Martial Art.. what is the "Art"? [Archive]

PangQuan

06-07-2006, 12:03 PM

regardless of what some may believe. I hold a high value on the artistic aspect of my studies.

i feel it is through our deep reflection of the art that we can learn many truths that do not necessarily deal with combat. it is through this deeper thinking that we may discover more of ourself.

yes there are many things you will discover about yourself through simply pushing your physical limits, yet there are insights that may be revealed through our artistic aspect that can only be discovered through such.

much as the painter, sculptor, etc. it is an artistic understanding that becomes apparent.

as confucious believed, arts is a transmission from the heavens. along this same line, though perhaps not through a religious outlook, art is a reflection of our innerselves transmitted through action and creation.

i feel that when you are learning your art, you will have a different perception than another may, it is this perceptive difference that can set us apart from our training brothers and sisters. though what i do may look like what you do, it is the small intricate details of the way we percieve and put into action the movements that we do.

without art i do not feel you can make the style "yours" for it is the art that makes it personal.

Oso

06-07-2006, 12:30 PM

TCB, two things...one is my current pet peeve and that is the incredible redundancy in topics (which you sort of point out) yet you don't really ask any new questions.

second...

He who works with his hands is a laborer.

He who works with his hands and his head is a craftsman.

He who works with his hands and his head and his heart is an artist.

I'm sure you know that quote.

To me, 'art' is about self expression...if I choose to express myself by training to beat the crap out of someone in the ring then that is art as well...it's completely subjective (as is a lot of what is said here) so you can't really argue with someone's opinion of what 'art' is.

So, everyone who does a martial art/discipline is an artist even if they might eschew the term 'martial artist'.

Does a discipline devoid of value and culture promote pure violence?

i think maybe you are stereotyping a bit here. I think the answer is no if you are referencing schools that only train for fighting.

hell, my experience with one activity that breeds socially violent people is high school and college football.

TaiChiBob

06-07-2006, 01:45 PM

Greetings..

Oso: Agreed on the redundancy issue! and, true, i don't ask new questions, if there truely are any.. but, a consensus or reasonable answers to these questions would be a small step toward a higher goal..

So, everyone who does a martial art/discipline is an artist even if they might eschew the term 'martial artist'.While i understand and agree with the philosophical notion you put forth, i am hoping (against hope) that people will dialogue this to a point of balance.. where art and skill can re-unite..

The stereotyping is a nuanced intention.. from an observer's perspective i have seen more than a reasonable (by my standards, of course) percentage of fighters that train purely for the fight, take their skills to the street looking for validation.. To be fair, i did something similar.. i took a job as a bouncer for about 8 months and got schooled in oh so many ways.. but, the lessons have served me well (and the scars are good conversation starters, too).. my intention, though, was not to visit violence on innocent people.. to find a venue where the variables exceeded my safe training eenvironment, and the subjects could reasonably expect a conflict management situation.. many lessons were in negotiation for acceptable terms of non-violent resolutions.. others were not so favorable..

But, the question might better be posed as "how do we minimize the liklihood of skill-testing in unjustified situations"?

And, Yes.. i am familiar with the quote.. it rings true.. Thanks

Be well..

Asia

06-07-2006, 01:51 PM

Greetings..

So many threads and so many opinions.. where are the Arts going?

Do we strip away the "Art" to reveal only the pure combative skills?

Is there real value to the "Arts"?

How does one differentiate between Fluff and Foundation?

Does a discipline devoid of value and culture promote pure violence?

Do teachers have a responsibility to try to balance the fighting skills they teach with social skills that might temper the inherent violence?

Can a "traditional" Martial Arts curriculum produce high-level fighters.. or, are they exclusive?

Just some questions.. Be well..

The ART in the term MARTIAL ARTS means SKILL.

The main, and only criteria, part of MA is that is is a SKILL (Art) pretaining to combat (Martial)

MA teachers are not really qualified to teach social skills, thats the job of parents and acutal qualified pple. A MA teachers main responsiblity is to instill combative skills into their students. If the student gets something else out of it thats fine but the the purpose.

Now with that said teaches do have to right to choose who they want to teach. If they feel someone is going to only reak havok then they don't have to train them but its not really their responsiblity to instill something else, especially if it might conflict with established beliefs of that persons family or other social circles.

EarthDragon

06-07-2006, 01:56 PM

my qigong teacher yen chu feng was watching a guy finish cement while we were walking into a resturant for lunch.. she said he has good gungfu. while I agreedand new what she was meaning my young student said thats not kung fu...... the term is so loosly understood and labeled perhaps it has been tarnished and misconstrued.

In my system we advertise it being a complete system not a stlye. there are many schools and faimlies out there that have only the style and its roots have somewhere been lost.
ie
we have herbology, tui na, accupunture, fighting, qigong, taji, nei gong, wei gong and bone setting.

This is what makes real traditional kung fu stay alive. who has the right to weaken these teachings and concentrate on fighting only? NO ONE. our system has been passed down for 350 years. who are we the ignorant American people to change such history and beauty.

Asia

06-07-2006, 01:57 PM

The acutal definitions fo the terms might help clear things up.

mar·tial
adj.

