

This is where the "dumbing down" begins. Suddenly, its O.K. to do less and less.

EXACTLY !!! and this can be blamed on the commercial schools need to feed the masses.

I asked for a specific example of what you are trying to convey. So far its just vague generalizations.

The problem with TCMA is that the vast majority of the teachers operating schools these days are more interested in making money than anything else. So, what they do is develop a plan to make people feel good about themselves. People will spend a lot of money to feel good about themselves. Very few people want to hear criticism about themselves.

Also, the number of people that THINK they want to learn a 'martial' art are far fewer then the number of people that REALLY want to learn a martial art. Thus the 'dumbing down' begins as dumb asses with good marketing and people skills and crappy martial skills open schools.

Sifu Abel, I'm not sure of your reaction...you probably do 'have the goods' and you can probably fight and can probably teach people how to fight...I'll grant you all that just by virtue of your presence here. So, why do you think this whole thread is BS if you are in the minority of kung fu peeps that can possibly dance?



or how about

theres nothing wrong with CMA. sorry if you have had a bad experience.

well, let's see, I've had both...first good (lot's of fighting) then mediocre (lot's of fighting but some bad BS with the mystical hoopajoo crapola) then some more good (not quite enough fighting for me but that's ok, I'm getting older and have some students that want to fight)

I do agree though: There is nothing wrong with CMA. Just most of the idiots teaching it.


To Be Sure, there is a large majority of karate and other styles that total crap but I don't give a rat's azz about them because I don't share a name with any of them.

[Oso]

Basic problems with many TMA’s:

1- Use of forms for anything more than a small supplemental part of training, such as warming up.

sort of agree...forms are overused for sure but I think they could be used to good affect as more than a small supplemental part of training.

2- Unwillingness to enter full contact competitions or to set up and document challenge matches.

yep.

3- Assuming that fights will not end up on the ground or that one cannot be taken down.

yep.

4- Dismissal of modern conditioning techniques such as weight training.

yep....I'll post a pic of some new toys i just scored for my school.

we already do a saturday strength class based on www.trainforstrength.com 's 'workout 1'

no, not every one of my students shows up for it but 30-35% of them do on a regular basis.

5- Thinking that the training of soldiers hundreds of years ago is somehow applicable to modern needs.

hmmm, my intent was the soldier's intent and the intent of the soldier's instructors. not necessarily thier specific training model.

6- Thinking that training in "compromised" positions such as low horse stances somehow is applicable to fighting.

agreed, but I still think that the low horse can be a fundamental tool in building good body awareness and structure in the new student. it shouldn't be take to the extremes that some advocate. Our horse training is part of our warmup and no one does it for more than 2-3 minutes.

7- Trying to "pull" techniques out of forms.

well, in modern CMA that is where most of them are located. it takes someone of good intellect to separate the kernal from the chaff though.





:mad: characters :mad:

[Gold Horse Dragon]

As WP said, we do saparring without equipment on the whole, but once in a while we will put on gloves so they can feel free to hit hard. Without protective gear, the person will pull the strike if a block etc is missed. Sparring without equipment does not take away from anyway the reality of it. It does teach self-control and if you cannot control yourself...then you cannot truely control the opponent. Both types of sparring give a much more realistic attitude and ability in the end, but on the whole I think you get more from sparring without. Equipment can tend to give one an unrealistic view and in some cases can lead to sloppiness of technique.
However, the crux of this post is about TCMA which is below.

There is a trend today where a person or persons talk ‘trash’ about a particular art saying it to be no good or inferior. This is often, but not inclusive, by a student who has practised it. So, is it the art or is it the person? My experience is that over 90 percent of the time it is not the art that is lacking but rather it is the person who is lacking (in understanding, skills and ability) to make that particular art work for them. As well, often the person has had limited time in the art and has not reached the higher levels of it. Granted some arts are more comprehensive than other ones, but if a person gets defeated using a particular art…it is more often than not, the person’s lack of knowledge and skill in his art compared to that of his opponent and not the art itself.

TCMA is often put down today as being antiquated, out of date, lacking in applied self-defence etc.. However, TCMArts have lasted 100’s of years having been tested in no rules street combat…so it does have great merit when the user is skilled at it and used in that venue. One cannot speak knowledgeably if one has not experienced. Having fought full contact and having defended myself in numerous street encounters, I can say that getting into the ring and fighting so-called full contact with rules is nowhere near the same as defending against someone on the street where no rules apply. What works in the ring may not work on the street. Besides my 30 plus years in TCMA, I also learned wrestling from my father, western boxing and other non-Chinese or Chinese based traditional martial arts such as Tiger Style Kun Tao. On the street, what has effectively worked for me against armed and unarmed aggressors was TCMA and Chinese based TMA. TCMA self-defence methodologies and techniques were not designed for the ‘ring’ but for the street where they have worked well or they would not still be around. Getting in the ‘ring’ is still a ‘sport’…it has rules and regulations the same as other sports do…such as boxing. If you change TCMA to fit the ring, then it loses its value and methods and is no longer TCMA. TCMA is for learning and part of that learning is to develop the knowledge and skills to be able to effectively defend oneself on the street according to the ‘only one rule applies on the street’ and that is ‘there are no rules’. Because one has not developed the knowledge and skills to effectively use TCMA, does not mean it does not work…again it is the person and not the art. Because TCMA practise ancient weapons dose not invalidate it as an effective art of self-defence. They are practised for posterity, because one has an interest in it and because it has spin offs into conditioning which assists one self in effectively defending them self. TCMA is not about being able to take a hit (although there is training methodology to develop this ability), but rather, it is about having the skill to not get hit…but if you do, you have trained in that skill too. TCMA is not about rolling around on the ground trying to get the best of someone in grappling, but rather it is about having the skill to not go to the ground, but TCMA has methods (at least the two arts I studied…Toisan Black Tiger and Tiger Style Kun Tao have them)for this just in case you do. I learned these traditional arts according to the teachings of my Sifu and they have worked well for me. I teach my students this way and as long as they continue to learn and apply themselves, it will work for them (both in self-defence and conditioning and health), The ‘in thing’ today is Grappling and MMA. TCMA often have a form of grappling (but not the same as BJJ) in it and counters to various forms of grappling techniques…meaning that principles are taught that allow for countering grappling moves without necessarily going into the technicalities of grappling technique, although this is also done in such areas as in Kum Na [chin na]. As far as MMA is concerned...it is techniques gathered from here and there because a person has not delved deeply enough into a TCMA or because they have not chosen a TCMA suitable for their body and mind set. TCMA on the other hand is a deep well of accumulated knowledge and time and battle tested methodologies and techniques that work to defend one self. Also, TCMA are about much more than just fighting techniques. Incorporated into traditional forms is Hay Gong (Chi kung) for strength and health development that have no direct fighting application. Forms (kuen) and other training are designed for strength, flexibility, proper muscle, tendon and bone alignment, to develop ones maximum potential and allowing for proper and strong flow of blood and energy to assist in keeping ones health as best as possible (along with of course proper diet and living and good genes). This contributes to ones health and the ability to defend oneself, for how can anyone effectively defend them self if he is not in good health and physical shape. Too constantly ‘test’ one self in a full go methodology will only lead to undesirable affects after time…just take a look at these full contact all the time guys after a number of years…the examples are numerous. So in these areas of self-defence and health…TCMA is a very deep well to draw from. In addition, TCMA also betters society by have a strong ethical philosophy attached to it. Often, people just interested in beating another person will eschew (trash) this aspect…but this type of attitude does not contribute to society in a positive way, whereas TCMA does. Often we see others trashing this Sifu or that Sifu or that art or this art. Most often the person doing the trashing does not even know the Sifu or art, or has not personally felt or observed his skills and just believes someone else doing ‘trashing’ because of that someone else’s personal agenda. Sometimes the ‘trasher’ is a former student of that Sifu and art and who has some ‘gripe’ against their Sifu…a gripe more often that not unjustified and often involving thinking the Sifu is ‘holding back’ on him, when in reality, the Sifu will give when the student has ‘earned’ that instruction I.E he is ready for it in ability, ethics etc. Some say the ethics are only that of the Sifu and hence invalid and should not be required of the student. What is wrong with it coming from the Sifu as long as those values and ethics are good and wholesome. Where else would those ethics and values come from…after all it is the Sifu – a person doing the teaching. The Sifu also brings the ethics of the society he resides in…I.E. accepted norms of decency and behaviour. As well, most TCMA have a basis or origin that contained an underlying philosophy and system of ethics (Buddhism, Taoism etc.) for the betterment of the person, others and society and TCMA Sifu might also bring in some of this. Often the ‘trasher’ (student or not) is just letting his green eyed monster (jealousy) take him over. Quite often the ‘trasher’ does not agree with the ethical underpinnings of the art and Sifu and so goes on a trashing binge of the art of that Sifu and/or the Sifu himself (thus demonstrating the ‘trasher’s’ own lack of good ethics and integrity). Sometimes the ‘trasher’ is a former student and he ‘trashes’ because he is of the thinking that he believes he knows more than the Sifu after having studied only 4 to 5 years with the Sifu and having gathered a few techniques from here and there after leaving the Kwoon.

