firepalm
05-25-2006, 02:26 PM
Recently I've noticed a number of threads here that have touched on topics of Chinese Martial Arts such as; usefullness or purpose of forms, Wushu, what is CMA, is it antiquated etc....
Curious as to the view points out there on what is good CMA? And how would you define CMA?
Myself I don't view CMA as a whole as having one specific definition. CMA to me encompasses a broad spectrum of things, it is multidimensional and includes not only self defense / fighting skills (although many CMA instructors are lacking in this area) but also includes culture, art, sport, philosphy, etc...
Modern Wushu and Sport San Shou are not the only or final definition of CMA but they do represent one aspect of CMA and in many cases they show the truly high levels that can be attained in their respective areas.
CMA also includes things like Lion Dance, Tai Chi, Qigong, TCM, etc... they are also representative of some of the varying aspects of CMA but unto themselves they do not represent or define CMA.
50 years ago you might have been able to point to most traditional Chinese Martial Arts practices and stated that IS Chinese Martial Arts but I don't feel that is the case anymore. So much has changed in recent times; movies (Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, the Matrix, etc...), Modern Wushu & Sport San Shou, the Shaolin subculture (ie; travelling monks shows & such), the huge spread of Tai Chi (albeit a quiet revolution), Communism in China, commercialization of martial arts as a whole, NHB/UFC/MMA/Gracies and even things like pop culture (Wushu in music videos and such). All these things have changed the perceptions & expectations of CMA. Are all these things right or wrong? Well it's all subject to debate but the fact is CMA is unlike all other brands of Asian martial arts.
Essentially I believe CMA has become a umbrella of sorts that covers a lot of different areas of training & physical cultural endeavours.
So what is good CMA? Here's where my comments may come under fire, I personally feel a lot of traditional instructors have fallen behind the times and are not very professional (of course there are certainly those out there that are but they are the minority). However what I see as even more of a problem is the instructor's identifying of their own motivations for teaching a pupil; are they trying to preserve an art form or teach someone a skill set? What is their priority and more importantly have they ever thought to ask themselves this question?
While I would agree that one doesn't need to learn forms to learn how to fight, forms do have their merit - to a certain extent. However when a traditional school requires the learning of dozens upon dozens of forms & constant forms training taking priority over other areas such as application training, bag work, conditioning, sparring, etc... then they are no different then a school teaching Modern Wushu. This to me is bad CMA, many traditional teachers will strangely condemn Modern Wushu but then train only forms themselves, odd! Bad CMA.... Form training without application training & sparring is bad CMA...
One of the worst things in Traditional CMA to me is when an instructor falls back on the old outdated comment of oh we don't do that in our style! In this day and age with the advent of NHB/UFC/MMA etc.... it should be obvious that fighting can go to the ground but how many TCMA schools address it. Are you training some one to be able to fight / defend themselves or trying to preserve a traditional system that doesn't actually encompass all aspects of fighting / self defense? If one is professing to developing self defense / fighting skills then the pupil should take priority!
A friend went to China a year or two ago and trained at a full time school in the north of China and told me how they would train the Wushu & acrobatics but then would also do traditional forms, San Shou and wrestling / ground fighting (and not just take downs). To me sounds like good CMA, although it is a full time school and few in the west would invest all the time required to learn all those topics.
Modern Wushu is generally good for young people and I believe most teaching it will admit that it is a sport and don't usually profess that practicing a lot of forms, jumps and acrobatics will make you a deadly fighting machine. I believe it is good for strength, fitness, coordination & confidence development of young people. The foundations they get from this training can carry over into other martial arts training and other sports.
I believe good CMA, like anything, is honest and doesn't profess to be something it is not. Unfortunately a lot of instructors (primarily traditional ones) aren't open minded enough or progressive thinking enough and ultimately hamper the development of their arts. I think CMA instructors should try to become more professional (not just in a business sense) & look at their motivations for doing what they do.
Anyhow that is my long winded tagent, just interested to know other views out there! ;)
Curious as to the view points out there on what is good CMA? And how would you define CMA?
Myself I don't view CMA as a whole as having one specific definition. CMA to me encompasses a broad spectrum of things, it is multidimensional and includes not only self defense / fighting skills (although many CMA instructors are lacking in this area) but also includes culture, art, sport, philosphy, etc...
Modern Wushu and Sport San Shou are not the only or final definition of CMA but they do represent one aspect of CMA and in many cases they show the truly high levels that can be attained in their respective areas.
CMA also includes things like Lion Dance, Tai Chi, Qigong, TCM, etc... they are also representative of some of the varying aspects of CMA but unto themselves they do not represent or define CMA.
50 years ago you might have been able to point to most traditional Chinese Martial Arts practices and stated that IS Chinese Martial Arts but I don't feel that is the case anymore. So much has changed in recent times; movies (Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, the Matrix, etc...), Modern Wushu & Sport San Shou, the Shaolin subculture (ie; travelling monks shows & such), the huge spread of Tai Chi (albeit a quiet revolution), Communism in China, commercialization of martial arts as a whole, NHB/UFC/MMA/Gracies and even things like pop culture (Wushu in music videos and such). All these things have changed the perceptions & expectations of CMA. Are all these things right or wrong? Well it's all subject to debate but the fact is CMA is unlike all other brands of Asian martial arts.
Essentially I believe CMA has become a umbrella of sorts that covers a lot of different areas of training & physical cultural endeavours.
So what is good CMA? Here's where my comments may come under fire, I personally feel a lot of traditional instructors have fallen behind the times and are not very professional (of course there are certainly those out there that are but they are the minority). However what I see as even more of a problem is the instructor's identifying of their own motivations for teaching a pupil; are they trying to preserve an art form or teach someone a skill set? What is their priority and more importantly have they ever thought to ask themselves this question?
While I would agree that one doesn't need to learn forms to learn how to fight, forms do have their merit - to a certain extent. However when a traditional school requires the learning of dozens upon dozens of forms & constant forms training taking priority over other areas such as application training, bag work, conditioning, sparring, etc... then they are no different then a school teaching Modern Wushu. This to me is bad CMA, many traditional teachers will strangely condemn Modern Wushu but then train only forms themselves, odd! Bad CMA.... Form training without application training & sparring is bad CMA...
One of the worst things in Traditional CMA to me is when an instructor falls back on the old outdated comment of oh we don't do that in our style! In this day and age with the advent of NHB/UFC/MMA etc.... it should be obvious that fighting can go to the ground but how many TCMA schools address it. Are you training some one to be able to fight / defend themselves or trying to preserve a traditional system that doesn't actually encompass all aspects of fighting / self defense? If one is professing to developing self defense / fighting skills then the pupil should take priority!
A friend went to China a year or two ago and trained at a full time school in the north of China and told me how they would train the Wushu & acrobatics but then would also do traditional forms, San Shou and wrestling / ground fighting (and not just take downs). To me sounds like good CMA, although it is a full time school and few in the west would invest all the time required to learn all those topics.
Modern Wushu is generally good for young people and I believe most teaching it will admit that it is a sport and don't usually profess that practicing a lot of forms, jumps and acrobatics will make you a deadly fighting machine. I believe it is good for strength, fitness, coordination & confidence development of young people. The foundations they get from this training can carry over into other martial arts training and other sports.
I believe good CMA, like anything, is honest and doesn't profess to be something it is not. Unfortunately a lot of instructors (primarily traditional ones) aren't open minded enough or progressive thinking enough and ultimately hamper the development of their arts. I think CMA instructors should try to become more professional (not just in a business sense) & look at their motivations for doing what they do.
Anyhow that is my long winded tagent, just interested to know other views out there! ;)