1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of war.
2. Relating to or connected with the armed forces or the profession of arms.
3. Characteristic of or befitting a warrior.

art
n.

1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

3. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.

I post the definition because the term MARTIAL ART is an English one and this is were it derives from. Although most pple think only of Asian arts when they hear the term it is actually much broader than that. So a discussion of what social skills and philosphical things sheouc be in MA isn't a good one unless you take in all the different cutural and social norms form the various societies around the globe.

EarthDragon

06-07-2006, 02:05 PM

Asia,

The main, and only criteria, part of MA is that is is a SKILL (Art) pretaining to combat (Martial)

MA teachers are not really qualified to teach social skills, thats the job of parents and acutal qualified pple. A MA teachers main responsiblity is to instill combative skills into their students. If the student gets something else out of it thats fine but the the purpose.

Now with that said teaches do have to right to choose who they want to teach. If they feel someone is going to only reak havok then they don't have to train them but its not really their responsiblity to instill something else, especially if it might conflict with established beliefs of that persons family or other social circles.

I ABSOLUTLY AND TOTATLLY DISAGREE

the term shifu means father/teacher.....it is OUR duty to instill values and morals when teaching not to simply teach how to punch and kick.

So in school it is simply the math teachers job to add and subtract? if so they need to seek another profession.
Part of the teaching responsibilities is to shape and form young wandering minds to do well, succeed and make responsible decisions. This caonnt be taught by..... here johnny this is how you punch someone in the face correctly. this perhaps is the problem with outlooks such as these...
You are obviouly not a teacher.

neilhytholt

06-07-2006, 02:07 PM

It's like this. Basically I've found there are two types of MA teacher (yes, gross simplification).

Those that talk of 'culture' and those that teach martial arts, while possibly practicing culture.

I break these down into Pre-PRC teachers and PRC teachers (PRC = People's Republic of China, or Communists).

Example of this is a lot of teachers from the PRC now that has 'associations' to teach 'culture' to 'good people'. This means they teach a lot of forms, show little to no applications, do little to no fighting and few to no partner drills.

When they cannot answer basic questions, they will give you excuses, "Oh, non-Chinese cannot understand Chinese culture. You shouldn't teach bad people. Sparring is violent, look at those Hung Gar guys who always get hurt."

Yet the bottom line is they never learned much in the way of Chinese culture, because it was basically destroyed under the Communists. They never learned the fighting applications because they were banned under the communists. Unless they were totally underground they have no clue as to what they are doing.

Then there are the Chinese teachers who teach martial arts (pre-PRC), that do forms, drills, and conditioning. Yet many of these still do not do much unscripted sparring. It seems like a face-saving mechanism because if they were to do it, then they'd probably have to show their own skill, etc.

Yet a lot of these practice Chinese culture because that's the way they were raised. They don't keep it away from non-Chinese.

Anyway, I'm tired of this entire conversation. What do you consider 'art'? Doing your forms pretty? Doing calligraphy? Practicing medicine? Studying books?

Tai Chi Bob, what do you consider 'art'?

Because this is martial arts we're talking about, not flower arranging.

Asia

06-07-2006, 02:10 PM

the term shifu means father/teacher.....it is OUR duty to instill values and morals when teaching not to simply teach how to punch and kick.

Your duty trumps that of the ACTUAL Father????:confused:

And the ony criteria for you to be a MA IS to teach to punch, kick, choke, throw, etc. If you didn't then you wouldn't be one.

So in school it is simply the math teachers job to add and subtract?
No the math teachers job is to simply teach YOU how to add and subtract.

Part of the teaching responsibilities is to shape and form young wandering minds to do well, succeed and make responsible decisions. T
Off info it is NOT your responsiblity to SHAPE. Thats the Parents. You don't trump their will. The don't pay you to raise their child they pay you to teach them MA.

This caonnt be taught by..... here johnny this is how you punch someone in the face correctly.
Actually is is when its your JOB to do just that.

You are obviouly not a teacher.
No my job title right now says INSTRUCTOR, but hey its synonymous.

yenhoi

06-07-2006, 02:12 PM

Whats wrong with our own culture(s)?

When was it written in stone to be defended until death that when you learn how to fight people - you must do it wearing weirdo clothing , a seperate language, and enough lingo and mystery to film a two part vegas special?

Isent it already all our our "responsibility" to temper ourselves, our family, friends, and children with good character, values, and morals?

When did this artsy ****sy stuff become the other half of the coin when it comes to learning how to defend and fight?

...and if thats what you want to pursue, how does that suddenly de-value what the rest of us want to pursue? Like if your not wearing some weird costume, posing in weird postures, and calling each other weird names all the while reading enlightment texts, if you study and train to fight without those things, your some sort of barbarian?

Aligning meridians and understanding 5 element theory might interest you, what does it have to do with me?

:eek:

neilhytholt

06-07-2006, 02:16 PM

Your duty trumps that of the ACTUAL Father????:confused:

And the ony criteria for you to be a MA IS to teach to punch, kick, choke, throw, etc. If you didn't then you wouldn't be one.

No the math teachers job is to simply teach YOU how to add and subtract.

Off info it is NOT your responsiblity to SHAPE. Thats the Parents. You don't trump their will. The don't pay you to raise their child they pay you to teach them MA.