In the end, more often than not, it is not the art that is at fault but the person himself. A person should not blame TCMA for his own lack of drawing from its deep well and his inability to understand and apply that art effectively. Kuen or forms and other TCMA training are designed to develop the student to his potential. The forms do have self-defence methods in them, but not verbatim…I.E. they are adapted from a ‘developmental’ method in the kuen to a self-defence mode in the ‘application’. Two sides of the coin, not the same, yet still a coin.

TCMA is about peace and not having to fight…but you prepare for war, just in case. Those who ‘trash’, practise war, have little inner peace and self-worth, in my estimate. I am not perfect, who is?, but in this journey through life, at least I can say that TCMA has assisted me and I can and will be able to say down the road, that I have practised peace and decent ethics. This is not to say ‘there have been times’ … when encountering lets say a former student going down the wrong path and doing ‘trashing’ of my style, teaching methodologies or me personally on a constant basis or another who barely knows me and doing similar, that I have temporarily swerved and said…”well, if he thinks what he learned from me in TCMA is no good and his MMA is better or an individual that hardly knows me thinks himself so knowledgeable and his is the ‘real’ style and hence better and mine is not, then let him come to my kwoon and test it on the floor with no rules”, but then my discipline and ethics gained, kick in and I say to myself…”no that is not the way, nothing of true worth will come from it and I do not want to be that type of person, Sifu or take that path”. That is not to say however that I will not defend myself if forced on me to do so.


SWC

[Knifefighter]

8- Thinking that sparring without equipment while pulling punches can produce an effective fighter.

[David Jamieson]

This is a multi poster reply due to message length:


As WP said, we do saparring without equipment on the whole, but once in a while we will put on gloves so they can feel free to hit hard. Without protective gear, the person will pull the strike if a block etc is missed. Sparring without equipment does not take away from anyway the reality of it. It does teach self-control and if you cannot control yourself...then you cannot truely control the opponent. Both types of sparring give a much more realistic attitude and ability in the end, but on the whole I think you get more from sparring without. Equipment can tend to give one an unrealistic view and in some cases can lead to sloppiness of technique.

I disagree, wearing gear is only responsible and ensures that the practitioners are properly protected. It's about learning without busting your teeth. The method of sparring without gear is not effective and it is out moded. I can point to a hundred models that verify this.


However, the crux of this post is about TCMA which is below.

There is a trend today where a person or persons talk ‘trash’ about a particular art saying it to be no good or inferior. This is often, but not inclusive, by a student who has practised it. So, is it the art or is it the person? My experience is that over 90 percent of the time it is not the art that is lacking but rather it is the person who is lacking (in understanding, skills and ability) to make that particular art work for them. As well, often the person has had limited time in the art and has not reached the higher levels of it. Granted some arts are more comprehensive than other ones, but if a person gets defeated using a particular art…it is more often than not, the person’s lack of knowledge and skill in his art compared to that of his opponent and not the art itself.

In tma the method of instruction and the path taken is ineffective in training a fighter. A person can enter a school that teaches the three ranges and can effectively and capably handle themselves in a shorter period of time than someone entering your average kungfu kwoon which loads it's curriculum with all sorts of stuff that simply isn't part of training one's martial ability.


TCMA is often put down today as being antiquated, out of date, lacking in applied self-defence etc.. However, TCMArts have lasted 100’s of years having been tested in no rules street combat…so it does have great merit when the user is skilled at it and used in that venue.

tcma which is the chinese portion of tma is not taught anywhere near the same way it was 100's of years ago when it meant something and when people trained in it to be soldiers and were dead serious about teh fighting appliucations. NOw it is not this at all. It has also been shown againa and again recently that it is a monrity of practitioners who still practice traditional martial art in a format that is not concerned with splitting hairs on where the combat happens just on what is an effective way to get it done.




One cannot speak knowledgeably if one has not experienced. Having fought full contact and having defended myself in numerous street encounters, I can say that getting into the ring and fighting so-called full contact with rules is nowhere near the same as defending against someone on the street where no rules apply.

There are factors on the street that can include more danger, but many "street" fights are scuffles and are not even close to the calibre of fighting one sees in a sports venue. Frankly, I think this argument has lost it's legs in a lot of ways.




What works in the ring may not work on the street.

Really? Choking someone out won'ty work on the street? How about cracking their jaw or busting their knee with a shovel kick? Those work differently depending where you are? I don't think so. You require the same amount of intent in either place to come out on top. Training for the ring in mma will prepare you either way. One cannot presume to know the variables and outcomes of any encounter street or ring. It's the method and what is effective to the fighters path that counts, not the differences. Not to mention, a great deal of mma deals with street. Check out SBG or Machado or Dog Brothers or pretty much any jkd school you can look at and of course, some tma schools.



Besides my 30 plus years in TCMA, I also learned wrestling from my father, western boxing and other non-Chinese or Chinese based traditional martial arts such as Tiger Style Kun Tao. On the street, what has effectively worked for me against armed and unarmed aggressors was TCMA and Chinese based TMA. TCMA self-defence methodologies and techniques were not designed for the ‘ring’ but for the street where they have worked well or they would not still be around. Getting in the ‘ring’ is still a ‘sport’…it has rules and regulations the same as other sports do…such as boxing. If you change TCMA to fit the ring, then it loses its value and methods and is no longer TCMA.

That was then, this is now and two words "lei tai". Plenty of tcma is used for contests of skill. THere are examples of it here in teh video thread and stories going back as far as many can remember of their sifu fighting in contest venues for face or for money. It is martial art after all.




TCMA is for learning and part of that learning is to develop the knowledge and skills to be able to effectively defend oneself on the street according to the ‘only one rule applies on the street’ and that is ‘there are no rules’. Because one has not developed the knowledge and skills to effectively use TCMA, does not mean it does not work…again it is the person and not the art.

The person is always a factor, but more importantly in a given field of study, it is the method of instruction and the learning objectives that guide what it is for anyone involved.


Because TCMA practise ancient weapons dose not invalidate it as an effective art of self-defence. Nobody invalidated it based on this, it was pointed out that training classical weapons is not exactly a realistic way to "prepare".




They are practised for posterity, because one has an interest in it and because it has spin offs into conditioning which assists one self in effectively defending them self.
Posterity is part of the face game, it is impractical. Better to relegate this practice to a cultural thing like thai dance, or fan dance. Spin off benefits can be established more effectively and efficiently with other methods that develop functional strength without having choreographed patterns and a tinfoil sword wailing around.


TCMA is not about being able to take a hit (although there is training methodology to develop this ability), but rather, it is about having the skill to not get hit…but if you do, you have trained in that skill too. TCMA is not about rolling around on the ground trying to get the best of someone in grappling, but rather it is about having the skill to not go to the ground, but TCMA has methods (at least the two arts I studied…Toisan Black Tiger and Tiger Style Kun Tao have them)for this just in case you do.
You're waffling in this statement. First, ground is a range of fighting that must be addressed. To assume you will never go there is a mistake. The stats have it at above 60% chances. If you don't train it at that level, you are ill prepared.