Actually is is when its your JOB to do just that.

No my job title right now says INSTRUCTOR, but hey its synonymous.

Yeah I have to agree with Asia here. I'm almost 40 and I'm not looking for another dad.

And I wouldn't want some instructor trying to instill his or her values into my kids either. My kids can make up their own minds.

They already know first-hand what happens when people are irresponsible and don't take care of people and do drugs and stuff. They don't need to have some autocratic instructor messing with their heads.

EarthDragon

06-07-2006, 02:17 PM

Asia

06-07-2006, 02:22 PM

I have taught for many years and many students join for many reasons.

One of the major reasons is seek a father figure. I have taught many single parent families and to get moms point across they will often say i will let your shifu know what you have done.
This works wonders and if I can make a positive change in someons life than I will everytime i can.

I have taken kids off the streets, off drugs and talked out of joining a gang when the father was in prision. it goes way beyond punching and kicking my friend a teacher is a full time job, class is only 2 hours...

Thats great but again that the EXTRA stuff, NOT your job.

I've taught many years. I deal with pple form all walks of life. My primary job, at the moment, it to teach them how to FIGHT and to teach them how to communicate and repair equipment. Do I sometimes act as a father figure to those under my charge? Yes. Do I counsel them? Yes. Is that what MA is about? Nope.

yenhoi

06-07-2006, 02:25 PM

I thought you only teach 18 and over?

Why does learning some chinese system of fighting/philosophy now qualify you to tell the rest of us what is right and wrong? Only Chinese people who study for years and years at a Traditional Chinese Martial "Art" are golden enough to teach the rest of us?

Is this something you ask people when they first come in? Is it just one of the check boxes on the question sheet? What do you want to get from all this: Character building, Confidence, Self defense, Dicipline, and Daddy/Mommy/Life Shaper?

Its not the place of my blub/gym/school to find people on drugs and fix them with our philosophy of self defense.

A bunch of nonsense. Obviosuly designed to de-value the other non-Chinese/non-philosophical diciplines - and the people that are involved with them.

:eek:

Oso

06-07-2006, 02:26 PM

Greetings..

Oso: Agreed on the redundancy issue! and, true, i don't ask new questions, if there truely are any..

my point exactly. nothing new under the sun.

but, a consensus or reasonable answers to these questions would be a small step toward a higher goal..

agreed...but the answers will largely be the same as before

Quote:
So, everyone who does a martial art/discipline is an artist even if they might eschew the term 'martial artist'.

While i understand and agree with the philosophical notion you put forth, i am hoping (against hope) that people will dialogue this to a point of balance.. where art and skill can re-unite..

agreed. however, I think that the skill of fighting is more lacking in those that say that are in it for the arts sake...and in many of those that say they are in it for the skill of fighting but don't really test themselves.

The stereotyping is a nuanced intention.. from an observer's perspective i have seen more than a reasonable (by my standards, of course) percentage of fighters that train purely for the fight, take their skills to the street looking for validation..

maybe so but I've seen a far higher percentage of people from my example do the same.

to be fair, people who want to do violence are going to do it one way or the other.

To be fair, i did something similar.. i took a job as a bouncer for about 8 months and got schooled in oh so many ways.. but, the lessons have served me well (and the scars are good conversation starters, too).. my intention, though, was not to visit violence on innocent people.. to find a venue where the variables exceeded my safe training eenvironment, and the subjects could reasonably expect a conflict management situation.. many lessons were in negotiation for acceptable terms of non-violent resolutions.. others were not so favorable..

I did the same but for 7 years. My rationale was that if someoene started something in a bar then they were in the wrong and if they resisted to the point where I had to be extra physical with them they got what they deserved.

But, we already know we have differing alignments. ;)

But, the question might better be posed as "how do we minimize the liklihood of skill-testing in unjustified situations"?

well, that brings up the subject of only teaching to 'honorable' people. that's largely a bunch of malarky...especially in a commercial situation. You're not going to know up front most of the time. I have kicked people out for being idiots and will do so again if necessary and all my students know that if they fight then they will have to justify their actions to me as well as to parents, principals and police. They also know, to a degree, how I feel about fighting and that there is a place and a time for it.

And, Yes.. i am familiar with the quote.. it rings true.. Thanks

Be well..

That one hangs on the wall in my school. Makes people think I'm religious...which I'm not especially. It's just true.

Fu-Pow

06-07-2006, 02:27 PM

Art=expression of self.

Martial Art=an expression of the martial self.

We could argue for days about what is and what is not an expression of the true martial self.

Asia

06-07-2006, 02:30 PM

Art=expression of self.

Martial Art=an expression of the martial self.

We could argue for days about what is and what is not an expression of the true martial self.

However you definition of ART in this case is incorrect. When you speak of Martial, Culinary, or Smithing Art. That means SKILL no self expression.

Oso

06-07-2006, 02:32 PM

The ART in the term MARTIAL ARTS means SKILL.

The main, and only criteria, part of MA is that is is a SKILL (Art) pretaining to combat (Martial)

MA teachers are not really qualified to teach social skills, thats the job of parents and acutal qualified pple. A MA teachers main responsiblity is to instill combative skills into their students. If the student gets something else out of it thats fine but the the purpose.

Now with that said teaches do have to right to choose who they want to teach. If they feel someone is going to only reak havok then they don't have to train them but its not really their responsiblity to instill something else, especially if it might conflict with established beliefs of that persons family or other social circles.

TOTALLY agree with this...but mcdojo's and mcguan's ARE setting the teachers up to do just that. Parents these days don't WANT the responsibility it seems. It's ****ed up.

I'm seriously thinking about running some advertising to poke fun at this concept.

"Good Kung Fu, Bad Marketing"

I think I'd get a lawsuit over that one from the Kwoon peeps though.

Another idea is to rip the whole thing about kids getting better grades, manners, discipline and focus. Kinda like 'build your self esteem on your own time'

the marketing has taken the things that are the by products of any sort of good physical skill attainment and made them the goal versus the attainment of skill.

PangQuan

06-07-2006, 02:35 PM

when we are dealing with americans we must remember that in one class it is quite common to have those of varying backgrounds be it cultural, religious or any other.

our school for example, vietnamese, chinese, black, white. american born, viet born, etc. buddhists, catholics, christians, athiests.

we in our school are a melting pot.

my teacher is VERY buddhist. he preaches nothing.

phylosophically, he leads by example, not by words.

it is his job to teach us to fight, and the tradition of our arts. it IS his resposibility to conduct himself in a professinal manner and, for him, to act in accordance with his beliefs.

it is through this everyday actions and effects that we recieve our phylosophical influence from our teacher. he does not tell us what the scriptures would have us do. he does what his scriptures would have him do.

he actually handles his martial and personal beliefs in perfect balance for todays american society. Funny, he does this better than most americans though he was born and raised in asia.:rolleyes:

EarthDragon

06-07-2006, 02:40 PM

yenhoi ...........
I thought you only teach 18 and over?
Yes but I do get younger high schoolers from time to time. But I dont teach a children's class.

Why does learning some chinese system of fighting/philosophy now qualify you to tell the rest of us what is right and wrong? Only Chinese people who study for years and years at a Traditional Chinese Martial "Art" are golden enough to teach the rest of us?

wisdom, role model, etc etc why would you say only chinese people who study for years can? I studied for 26 years form the chinese I am not qualified to teach right from wrong?

Is this something you ask people when they first come in? Is it just one of the check boxes on the question sheet? What do you want to get from all this: Character building, Confidence, Self defense, Dicipline, and Daddy/Mommy/Life Shaper?

no question sheet in my school but yes you will learn Character building, Confidence, Self defense, Dicipline as well as fighting, healing and anatomy skills

Its not the place of my blub/gym/school to find people on drugs and fix them with our philosophy of self defense.

then where is? If I cna make a differnece to someone shouldnt I? teacher, friend mentor or not?

A bunch of nonsense. Obviosuly designed to de-value the other non-Chinese/non-philosophical diciplines - and the people that are involved with them.

your mistaken, the same values are taught in karate and other martial arts as well. The samurai were taught 1 strike 1 kill but Character building, Confidence, Self defense, Dicipline were instilled as well from thier sensei.
did master miyagi teach only fighting to danielson

yenhoi

06-07-2006, 02:55 PM

I didnt say you shouldent teach those things. I am saying that it doesnt make the rest of us bad people or our diciplines bad by default because we dont prescribe to this foreign idea that learning to fight and beat people up goes hand in hand with learning when to say please and thank you. You can do Whatever you want at your place and I could care less, as soon as you preachers go on telling the rest of us that what we do is some how less because its not coached inside this weirdo enlightment, we are better People then all the others, simply because we practice X and put this goodness label on it.

I studied for 26 years form the chinese I am not qualified to teach right from wrong?

Heck no. Maybe, and thats it, maybe, and it has nothing to do with "Art." its very possible and easy to be a good person before you find someone to teach you how to fight, stay a good person while you learn how to fight, and still be a good person after you have fought some, all without a single word from your teacher about whats right and wrong in the world.

If you guys are so golden, then what do you care how the rest of us teach? I dont think its very good person-ish to go around telling other people they arent as good person-ish because they dont preach about wu de or worry their heads for a single moment trying to teach their students good people skills.

Its not very good leading by example if you have to shout "Look at me!" The whole time.

then where is?

Not here. I dont care where you get it, I dont see it as my place to teach it to people. if you do then thats fine with me, but when you start to portray everyone else as wrong because we dont, then your out of line.

your mistaken, the same values are taught in karate and other martial arts as well. The samurai were taught 1 strike 1 kill but Character building, Confidence, Self defense, Dicipline were instilled as well from thier sensei.
did master miyagi teach only fighting to danielson

I am not mistaken. This weirdo father/teacher concept is found in some form in almost all types of "Martial Arts." I didnt say it was only Chinese. You guys seem to be trying to paint the picture that if you dont teach or learn in this paired fashion, that you are somehow automatically a lesser good-person. I think just saying things like that voids any type of good person mojo you might have going on.

Mr Miyagi and the Karate Kid are the standard for good person/good martial teachings and trainings? Thats psycho.