I learned these traditional arts according to the teachings of my Sifu and they have worked well for me. I teach my students this way and as long as they continue to learn and apply themselves, it will work for them (both in self-defence and conditioning and health), The ‘in thing’ today is Grappling and MMA.
"in thing" sounds like minimization of something that is competing with and consistently beating the old school ways of static stretches, choreographed forms and antiquated methods. Not that all of it's bad, if it's good, it'll get used, if it's useless, it will die off. At least mma is bringing back the venue that one can apply their martial art. As opposed to ruminating about it's value because it is not being pressure tested and it is not being seriously contested in it's cocwoon which is cozy and warm.

...cont

[David Jamieson]

continued from above

TCMA often have a form of grappling (but not the same as BJJ) in it and counters to various forms of grappling techniques…meaning that principles are taught that allow for countering grappling moves without necessarily going into the technicalities of grappling technique, although this is also done in such areas as in Kum Na [chin na].
This is true, but how much focus is on this compared to choreographed form and how much of this training is overly compliant? How does a lot of this technique fair in an alive environment? Actually I can answer that, It will fair well if it is trained in an alive environment with resisting opponents. Otherwise it is dead and static technique that when you try to pull it off alive when you've been training it dead, will fail and it will fail consistently.




As far as MMA is concerned...it is techniques gathered from here and there because a person has not delved deeply enough into a TCMA or because they have not chosen a TCMA suitable for their body and mind set.

tcma should be able to adpat it's method to any body form as for mindset i'm sure the same mindedness in practitioners doesn't necessarily produce equal skills sets, hard work and practice get that honour. As well, mma is fast becoming an art form unto itself. It's techniques are gathered from many arts, but they address the ranges and those techniques that do not effectively address offensive and defensive modalities in the fighting ranges are removed from the curriculum for the most part. It focuses on what is effective. Many tcma are in and of themselves a great deal of cultural study as opposed to applied practical methods of fighter development.


TCMA on the other hand is a deep well of accumulated knowledge and time and battle tested methodologies and techniques that work to defend one self. By this equation, skimming the fresh water and leaving the bock is the argument of mma practice. there's a lot of bock or that which is antiquated in re fight development in tma.


Also, TCMA are about much more than just fighting techniques. And yet it is consistently marketed as an effective method of self defense and fighting ability first.


Incorporated into traditional forms is Hay Gong (Chi kung) for strength and health development that have no direct fighting application.
cv work, plyometrics, kettle bells, club work, sparring, yoga, etc etc. These have their place in mma as well. Infact many modern kinesiologist have contributed reems of good practice to modern method fighter development. It is not rejected out of hand and it is welcomed into the practice provided it has worth in re the focus of the practice. tma does have a lot of useful stuff, that is not the argument being put forth via this thread really.


Forms (kuen) and other training are designed for strength, flexibility, proper muscle, tendon and bone alignment, to develop ones maximum potential and allowing for proper and strong flow of blood and energy to assist in keeping ones health as best as possible (along with of course proper diet and living and good genes).
There are more effective ways than form. We have learned that form now is not what it once was. Even the many who state that the original shaolin forms were not long and drawn out stretch routines and the saying is "could be practiced in the space it takes an ox to lie down". This is more in holding with modern martial arts than complex and elaborate systems of forms that never end and go on and on without pressure testing what is of value in those forms in a realistic way.



This contributes to ones health and the ability to defend oneself, for how can anyone effectively defend them self if he is not in good health and physical shape.
I can't think of any active mma-ists who are not in pretty decent shape if not in superior physical shape to a great deal of tma-ists. They do not use these old methods.


Too constantly ‘test’ one self in a full go methodology will only lead to undesirable affects after time…just take a look at these full contact all the time guys after a number of years…the examples are numerous.
A painter paints, a mechanic fixes car, their practice is always germain to their objective. This should be true of fight training as well.



So in these areas of self-defence and health…TCMA is a very deep well to draw from.
Again, there are more efficient ways. One could develop better cv strength on an elliptical trainer more effectively than doing forms which are highly anaerobic in many of their iterations.


In addition, TCMA also betters society by have a strong ethical philosophy attached to it.
This is bandied about, but if a person is good, wants to be good and does good deeds, then they will contribute to society without ever entering a kwoon.



Often, people just interested in beating another person will eschew (trash) this aspect…but this type of attitude does not contribute to society in a positive way, whereas TCMA does.
It's not about "beating another person" It's about effective methodologies to bring out the capable fighter. It's a technology, not a psychological assessment.



Often we see others trashing this Sifu or that Sifu or that art or this art. We also see people who question a method legitimately get trashed by these same sifu and their students for asking a question. There will always be the voice of inexperience jumping to this conclusion or that on both sides of that fence.



Most often the person doing the trashing does not even know the Sifu or art, or has not personally felt or observed his skills and just believes someone else doing ‘trashing’ because of that someone else’s personal agenda. Sometimes the ‘trasher’ is a former student of that Sifu and art and who has some ‘gripe’ against their Sifu…a gripe more often that not unjustified and often involving thinking the Sifu is ‘holding back’ on him, when in reality, the Sifu will give when the student has ‘earned’ that instruction I.E he is ready for it in ability, ethics etc.
Agreed, but again, this is a p.o.v thing and yes, some people are embittered by their experiences in a tma setting. The same goes for anywhere, even aschool. We all have a teacher who we didn't like in high school. Doesn't invalidate the lesson, but that's neither here nor there in context to this argument.


Some say the ethics are only that of the Sifu and hence invalid and should not be required of the student.
If the ethics are contrary, they are contrary. Ethics is a broad subject and more often than not, culturally relative. To take a pluralistic stance is the better positin because it allows you to glean that which is useful and that which is not.


What is wrong with it coming from the Sifu as long as those values and ethics are good and wholesome.
Nothing is wrong with it. No one here is saying that good values should be rejected. Again this is not germain to the argument here which is about effective vs ineffective methodologies of training a martial art.


Where else would those ethics and values come from…after all it is the Sifu – a person doing the teaching.
Your parents? your school? Your church? The social contract you live under? the law of the land? These places all harbour the ethics and values of a society moreso and more definitively for the greater body of society.



The Sifu also brings the ethics of the society he resides in…I.E. accepted norms of decency and behaviour.
And yet many sifu will not accept students who need an adjustment. You of all people should know that. It's easy if the student is already essentially a good person. Just a little tune up here and there to fit into the school really. But what of someone who really needs an adjustment? What sifu is willing to help that person? Few of them.


As well, most TCMA have a basis or origin that contained an underlying philosophy and system of ethics (Buddhism, Taoism etc.) for the betterment of the person, others and society and TCMA Sifu might also bring in some of this.
Pseudo religious studies are hardly effective here either. Either a person wants to delve into buddhism or taoism and more often than not they will find a great deal of answers on their own through the course of time and experience in life itself. Not to mention, dharma studies are a more likely place to get this type of training and understanding.

,,,cont

[David Jamieson]

continued from above


Often the ‘trasher’ (student or not) is just letting his green eyed monster (jealousy) take him over.
Trashing and indicating flaws are two different things. Trashing is negative and directionless. There is no purpose to it. This is what I see as jealousy. But when it is serious regard for something and questioning it...well, theres some buddhist ideals for you.



Quite often the ‘trasher’ does not agree with the ethical underpinnings of the art and Sifu and so goes on a trashing binge of the art of that Sifu and/or the Sifu himself (thus demonstrating the ‘trasher’s’ own lack of good ethics and integrity). Sometimes the ‘trasher’ is a former student and he ‘trashes’ because he is of the thinking that he believes he knows more than the Sifu after having studied only 4 to 5 years with the Sifu and having gathered a few techniques from here and there after leaving the Kwoon. This is your viewpoint, I would agree this happens, but I don't think that it is germain to the points being made here about ineefective vs effective methods of practice and study in a martial art.
4 or 5 years of practice and study should by all rights produce at the very leats a halfway efficient fighter. We have been shown again and again, this is all too often not the case.


In the end, more often than not, it is not the art that is at fault but the person himself.
In the end, this is true of all things. But if you dedicate your time to ineffective practice, you will reap the results and it will effect your objective detrimentally if your practice doesn't fit your objective.


A person should not blame TCMA for his own lack of drawing from its deep well and his inability to understand and apply that art effectively.
It's the methods that are faulty, not the concept overall. tcma is as flexible and adaptable as any other fighting art and in fact has been updated for the times it is in and where it is not, it shows. The growth in fighting arts has been exponential in the last 10 years or so. It is popular and has a great deal of practitioners worldwide. The mma methods and practices are outpacing those traditional methodologies that refuse to keep up.


Kuen or forms and other TCMA training are designed to develop the student to his potential. The forms do have self-defence methods in them, but not verbatim…I.E. they are adapted from a ‘developmental’ method in the kuen to a self-defence mode in the ‘application’. Two sides of the coin, not the same, yet still a coin. Forms promote connectivity of the student to his body and mind, they introduce movement concepts and help the student to gain fundamental understanding of a given style of martial practice. They are too often the primary focus instead of the augmentation practice they should be as they were in the past.


TCMA is about peace and not having to fight…but you prepare for war, just in case.

Christianity is about peace and not having to fight. Stripping any martial art of it's objective and goal does a disservice to the art form especially if it is about tactical action and response.


Those who ‘trash’, practise war, have little inner peace and self-worth, in my estimate.
That is your estimate, you have blanketed a huge portion of the martial artists out there. Not to mention, the people who are actually practicing fighters and not posers are more content and less agressive in my estimate.


I am not perfect, who is?, but in this journey through life, at least I can say that TCMA has assisted me and I can and will be able to say down the road, that I have practised peace and decent ethics.
It is not possible to not be subjective about oneself. You're correct, no one's perfect and no one ever will be, that's part and parcel to life.


This is not to say ‘there have been times’ … when encountering lets say a former student going down the wrong path and doing ‘trashing’ of my style, teaching methodologies or me personally on a constant basis or another who barely knows me and doing similar, that I have temporarily swerved and said…”well, if he thinks what he learned from me in TCMA is no good and his MMA is better or an individual that hardly knows me thinks himself so knowledgeable and his is the ‘real’ style and hence better and mine is not, then let him come to my kwoon and test it on the floor with no rules”, but then my discipline and ethics gained, kick in and I say to myself…”no that is not the way, nothing of true worth will come from it and I do not want to be that type of person, Sifu or take that path”.
It's not about "you". There are also sifu out there who have open mat night and see the value of it and allow themselves the opportunity to step up and continue to understand martial art. The no rules part just sounds like something sammy franco would say. That is anger speaking. So you can quell your anger.


That is not to say however that I will not defend myself if forced on me to do so.


SWC

who wouldn't given they had the ability to do so?

[DoGcHoW108]

my head just exploded

[Fu-Pow]

Wow when did this thread become so retarded? :eek:

[MasterKiller]

Wow when did this thread become so retarded? :eek: GHD and Kung Lek have some history together...

[David Jamieson]

dogchow- see a doctor, i hear that can be harmful :p

fu- I can't understand why you think this discourse is anything less than legitimate.

retarded? Only if you stop reading and thinking because of your own supposition bud.

mk- our history is long ago and far away. this is new discourse never approached by either of us.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

DJ
The only one who is angry here is "you"...that is quite obvious from your various posts...swear here, knock this, knock that person. What I was talking about is the TCMA I do...you really need to calm down and read and I am not saying this with sarcasm. I am not going to go over all this with you...waste of time, but will address a few things.

That is your estimate, you have blanketed a huge portion of the martial artists out there. Not to mention, the people who are actually practicing fighters and not posers are more content and less agressive in my estimate.

No, just those that trash


It is not possible to not be subjective about oneself. You're correct, no one's perfect and no one ever will be, that's part and parcel to life.

People are mostly subjective about themself...it is the objective part that is hard


I can't think of any active mma-ists who are not in pretty decent shape if not in superior physical shape to a great deal of tma-ists. They do not use these old methods

Being in shape does not equal health and Again you trash


Your parents? your school? Your church? The social contract you live under? the law of the land? These places all harbour the ethics and values of a society moreso and more definitively for the greater body of society.

Of course, but not learn it well...and I know your parents definiltely know that


tcma which is the chinese portion of tma is not taught anywhere near the same way it was 100's of years ago when it meant something and when people trained in it to be soldiers and were dead serious about teh fighting appliucations. NOw it is not this at all. It has also been shown againa and again recently that it is a monrity of practitioners who still practice traditional martial art in a format that is not concerned with splitting hairs on where the combat happens just on what is an effective way to get it done.

Didn not know you were around to speak with knowledge about that...guess you can time travel


Really? Choking someone out won'ty work on the street? How about cracking their jaw or busting their knee with a shovel kick? Those work differently depending where you are? I don't think so. You require the same amount of intent in either place to come out on top.

Like I said...it depends on the circumstances...such as multiple opponents and other factors


And yet many sifu will not accept students who need an adjustment. You of all people should know that. It's easy if the student is already essentially a good person. Just a little tune up here and there to fit into the school really. But what of someone who really needs an adjustment? What sifu is willing to help that person? Few of them.

Well I accepted you with your back ground of 10 years...enough said...and that I know now was a mistake...I had reservations...but did not listen to myself.

I find you to be quite a bitter and angry person...do not know if it is drugs or head injury...you have lapses of accurate memory and are sometimes almost delusional. You really should get this checked out...it is a concern...truely.
As far as the rest goes of your post...nothing more can be said...you will maintain an opinion on something no matter what even if it can be proven not to be the case...

[David Jamieson]

DJ
The only one who is angry here is "you"...that is quite obvious from your various posts...swear here, knock this, knock that person. What I was talking about is the TCMA I do...you really need to calm down and read and I am not saying this with sarcasm. I am not going to go over all this with you...waste of time, but will address a few things.


No, just those that trash



People are mostly subjective about themself...it is the objective part that is hard



Being in shape does not equal health and Again you trash



Of course, but not learn it well...and I know your parents definiltely know that



Didn not know you were around to speak with knowledge about that...guess you can time travel



Like I said...it depends on the circumstances...such as multiple opponents and other factors



Well I accepted you with your back ground of 10 years...enough said...and that I know now was a mistake...I had reservations...but did not listen to myself.

I find you to be quite a bitter and angry person...do not know if it is drugs or head injury...you have lapses of accurate memory and are sometimes almost delusional. You really should get this checked out...it is a concern...truely.
As far as the rest goes of your post...nothing more can be said...you will maintain an opinion on something no matter what even if it can be proven not to be the case...

Dude, I bear no ill will toward you, and this thread isn't about you and me, it's about the state of tma and how they need revision in order to be that which they claim they are. IE: Martial arts.

We can go on and on about how bitter and angry we think the other is I suppose, but what a monumental waste of time that is. I would like to address a few points though seeing as you brought them up.

1.you didn't know sh1t about my past until blabber mouth rob w decided to take it upon himself to suck up to you again and told you about it. That's the truth so lets not pretend here.

2.I attempted to tell you about it early on at Sylvias restaurant, but you didn't want to hear it. Fine by me, everyone has a past and it doesn't effect me anymore so it's moot. Let's talk about your failings in life?

3. Your point about my reckoning of the past is no more authorative than anyone elses I guess. You believe in wuxia, I do not, but I've heard from enough people with grandfathers who did this stuff to know that tma then is not as it is now in the mainstream. I would suspect you probably know that too, but again, you are all about face when it comes down to it and cringe when your line of thought is contested.