:eek:

neilhytholt

06-07-2006, 03:00 PM

PangQuan

06-07-2006, 03:01 PM

did master miyagi teach only fighting to danielson

COBRA KAI !!:D

seriously though, i think as a teacher, it is all of our duties to do our best.

it is a case by case situation.

some kids may need that father figure, thiers may be dead. That may be the whole purpose the mother brings them in.

PangQuan

06-07-2006, 03:39 PM

for instance.

i did not begin my studies of chinese system until i was an adult.

i began my studies of chinese martial arts, to learn to fight like the chinese. plain and simple.

a new student joined to loose weight. another joined to return to thier studies. another joined to gain physical fitness and to improve thier basket ball game. (which it has)

people join for many reasons. as a teacher it is our duty to meet THOSE needs of the students.

if one comes to me and says " can you help me, i feel lost in this world and am looking for a phylosophical aid "

i would then ask them where they feel they are in thier life and offer any insights i may so that they can choose what they want to take with them.

a student should be able to come to thier teacher with any problem. this is a responsibility a teacher accepts when they open to the public. otherwise teach who you choose behind closed doors.

there are different students and likewise there are different teachers

to each his own...

EarthDragon

06-07-2006, 03:45 PM

yenhoi I agree with your point and it its valid.

I must however explain that I NEVER said if you dont do these things are you not as good as the ones who do, or your art is not comparable or anything negitive thing like that.

I would never push anything on anybody but will always go out of my way to help guide those who need it, teach those that wish to learn and correct those who need corrected. In my school and in my life as a friend, brother, father and teacher.

I dont care, pursway, instill or judge how others teach its not my place. Perhaps you mis interperated what I tried to convey, Or perhaps I did not explain my point corectly.

Fu-Pow

06-07-2006, 03:50 PM

However you definition of ART in this case is incorrect. When you speak of Martial, Culinary, or Smithing Art. That means SKILL no self expression.

So why do we call it martial art rather than martial skill or martial craft or the skill of fighting or war skill or skill of war or....etc, etc, etc.?

There are important subtleties between a skill, craft and art.

Asia

06-07-2006, 03:54 PM

So why do we call it martial art rather than martial skill or martial craft or the skill of fighting or war skill or skill of war or....etc, etc, etc.?
Because ART means skill. Thats why. You never heard the term WARCRAFT? (no I am not just refering to the game)

There are important subtleties between a skill, craft and art.
Incorrect. Craft, Skill, and Art are all synoymous. There are not subtleies between them. This can be easily shown by using a reference like a Thesaurus.

Main Entry: art
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: skill
Synonyms: adroitness, aptitude, artistry, craft, craftsmanship, creativity, dexterity, expertise, facility, imagination, ingenuity, inventiveness, knack, know-how, knowledge, mastery, method, profession, trade, virtuosity

Main Entry: craft
Part of Speech: noun 1
Definition: skill
Synonyms: ability, adeptness, adroitness, aptitude, art, artistry, cleverness, competence, cunning, dexterity, expertise, expertness, ingenuity, knack, know-how*, proficiency, technique, workmanship

Main Entry: skill
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: ability
Synonyms: accomplishment, address, adroitness, aptitude, art, artistry, bag, cleverness, clout, command, competence,craft, cunning, deftness, dexterity, dodge*, ease, experience, expertise, expertism, expertness, facility, finesse, goods*, handiness, ingenuity, intelligence, job, knack*, know-how*, line, makings, mastership, mastery, moxie*, one's thing*, profession, proficiency, prowess, quickness, readiness, right stuff*, savvy*, skillfulness, sleight, smarts*, stuff*, talent, technique, trade, work
Emphasis mine.

PangQuan

06-07-2006, 03:56 PM

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).

arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.
Printing. Illustrative material.

not all art requires a skill. for instance, Nature is one of the greatest artists.

how much skill is required for the beauty and art of a fully unique and perfect sunset? none.

your definition was limited.

Asia

06-07-2006, 04:04 PM

No, my definition was germane to the subject matter. You are confusing aesthitc art which a art for as skill.

Remeber just because a word has many definitions doesn't mean they all pretain to a subject.

If you look at any historic european MA manual you will see the word art and skill being used interchangabley.

PangQuan

06-07-2006, 04:15 PM

EarthDragon

06-07-2006, 04:16 PM

wow has this become a literial topic. call it what you will, lets not stumble over definations.

Perhaps this is the problem, we cant get over the meaning therefore what it is that we are trying to attain? skill or art does it matter? what has been lost?
the true essence or origin of the name? I think not...... for it is just a label

PangQuan

06-07-2006, 04:17 PM

i am quit of this conversation.

Asia

06-07-2006, 04:22 PM

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements

correct me if i am wrong, but im pretty sure this does pertain to martial arts. skill may be part of the process, but it is not the only part.

the skill feeds the creation but skill alone does not merit art.

there is martial science and there is martial art. not the same.
You still have the confusion of aesthtic art and art as a skill.

Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
This pretains more to MA than the one above.