4. it was my mistake to study with you ultimately is my lesson. and seeing as you don't have any students whatsoever from that same timeline, I guess they figured it was their mistake too.

5. your veiled trash is trash all the same. You can keep it.

In the end, that's that. I still have an empty cup when i meet proficiency. You insist that your unwavering way is it. I will not drink another drop of your tea, nor would I propogate it to others.

we're done, let it die.

[DoGcHoW108]

whats goin on now?

[SevenStar]

The problem with modern BJJ and MMA are:

- Assuming that you only need to deal with one enemy and the referee will stop the fight the moment you tap out.

That's not an assumption we make. just recently, one of the boucers at the club I work at took a guy down. Given his situation, he had to. Guess what? no broken glass... No other attackers.... fight ended real quick. The bottom line there is sometimes there will be other attackers and sometimes there will not be. Either way, if you end up on the ground, you need to be able to handle yourself effectively there. Contrary to the popular belief of many TMA, there is not always multiple attackers and broken glass, however, even if there WAS, ground knowledge will benefit you in the event that you DO get taken down, as you don't always have a choice.

We don't assume anything about tapping. if someone arm bars me on the street, my arm is broken. It's that simple.submissions are chokes, breaks, etc. even in competition things get broken.


- Trying to "create" techniques out of sparring experience. You can only deal with average guys but against a strong opponent, you will need more "serious drills".

"serious drills" are planned...



A. My wife is prettier than your wife.
B. My wife can cook better than your wife.
C. But my wife is rich so I don't have to work for the rest of my life.

With the restriction that you can only have one wife in US, you will never be able to find a PERFECT wife. This is why we need "cross train (date different girls? :) )".

This is good. :D

[SevenStar]

beautiful posts, David... you saved me a lot of typing :D

[WinterPalm]

DJ,
The problem which you still do not understand, is that throughout this whole thread you knock the tma that you learned, in the kwoons you attended, with the tma you learned. GHD is the Sifu you had and are talking ill towards. Fine, you do not like kung fu, then you do not need to go about making ill comments about what someone who tried to teach you does. You act all innocent and it is pathetic. You can only expect these things to be dumped on you if this is how you conduct yourself in public. Sifu holds his Sifu in high regards and that is where he learned from and that is from where his knowledge comes. You are insulting more than one man. It is not a matter that Sifu's is the best method or that anybodies is, it is a matter of dedication and respect to those that teach you, came before you and will come after you.
So don't pretend like you weren't looking for a response like this. The only reason Sifu addressed this was because of the manner in which you speak so negatively towards what he does and what he tried to show you. You contradict yourself all over the place and just seem to enjoy arguing. Fine. Sometimes even a wall needs to be spoken to.

[SevenStar]

It's the teacher's problem if If he doesn't

- send students to fight in tournaments.
- teach the application in the forms.
- require students to work on the weight and heavy bag.
- ...

It's not the problem of the TCMA style.

I would say that is a problem of the style, not the teacher. Why doesn't the teacher teach that way? he probably wasn't taught that way either. If such training was characteristic of the style, then it wouldn't be an issue, as it would always be done.

[SevenStar]

DJ, WP, GHD - take this discussion offline...

[Shaolinlueb]

In all the tma schools I went to, the training was not close to alive. All dead drills that ultimately don't teach you how to use the art you are being taught. Occaisionally a lively sparring round, but most of the time, well, it wasn't really giving me much more than dead patterns.

hence the bad experience.

[Gold Horse Dragon]

Dude, I bear no ill will toward you, and this thread isn't about you and me, it's about the state of tma and how they need revision in order to be that which they claim they are. IE: Martial arts.

Well, thats what I have already said...it is about your misguided view of TCMA. But also about your lack of accruately describing what we did and still do at my kwoon


We can go on and on about how bitter and angry we think the other is I suppose, but what a monumental waste of time that is. I would like to address a few points though seeing as you brought them up.

As I already pointed out...I am not angry...disgusted yes, but not angry


1.you didn't know sh1t about my past until blabber mouth rob w decided to take it upon himself to suck up to you again and told you about it. That's the truth so lets not pretend here.

Well see...this is another example of where you do not have facts straight. Your room mate and friend and student of mine and still is Rob told me a year before I let him start to teach you. When you came to the kwoon...I already knew...but I still accepted you and treated you fair and well and even more than that.


2.I attempted to tell you about it early on at Sylvias restaurant, but you didn't want to hear it. Fine by me, everyone has a past and it doesn't effect me anymore so it's moot. Let's talk about your failings in life?

We are not talking about failings...but since you do..yours was a biggie and you are still into this form of thinking errors and behaviour...although not as before as far as I know, but certainly on this forum the way you trash, have a huge ego and do not respect others opinions. Sylvias restaurant...she never had one that you and I were at and as far as I recall, you attempted to reveal nothing...no big deal...knew about it even before I met you or even knew your name.


3. Your point about my reckoning of the past is no more authorative than anyone elses I guess. You believe in wuxia, I do not, but I've heard from enough people with grandfathers who did this stuff to know that tma then is not as it is now in the mainstream. I would suspect you probably know that too, but again, you are all about face when it comes down to it and cringe when your line of thought is contested.

Depends what you mean by the mainstream...if it is just doing sets with no application or sparring...then yes...but that is not the case in my kwoon nor the kwoon of my Sifu..as far as elders go...I have been in this art for over 30 years and have spoke with far older people than you have...as dictated by your age, my age and the time line. Really traditional kwoons practice what has been handed down to them from Dai Sigung to Sigung to Sifu on and on. Some things may change, but the core remains pretty much the same.


4. it was my mistake to study with you ultimately is my lesson. and seeing as you don't have any students whatsoever from that same timeline, I guess they figured it was their mistake too.

Another example of your facts not being straight nor true...I have students still with me after more than 20 years and as far as when you were there, there are still some around, Besides, life changes and students have to move on for various reasons...does not mean we are not in friendly contact.
As stated it was my mistake to accept you.


5. your veiled trash is trash all the same. You can keep it.

Nothing veiled and no trash...just facts


In the end, that's that. I still have an empty cup when i meet proficiency. You insist that your unwavering way is it. I will not drink another drop of your tea, nor would I propogate it to others.

You have a very lets say unusual concept of an open mind...I really do not see it open from your posts here.


we're done, let it die.

Funny thats what I said in Feb/04....but you have to go on..drawing my kwoon, TCMA at the kwoon and teachings there into it....As I stated before, you have this like hate relationship towards myself...I do not hate you...but for heavens sake...stop acting like a jerk.

Well, I am sure some here are amused and some down right tired of this...know I am.

Hope you get over this terrible mood you have been in since stopping being a moderater here..Have a good life...truely.

ST...needed to be addressed here...but as stated I am quite bored with this and thats that

[Oso]

In the past, people go to school to learn and then go home to work out. Today, people go to school to learn/work out and don't spend much time at home. The attitude of the new generation has changed but the TCMA teaching methed hasn't.

I totally agree with this. But, somehow, it seems as if this thinking is in martial arts (all of them) to some degree...especially the 'make you feel good schools'.

What I tell my students is that they need to look at kung fu training just like a college class....you must spend more time out of class training then you do in class. A college professor is only going to spend so much time going over a subject before you are expected to make it stick by doing your homework.

Hell, even so, most people don't want to spend that much time in class. All of my older students have the option of coming to 8 hours of curriculum class, 2 hours of sparring class, one hour of strength and another hour of 'open floor' and only 2 of them really take advantage of it.

But, that's what splits the hobbyists from the rest of them.

Maybe that's the problem....commercial schools allow people to think that a couple of nights a week is enough to be a martial artist.

This is where it is the teachers responsibity to not promote that idea....to make the hobbyist realize that they aren't Chang Tung Shen or Chan Tai Sen (ok, ok...Bruce Lee or Jet Li). The crux is to keep them 'real' about themselves and keep them as students if you aren't stroking their ego's every class.