TaiChi-IronPalm

06-07-2006, 04:28 PM

TMA really has many aspects if you look at them collectively, you have Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and other places. Between the hundreds of Kung Fu styles, the myriad Japanese and Korean styles, and the others, together they encompass many aspects; art, science, applied science, sport, exercise, combat, self defense, entertainment, history, meditation, philosophy, etc. This is collectively not just an art, but a cultural treaure! TMAs are the greatest gift china et al has given the world, I look forward to the day when rare and beautiful deadly arts from China are taught openly and correctly to americans and the rest of the world that wants to learn and help to preserve these arts for the priceless treasures they are. One day maybe more styles can be shared in friendship between Chinese peoples, and Americans.

Jing Wu Rocks
Taoism Rocks
Tai Chi Rocks
:D

Asia

06-07-2006, 04:33 PM

TMA does not just mean Asian arts. Given the oldest recorded systemized MA come form Africa and the Middle east.

There is much more to China as to say that TCMA are its greast gift to the world.

TaiChi-IronPalm

06-07-2006, 05:19 PM

TMA does not just mean Asian arts. Given the oldest recorded systemized MA come form Africa and the Middle east.

There is much more to China as to say that TCMA are its greast gift to the world.
I belive Tai Chi is most certainly China's greatest gift to the world, a beautiful combat art that promotes longevity, lowers blood sugar in type 2 diabetics, lowers blood pressure better than many western medicines, reduces stess, reduces muscle spasms, helps improve balance in neuropathy patients, and teaches principles that can be applied to any area of your life to help you succeed.
And if you notice in the first part I said "other places" in the list of TMAs, that would include stuff like capoiera sp., silat, escrima, greek MAs, basically everyplace else not mentioned by name, because of either commomality (boxing) or being relatively unknown, I just used China as an example because we study Kung Fu, and its well known there are many essentially unknown styles in the west, we kung fu guys in the U.S. WANT to learn those styles. I admire and love all Chinese culture, it is to me most certainly the pearl of the orient, I an also fascinated by Japanese culture, and admire many of their values. I long for the day the US extends the olive branch to China. We had no problems with China's empire, how is communism any better or worse to us?
:)

Fu-Pow

06-07-2006, 05:20 PM

Because ART means skill. Thats why. You never heard the term WARCRAFT? (no I am not just refering to the game)

Incorrect. Craft, Skill, and Art are all synoymous. There are not subtleies between them. This can be easily shown by using a reference like a Thesaurus.

Emphasis mine.

Art has an ambiguous meaning...it has more than one definition.

Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: 'ärt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at ARM
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
synonyms ART, SKILL, CUNNING, ARTIFICE, CRAFT mean the faculty of executing well what one has devised. ART implies a personal, unanalyzable creative power <the art of choosing the right word>. SKILL stresses technical knowledge and proficiency <the skill of a glassblower>. CUNNING suggests ingenuity and subtlety in devising, inventing, or executing <a mystery plotted with great cunning>. ARTIFICE suggests technical skill especially in imitating things in nature <believed realism in film could be achieved only by artifice>. CRAFT may imply expertness in workmanship <the craft of a master goldsmith>.

Emphasis is mine.

You are limiting the definition of art to the one definition when in fact there are at least three and they to some degree overlap. Your interpreting the term "martial art" to mean "martial skill" but others are including the other definitions of art....something Bruce Lee hinted at in his writings.

So I would appreciate it if you didn't represent your interpretation of the "art" in "martial art" as some kind of hard fact.

Now, my question to you is why choose the word "art" when there are less ambiguous terms like "skill" or "craft"?

To me, art is something different than a skill or craft even though technically the words can, in some cases, be used interchangably.

There are examples in the vernacular that demonstrate that art and craft are not the same thing.....

for example...artshow vs craftshow, artist vs. craftsman.

To me the "craft" is the part that can be learned. Its the "skill" part but the "art" part is the part that can't be learned...you can only be helped along to express your own "art."

Its like when you learn from your kung fu teacher. He can show you the moves (the "craft" or "skill") but you have to make it work for you, make it part of you, then it becomes an "art"....your "art."

Or something like that...I don't think there is a right or wrong here.

Knifefighter

06-07-2006, 05:47 PM

I belive Tai Chi is most certainly China's greatest gift to the world, a beautiful combat art that promotes longevity, lowers blood sugar in type 2 diabetics, lowers blood pressure better than many western medicines, reduces stess, reduces muscle spasms, helps improve balance in neuropathy patients, and teaches principles that can be applied to any area of your life to help you succeed.

So do jogging, weight lifting, pilates and just about all other regularly performed physical fitness activities.

SPJ

06-07-2006, 07:07 PM

Greetings..

Do we strip away the "Art" to reveal only the pure combative skills?

Do teachers have a responsibility to try to balance the fighting skills they teach with social skills that might temper the inherent violence?

Can a "traditional" Martial Arts curriculum produce high-level fighters.. or, are they exclusive?

1. If you practice to have good skills or perfect a certain skill or master that skill, it becomes your craftness. You have to know the in's and out's of the skill. You know the tactics and strategy of the skill. You use the skill as if part of you and you use it at a high level. Then it is an art. An art is a self expression of a skill at unique and high level. In short, practice/practitioner->craftmanship-> artist.

After some practice, you know how to use a long spear. Great. After more practice, the spear becomes part of you or you becomes the spear. You move or breathe, and the spear "moves" and "breathe" WITH you. After more practice, there is only the spear and there is no you. or you may use any stick as if it is a long spear. or you may use your fist and arms as if a long spear. oops, that is Xing Yi.

2. Teacher is not required to teach social ettiquette. But it would be nice to mention the philosophy comes along with the style.

3. emphasize the defense aspects of the skills and counter attack as the offense aspects. or teach moves and counter moves in pair. The violent intents are balanced with neutralizing intents.

4. A high level fighter is some one self motivated. A teacher may show them the ways. They make the journey from practice and sparring. The curriculum are showing the ways.

Peace out.

:D

TaiChi-IronPalm

06-07-2006, 07:15 PM

So do jogging, weight lifting, pilates and just about all other regularly performed physical fitness activities.
none of these develop chi and internal power.

SPJ

06-07-2006, 07:39 PM

Can a "traditional" Martial Arts curriculum produce high-level fighters.. or, are they exclusive?

Theoretically, any legit or sound MA courses will produce a good fighter. So it is not exclusive.

For example, I heard there was a Japanese Navy pilot so skillful with the Zero-sen fighter. He shot down over 102 planes in the Pacific during WWII. Even in 1945, he managed to escape from 12 F-4F Hellfire fighters. He was outgunned and outsped. He managed to escape with his ole Zero-sen. He was eventually shot down when he was flying a cargo plane.

During Korean Conflict, the US pilots with more experiences and skills flied F-84, F-86 jets shot down more advanced and faster MIG -15 and MIG-17. The newly formed "Volunteer" Chinese pilots have little experiences and less skillful.

Eventually, they maintained the MIG air corridor/Alley by outnumbering the UN fighters.

--

:D

Fu-Pow

06-07-2006, 08:52 PM

An art is a self expression of a skill at unique and high level. In short, practice/practitioner->craftmanship-> artist.

Exactly. :D :D :D :D

SPJ

06-07-2006, 10:09 PM

:D

http://www.afa.org/magazine/1991/0291russian.asp

:D

dwid

06-08-2006, 03:57 AM

none of these develop chi and internal power.

I think the point Knifefighter was making was that regular physical exercise will achieve all the medical effects you pointed out. I'm inclined to agree with the caveat that some sort of mindfulness work is also helpful in stress reduction/lowering BP/managing chronic pain/etc...

As far as I know, there is no legit medical research that supports the existence of chi or "internal power," let alone research showing that these things have effects on health and chronic illness that is somehow other than the effects achieved by other more mundane activities. A big problem in this country (and all over the world), is increasingly sedentary lifestyles, poor diet, and too much unmanaged stress. Anything that addresses these core issues is good for reducing the symptoms that are at least partly caused by these, such as high BP, Type II Diabetes, etc...

TaiChiBob

06-08-2006, 06:02 AM

Greetings..

I will begin with a disclaimer, the following is only my opinion.. not an assertion of fact or a contradiction intended to incite conflict.

Art, as i understand it, involves some aspect of creativity.. perhaps, as we evolve in our Martial Skills, we also evolve into the capability to create.. where we can expand beyond mimicry into self-expression consistent with the principles of the Art..

I have seen many skilled "artists" doing forms and/or fighting where they utilize variations of their style in such a manner as to be observably effective and still fit within their style's conceptual limits.. i feel they are "artists"..

It is one thing to master a set of skills (mimicry), another to add your own spirit/flavor to that skill set and still be recognized as the same effective skill set.. in the beginning we mimic to learn the intended value of the skill set, it becomes art when we internalize it into a similar skill set that is optimized for our own experiences..

Sometimes, i think we tend to "lower the bar" to accommodate our desired perception of ourselves.. i largely consider my self as a "Martial Arts Student", working toward the "artist" level of understanding and skill.. i have minimally modified certain aspects of certain forms, presented the modifications to recognized authorities.. i have been corrected, and i have been told that a couple of the modifications are on point.. but, i think that was more blind luck (and my nature to seek the application of any movement)..

I also think it is important to let recognized authorities decide what we are, rather than claim a title.. my students like to call me Sifu, i prefer LaoShi.. or, as i am becoming more comfortable with the nuance of meanings, "coach".. but, so help me, i don't want Coach Ross to know i would affirm that title, he can be SO annoying.. but, i respect his annoying mannerisms..

Crap! now, i'm just rambling.. i think we argue of preferences.. and it is unfortunate that we disrespect people over preferences that are of no real consequence to our own preference.. some people despise cultural and philosophical attachments to their perception of MA.. others imply it is just that that raises martial skill to an art.. but, when you're sitting on the curb holding a hand-full of your own teeth, it doesn't matter whether it was skill or art.. you got schooled..

Be well...

David Jamieson

06-08-2006, 06:31 AM

Fu-Pow

06-08-2006, 08:28 AM

ha ha Asia Nailed it. lol

shocking isn't it! All this "martial art" stuff really does mean "martial" and the "skills and methods" associated with martiality.

If we go be definition and pure understanding of teh words we are using, let's not kid ourselves, what asia has posted is the correct and it's saved me the time from posting it.