The TCMA teaching method is that the teacher tell you how to work on the heavy bag or weight only once. If he can see that you are serious in it and had spend time in it then he may tell you more detail. If you did not spend time in it then he may never mention it again. 10 years later you may even forget that he had taught you how to work on the heavy bag or weight before.

Right. The old way placed the responsibility solely on the student. Now, because there is a structured exchange of money in a commercial market the teacher now has the sole responsibility to teach the student. So, the teacher changes things to keep the student happy...lessening the requirements, telling them they are 'great' even if they suck....and so a half-assed student gets a black sash/belt and goes an opens another school and so on and so forth....watered down at each step.

I just don't know how can my teacher or my style do the heavy bag or weight workout, along with spar with different style opponents for me outside of my class.

Is that only my problem? My teacher's problem? Or my style's problem?


so, maybe the problem is today's politically correct world combined with the commercialization of martial arts....

[David Jamieson]

so, maybe the problem is today's politically correct world combined with the commercialization of martial arts....

The problem extends beyond this.

pc world aside, because that's a personal choice if you want to be pc or not.
Commercialization of the martial arts is part and parcel to making a living if that's what you know.

The problem is the dissemination of unrealistic practices without taking them to the level where they are tested in a realistic format.

IE:

Ranges: Standup/Clinch/Ground

Methods of practice and study that addresses each of these.

the method of:

Technical (shape of the tech) > Force feedback with that tech (bag work/dummy/other devices) > Drills (focus mitts/pads/other person) > Aliveness (working the technical in a format that is with a non-compliant resisting opponent to learn how to make it work) > Sparring (Full contact preferably, doesn't need to be daily but if you are training to be a fighter then it is in your best interest to do this at least once a week).

On sparring. You can spar any of the ranges and you can go full or at an agreed upon intensity that doesn't limit the realistic quality of the doings. You can also spar using all the ranges once you're ready for it.

Look at high percentage techniques vs those techniques that are better used in forms competitions and what not. IE: the techs that are not viable for fighting when tested thoroughly in the non-compliant/resisting opponent format.

Striking Techniques such as:

Hands- Jab/Cross/Uppercut/hook and their variants. Include elbows and forearms with these.
Feet - Push/shovel/knees/Trips/Rounds/Cutting Rounds/Backs

Clinch techs such as:

make space/ pull down/inside-outside/bump and go/head pops and of course striking in the clicnch or going for the takedown.

Ground techs such as:

Getting there (throw/pull/shoot)
Being there (Mount/Guard/Pass/rapid positioning/Locks/chokes/submissions)

Summary-

Technical = shape, in the air, correct structure (shadow work or form fits this description)
Force application = Bag work to ensure correct shape, focus mitts to ensure targeting, aliveness to ensure ability to make good while in motion.
Spar= well spar, any range individually or all ranges together. Keep it alive or you foster poor ability ultimately.
Fight= street ring, whatever, take what you have and do your best.

Conditioning = A variety of exercises or practices that will increase stamina, cv strength, mental accuity while in conflict and what not. TMA has a few of these types of training that are useful. There are of course many modern methods that are equally as effective.

Variety. < This is important. If you do not test against the unknown, then you will remain unknowing. Closed venues have been shown to be the greatest detriment to martial ability in this context. Example being that you are not allowed to go and test your stuff for whatever reason after a reasonable ammount of time. Frankly, if you can't get your groove on at a reasonable level even after 2 years or so of training, then your training methodology is failing you. If you do not go out and test your skills, you can't call yourself a "fighter".

I got more, but I'm looking for others to contriubute to this. And fwiw, all this stuff is totally workable into a traditional curriculum, My friends who are sifu and sensei take this approach and do so with gusto.

Keep it real.

[SevenStar]

In the past, people go to school to learn and then go home to work out. Today, people go to school to learn/work out and don't spend much time at home. The attitude of the new generation has changed but the TCMA teaching methed hasn't.

If this is the case, then why not adapt? Make it part of the class. I agree, most students will not put in the extra time outside the school. If they are doing it inside the school though, then they are better off. The ones that are truly serious will still train outside of the school as well.



The TCMA teaching method is that the teacher tell you how to work on the heavy bag or weight only once. If he can see that you are serious in it and had spend time in it then he may tell you more detail. If you did not spend time in it then he may never mention it again. 10 years later you may even forget that he had taught you how to work on the heavy bag or weight before.

I don't like that, personally. Give them the info, make them train it. as a teacher, you should be concerned about all of your students, not merely the ones you think are more serious, no?


I just don't know how can my teacher or my style do the heavy bag or weight workout, along with spar with different style opponents for me outside of my class.

Is that only my problem? My teacher's problem? Or my style's problem?

I'm not sure what you're saying here... Are you asking how your teacher can make you train outside of class? If so, then, he can't - that is entirely up to the student. But he can have them doing those things in class, which he does have control over.

[Ray Pina]

My only concern would be, I'm putting 3 hours of my night to develop some martial skill .... I don't want to pay and spend even a 1/3 of that time doing sit ups, pushups, lifting weights, cardio. I could do that on my own at home if you could reasonably explain how my bench press relates to a street fight.

For those 3 hours I want to train martial-specific items.

[TenTigers]

I think you can accomplish both-for the most part, meaning you use martial arts AS exercise. If you want to kick better, kick more. If you want to punch better, punch more. Bag workouts, kicking shields, and other drills done in circuits, stations, rounds, whatever will train your skills and be a cardio workout from hell.
Other exercises include six count bodybuilders, mountain climbers, and stance changes, because they develop core strength, and explosive movement. I like to also "sprinkle" them into the workout to up the intensity, but I like my workouts to be a nonstop type of thing.

[Oso]

David, I agree with what you're saying but it precludes a commercial operation. IF you want to make money with a commercial martial arts school then you have to be PC or you will get a very small number of students.

Basically, MMA type schools have all the street cred. Mostly because UFC and other venues are real..."Enter the Dragon" is not.



If this is the case, then why not adapt? Make it part of the class. I agree, most students will not put in the extra time outside the school. If they are doing it inside the school though, then they are better off. The ones that are truly serious will still train outside of the school as well.

true, but they are only so many hours in a class and too few people willing to do a 3-4 hour class where you could include all the strength conditioning, forms, drills and live sparring needed to fill it out.

I agree with YKW to the extent that some things should be shown only enough for the teacher to feel that the student knows how to do the exercise then it's up to the student to continue to train/drill the exercise till it's second nature.

Do your coaches watch you every time you shadow box or train the heavy bag?
(no sarcarsm intended)

"Here's how you do a pushup"
"Good, that's it. Now, you should do 25 (or whatever) every other day....forever"

"Here's how to do a front kick on a heavy bag."
"Good, that's it. Now, you have 30 minutes after every class and a couple of hours on the weekend...make sure you spend some time on the heavy bag with that front kick"

Teaching is a two way street.

The streamlined format of boxing and MT allows for a lot of repetitive training.

But, as I said to start with...one of the issues w/ CMA is an overabundance of forms techniques...so the requirements soon become to know the forms but not to know what to do with what's in them.

It's funny that one of the old adages of CMA is that it's better to practice one form 1000 times then it is to practice 1000 forms once each.

modern incarnations of CMA have gotten away from that I think.


ok, enough rambling for tonight

[BornToKill]

http://www.itswa.co.uk/sifu_alansmith.htm

In all seriousness tma styles dont train that different from styles such as boxing. In the boxing gym i train msot people dont even spar and if they do they only do it once a week, they just hit bags, jump rope, and do various conditioning excersises like lift weights or do situps/pushups, things kung fu also has. Also alot of these people have crazy power and incredible skills, I think partly becasue they trained for a long time and have dedication.


true, but they are only so many hours in a class and too few people willing to do a 3-4 hour class where you could include all the strength conditioning, forms, drills and live sparring needed to fill it out.

you only need an hour long class to get that along with bag work an sparring all into one class. Plenty of boxing or muay thai gyms do that and I train on my own at the gym like that and ask someone to spar and still by the time Im done only an hour or sometimes less has passed.

[BornToKill]

the thing about martial arts people dont realize is a very small percent of the population is fit for real martial arts. Most of the thing required is mental. You need to be fearless and have the instinct to be able to out of the blue without preparation create and respond quickly to violence. Unless you are around violence alot most if not all people dont have this ability and on the street against someone who does (as easy as spitting on the gorund) you willl freeze, not know what to do, and basically become frightened. No matter how good you can fight on the street most likely youll just stand there and egt beaten up without even fighting or watch someone else have that done to themw ithout responding. That is why sometimes its better to just carry a gun or hire a bodyguard who responds and reacts to violence often enough to have this nature drilled into his psyche.

just look at the way these people respond to violence and are shocked/puzzled by the situation they are in as compared to the perpetrator who lives by it:
http://www.muchosucko.com/video-skateboardbasher.html

interesting thread:
http://bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php%3ft=26005

[BornToKill]

even the cubans in boxing dont train one technique for more than a year. Go to any boxing or muay thai gyms and most likely you will learn many techniques and such pretty quickly. Hell mmartists learn all ranges at once, leanring new techniques almsot daily.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Well.. it seems all that can be said has been said.. and, we have differing opinions..

We have broad generalizations.. assessments of TCMA based on limited exposure and observable situations "in the ring".. i have as many experiences with sincere TCMA purists that no stomach for internet BS or "ring rules combat".. they simply live their art..

MMA is a valuable asset to fighting arts.. as is TCMA.. MMA prides itself on the "quick fix", and rightfully so.. short time/fair fighter..

TCMA prides itself of developing the whole person.. and rightfully so.. longer time/fair fighter.. and, hopefully, decent values..

The right people will excel in combat regardless of styles.. it is their nature..

People have differing goals.. MMA TCMA Yoga.. so what..

Arrogance? intolerable at any level.. bashing and trashing? a signature of one's spirit, aggressive and inconsiderate.. stop talking and "live the art"..

Any training is better than no training.. that one takes pride in their art is appropriate, that they trash others is not.. MMA may currently rule the ring, but.. change is inevitable, something else will evolve to replace its dominance.. change is the universal constant..

David Jamieson: Your passion for your art is evident.. your points are worth consideration.. your evaluation of TCMA can only be based on your experiences with a limited number of people/schools.. there are many that don't showcase their skills, fight competitively, or much care about opinions.. they are hardcore traditionalists that supplement their training with pragmatic fighting skills in all three ranges.. you describe your disdain for TCMA with little or no compassion for those that actually do the hard work.. it appears that you have little patience for anything other than hardcore fighting skills, without recognition of those whose training includes a more spiritual approach to the same goals.. your presentation seems sterile and spiritless.. but, that's just my opinion..

TCMA may well represent a cultural art.. but, it has valid self-defense attributes.. few of the students will actually compete in NHB type events, few of the street encounters will find you matched against well trained MA fighters.. that people achieve their goals without adhering to someone else's perspectives is inconsequential other than fodder for forums such as this.. "live and let live", everyone knows the game..

Be well..

[David Jamieson]

Bob-

I don't know you, you don't know me. Have you actually read what I'm saying or are you only conveniently cherry picking stuff and then forming an opinion of my stance? I don't know, I guess it's not important really. I am not against traditional martial arts in the least.

I am against someone p1ssing on my back and telling me it's fresh rain.

Having said that...
Kungfu does seek to develop on a holistic level. Apparently it turns out people with superiority complexes or insecurities about life lol. Just kidding, but not really.
It's pretty evident to me that the state of it is contrary to the goals and objectives of it.

I think that the mma spirit should be incorporated in the tma spirit to make them both whole. That's my stance. But then, some people get their spirituality other ways and some people think that esoteric spiritual practice has a more diminutive place in ones fight training. Other people place far to much emphasis on this and still insisit on calling what they do a fighting art. Others still can't make the techs from kungfu styles work in a realistic scenario and will insist on falling back on arguments that go into the realm of personal shots at the detractor or the whole "it's not about this or that" and essentially waffling as opposed to really looking at what the problem is that everyone is shouting about loud and clear across the mountain tops.

The dumbest thing is an ostrich with it's head in the sand prior to being consume by the jackals.

I would add that I have a few trips around the sun, have not been limited to a few people and have consistently seen kungfu presented the kwai chang cain way. Which in my opinion is unrealistic and more often than not blind to the realities of martial art.

i have also met tcma and tma in general teachers who take a direct path, are dead serious and who also include things in the practice such as meditation and self examination on some level.

Turning it into a big pretend fest and never pressure testing something to make certain it's value is a huge mistake. That's the crux of it right there. BUt I guess if people don't know any better, then someone like me who for the longest time supprted that line of thinking and then altering my position after new awakening would be hard to digest.

Hell, you can watch my mind changing over time and practice if you want to spend teh time going through the archives of my posts. At least I'm asking the questions, trying the stuff out, seeing what works, what does not etc etc. That's where my kungfu will come from, not from just accepting someones word and way.

[Oso]

what the hell determines 'high level skill'?

shouldn't it be effectiveness?

db, I agreed with most of what you just said but that comment doesn't make a lick of sense, man.

K.I.S.S.

imo, 'high level skill' is using the basics with perfect timing. perfect timing comes only with time and experience...


/edit/

...not increased complication just for the sake of creating something that's harder to do and calling it 'high level'.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

David: i do not wat to appear antagonistic.. my history is long and varied and the last 15 years have been in TCMA, i cross train with JKD, Muay Thai, Kali/Escrima, and NHB wrestling.. i know many others in the same situation.. i have been to quite a few TCMA schools where the appearance was deceiving, lots of fine esoteric trappings, but.. the teachers had a decent core of fighting apps.. granted, there is a deficiency in ground techinques in many TCMA schools, but evolution will cure that through attrition.. My point was, hopefully, to inspire you to demonstrate some compassion, to inspire others by example rather than inciteful rhetoric.. Yes, i have followed this entire thread.. Yes, i have seen your perspective change.. and, yes, you seem more caustic in your current incarnation..

What you refer to as a "pretend fest" is only so by your evaluation of it.. to the unsuspecting student they are being passionate and dedicated about what they are being taught.. we stand a better chance of changing perspectives by example than devisive commentary.. i only approach this subject and your presentation of it due to its validity.. my goal is to preserve a rich and rewarding Art while helping, in the best way i know, to shift perspectives.. that way is gentle persistence, not a slap in the face.. it may only be a matter of perspectives as to how best to change perspectives.. i simply find your approach alienating rather than unifying..

My introduction to Zen was in the presence of a "Master" that struck a student with a bamboo stick to initiate sudden awareness.. i informed him if he struck me in such a manner he would need said stick surgically removed.. his response was anger and bad language.. so much for enlightenment.. later, his student informed me that his "Master" considered my words as a "stick" that illuminated an error in his manner.. he no longer hits.. (he says the cattle-prod is more efficient and keeps people like me in check :D ) (just kidding about the cattle prod).. i did not question his results, only his methods.. much the same with you..

I find value in your perspectives and hope you can be more considerate of the perspectives of others.. you may meet less resistance.. oh, and i find value in the TCMA, and also find that supplementing it fits well with both perspectives.. I think there is a middle ground where traditional values can positively influence hardcore MA.. the image of Tito in fine silks and a big set of Buddha beads is amusing, no?

Be well..

[Oso]

High-level skill has to do with the principle behind the technique not wether it works. For example, a punch is a low-level technique, because the principle behind it is easy to understand and develop.

High-level skill is where the principle of the skill is much harder to understand physically (means you understand it because your body can do it) and harder to develop. And example, borrowing force from the opponent. Or following skill that causes disruption. These are really hard for most people to understand or execute.

Saying something is low-level isn't necessarily a demeaning statement, it just categorizes the skill. This is TCMA, I didn't make that up.

ok, but if someone is better at low level skills then an opponent that has spent more time unsuccessfully trying to develop a high level skill rather then making sure his low level skills are dead on then I know who's going to win that fight.


fwiw, I don't think borrowing force or following are high level skills. there are pretty simple mechanics behind both of those theories that can be explained to almost anyone past thier first few months of training.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


Deep theory such as Ying and Yang will not make that sword swing effective or less effective.
In this we disagree.. there are many ways to swing a sword.. understanding the body's energy systems can only improve someone's use of weapons.. low level skills are purely mechanical.. high level skills are integrated with body, mind and spirit.. there in an observable difference..

Be well..

[Mutant]

I disagree that there are separate catagories for high and low level techniques; such as a punch being low-level and following jin being high level... i think that many of these same energies or 'higher level skills' exist within most all techniques, even (especially) the basics. A beginner or bad martial artist won't have much within any technique and they will all be basic, crude and low-level. All of the more advanced training is meant to fill or expand these same techniques. I am always amazed at just how much there is within a basic technique such as a punch or a grab. So much variation, so many ways to improve or expand skill, to bring higher level understanding into these techniques. Thats where they fill up and become advanced and higher level. A punch is just a way in which to connect one's body/energy to a target, there are many ways to do this, so how can the punch be 'low level' if its just and extension of everything going on within the center and right down to the root? Its all the same interconnected. TCMA and especially internal study is a great way to focus on some of these skills, but i think there is a tendency for practicioners to be so zoomed in on these training drills and details that they miss the forrest thru the trees (generalization; not all). And it is a misconception that all sportfighters are ignorant of the concepts with what you consider higher level techniques... it is much the same after one gets proficient with the technique, and i think both camps could benefit from exploring the training methods of the other. As was stated, as long as it works consistently in a challenging environment, then it is on the right track.

[Mutant]

Unfortunately, our fighting era can only last so long. When we reach to 36 years old (Mohanad Ali retired at age 36), we no longer be able to compete against those who are in their 20th.
Speak for yourself pal, i'm not going down like that... :rolleyes: ;)

[Ray Pina]

First off .... what Mutant said. I'm 31 and whipping the snot out of guys in their 20s and a big part of that is the way I train. I don't train to be stronger than you, faster than you or to be better conditioned than you .... I'm not relying on that. I train to manage my budget. Though my muscles may be smaller, weaker, older, I train them to all work together. So when you're fighting for position using tricep/bicep, I'm fighting for position using my leg, hip, rib, shoulder AND tricep/bicep ..... actualy, at that point it's no longer a fair fight :)

As for traditional .... I can't believe this argument is still going on.

WHAT'S TRADITIONAL?

The way some of these guys talk about it, to me, sounds more like antique ... in that case, they can keep traditional. I'd rather have evolution.

At the same time, these guys who throw away time tested wisdom of brains and tehcnique over sheer brawn and toughness (not that there's no technique there) will hurt themselves in the long run. Martial arts is not a sport. I won;t say kill or be killed, but it's at the very least open up the other guy's $hit real good, beating his head in, before he does it to you.

Are you the best conditioned man in the world? Can you go more rounds than everyone else?

You can bench press 300 lbs! What if we lower it to only 150lbs but as I spot you I put two fingers on the right side of the bar and press down as you press up... what happens strong man? You're $hit's ruined already...... that's the goal of TMA to me. Find a way to overcome the superior foe. The guy who is bigger, younger, faster, better conditioned. That's technique! That goes beyond you step on a scale and I step on a scale and if we are close than we can fight for a medal.

[rogue]

:confused:

I don't know Ray, I don't think you can discount strength so easily. Technique is wonderful but if someone is strong and has some technique you stand a good chance of being beat. Just wondering but what is the biggest best trained fighter you've gone up against?

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


We have seen some Taiji, Bagua guys fought in the ring before but people just said, "That's not Taiji". "He is not using Bagua". Therein lies the problem, the people talking are not knowledgable enough to recognize internal technique.. there are champion cage fighters (Chris Heintzman comes to mind) that credit Internal Arts for their success.. any doubts? take 'em up with Chris.. :D
The problem of IMA is that it just takes too much time. Unfortunately, our fighting era can only last so long. When we reach to 36 years old (Mohanad Ali retired at age 36), we no longer be able to compete against those who are in their 20th. LOL.. well, you're half right.. most MMA guys are toast in their mid thirties.. but, IMA guys fight right on through that obstacle.. IMA trains for life, not some narrow window of opportunity.. what good is it to dominate a sport for 10 years and hobble around reliving memory fragments for the next 40 years..

If your goal is a lifetime of self-defense and a wholesome life, choose a good TCMA school.. if you need 10 years of ego support MMA will do just fine

Be well..

[Ray Pina]

:confused:

I don't know Ray, I don't think you can discount strength so easily. Technique is wonderful but if someone is strong and has some technique you stand a good chance of being beat. Just wondering but what is the biggest best trained fighter you've gone up against?

Of course strenght is important. So is money. I want more and more of it but can I be the richest guy? Can I compare to Bill Gates? ..... so instead I manage my budget.

I have succesfully "played", as in chi saued, with a 6'7" 400 lbs man who has been training his whole life.

As for full-on free fighting, I have recently submitted (strikes) a few heads on Bullshido who weighed in at 260+ .... right now I am the slimmest I've ever been. I'm 185.5lbs, or was last Fri. before I had a match on Sun.

To be honest, these guys were bigger and stronger than me but I had more power ..... a bawling bawl is more dense and heavier than a buller but the bullet has a better devilery system rendering its projectile more powerful. That's a way to look at it.

Lots of times I find these guys counter their own power, where the tricep gets tight (because their mind, a good portion from lifting, is trained to fight resistance) and cancels a lot of their bicep power.

My Bicep may be weaker, but I've trained the tricep to shut up and let the bicep express himself fully. This kind of idea.

[BornToKill]

I don't train to be stronger than you, faster than you or to be better conditioned than you .... I'm not relying on that.

that describes the way the ultimate fighters train, or standup styles like boxing/muay thai especially. Look at matches in thailand, they neevr rely on technique but just stand there exchanging kicks and tie up exchanging knees.

[Oso]

Have different definition on "high level skill" here.

It's "high level skill" if it works in fighting, otherwise it's "low level skill".

Do we need "deep theory" to support a "high level skill"? When you swing your six feet long sword, either your enemy's head is falling off to the ground or still attached on his neck. Deep theory such as Ying and Yang will not make that sword swing effective or less effective.

If you want to wait until you have reached to "high level skill" before you start sparring then you may find out that you may be too old and your fighting era is over.

You can't spend all your life in elementary school and refuse to graduate from it until each and every courses that you took had "A" score. If you are not talent in music then 50 years of repeating that elementary school class, you may still not be able to get a score "A". Get a "C" in music and graduate from that elementary school and move into high school and forget about your none perfect music grade and move on. There are much more important thing that are waiting for you to learn in high school, university, and graduate school.

LOL, nicely put.


glad I'm not alone in this debate.

[Mutant]

Look I didn't make up the high-level, low-level thing. My shifu, Chinese, born, raised in Beijing, like 40 years in MA, explained to me.
Did he also tell you about Santa and the Tooth-ferry? Whatever he's told you sure worked, because he's got you in a starry-eyed true believer state, which is ideal for retaining loyal students. I'm not saying he's not legit, i have no idea, but he's got you hook line and sinker thinking its all about some elite advanced techniques he's going to give you over a long time period.

Hey, I've seen real internal martial arts. It ain't no BS
Sure so have a lot of us. You just think you've privy to the selective 'real' internal and that most others have something less and don't understand; classic cult-like mentality. Not that youre in a cult, but thats the type of thinking involved.

Your right, taiji and bagua aren't really suited for the ring. It takes too long to really get results. most guys would probably be out of their prime. That being said, Taiji is really a set of principles and not moves or techniques. so we may actually have seen that in the ring and just didn't pick up on it. Taiji is formless in that it applies to movement, not technique.
I'm not very familiar with bagua, but elements of tai chi are very applicable to the ring. for example, push hands drills and skills are directly applicable to san shou.