I personally find it odd when people want to change the meanings of words to suit their meanings intentions and emotional needs.
.

Well SPJ and I showed pretty conclusively that Asia was wrong. His chosen definition of the word "art" was used arbitrarily to fit his interpretation of "martial art" when there are 3 other definitions.

Also, he has not addressed why the word "art" was chosen over the synonyms (BTW, syn means "like," not exactly same) "craft" and "skill."

The merriam-webster quote that I pulled perfectly delineates between the words "art" "craft" and "skill" even though they are synonmyms and mean something like "method to achieve a desired result."

David Jamieson

06-08-2006, 09:04 AM

TaiChi-IronPalm

06-08-2006, 09:15 AM

we also evolve into the capability to create.. where we can expand beyond mimicry into self-expression consistent with the principles of the Art..

I have seen many skilled "artists" doing forms and/or fighting where they utilize variations of their style in such a manner as to be observably effective and still fit within their style's conceptual limits.. i feel they are "artists"..

It is one thing to master a set of skills (mimicry), another to add your own spirit/flavor to that skill set

I also think it is important to let recognized authorities decide what we are

True, when I make modifications to tai chi kicks it is from practical experience in real confrontations and in sparring with external stylists. My Sifu either approves of the modification or tell me why it shouldnt be modified if I am wrong. Like the front kicks in Hao style, I use the heel instead of ball sometimes. I am not acting like that puts me to artist, to me martial arts is a skill much like classical music. We call the very skilled, artists in classical music, most of them create thier own music at some point after mastering the classics and so I beleive it to be in TMA. You definitely have valid points Bob no doubt, as always.

omarthefish

06-08-2006, 09:53 AM

One thing on all this and that is that language changes.

It sucks and I am a language conservative. I constantly go back to original meanings and semantic roots but unfortunately (**** the heathen mobs!) the thing keeps changing and evolving. It's a pain in the ass because it means that I have to keep clearing up definitions at the begginings of conversations as I never know which one a particular person is using.

So nowadays people are using "martial arts" to mean something akin to the "fine arts" or "arts and crafts" usage of the word "art". It's historically unfounded and kind of dumb and really doesn't reflect anything the way the term came to be but I have to admit, that's what it means to a lot of people NOW.

So suit yourself. If you want to add some additional meaning to the term I can't stop you. It's like a secret code that I have been fortunate enough to crack just like how "biscuits" means kind of dry backed muffins UNLESS I am speaking with someone from England in which case I have to take a mental note that what they really mean is cookies or if they say "chips" what they mean is french (freedom?) fries.

So now in this modern era where hardly anyone anywhere actually practices for the purpose of fighting and even fewer develop their skill to the level where it can be considered an "art", people have taken MA in a new direction. They have taken it as an alternative to improvisational dancing or watercolors. Fact is, most "artists" as in painters, sculptors etc. lack the basic skills to even be considered craftsman let alone artists. Oy.

The term "martial arts" is distinctly western and we'll have to come to terms with it on our own. It has no real basis in Asian languages. In Chinese it might mean wushu or it might mean wuyi. It certainly doesn't translate as gongfu. Ironically, the closest literal translation is "wu shu" and THAT particular term, in Chinese, is distinctly NOT related to "art" in the art school kind of way in any way shape or form. "Wuyi" is but that term has fallen out of use. So if anyone thinks they are doing either Wuyi (China) or Buijitsu (Japan) they have no connection linguistically whatsoever to "art" but only to "craft" or "technique" but language is for communication so go knock yourselves out.

:D

neilhytholt

06-08-2006, 10:12 AM

If you want to go back to the English definition, think for a moment, why is it called "martial arts" and not "martial art"???

It's because "martial arts" means mar-tial arts. Arts of or pertaining to WAR. Including for example, strategy, sword fighting, guns, pugilism, etc.

Like Omar pointed out, it's only recently that this came to be considered something like oriental unarmed combat.

Also, terms that come to mean something they're not. Let's take 'kung fu'. This is supposed to be pronounced something like 'gong fu', except it isn't usually because nobody bothered to study the English spellings for the Chinese terms. So Beijing became Peking (same pronunciation), except everybody says it Pee-King now, not Beijing. As with 'gong fu' people now call it 'kung fu'. But it doesn't mean 'martial arts'. It doesn't mean unarmed fighting.

EarthDragon

06-08-2006, 10:34 AM

neilhytholt

06-08-2006, 10:45 AM

neithyholt.... you said

Also, terms that come to mean something they're not. Let's take 'kung fu'. This is supposed to be pronounced something like 'gong fu', except it isn't usually because nobody bothered to study the English spellings for the Chinese terms. So Beijing became Peking (same pronunciation), except everybody says it Pee-King now, not Beijing. As with 'gong fu' people now call it 'kung fu'. But it doesn't mean 'martial arts'. It doesn't mean unarmed fighting.

there are no spellings in the english language to traslate dircetly from chinese, just similar meanings. you are perhaps lost in literal phonectis
(why is that word not spelled like it sounds)

what does the words "kung fu" mean to you?

No, it's not lost in phonetics. There are Romanizations which nobody ever bothered to read. Otherwise they'd know that 'Kung fu' was supposed to be prounounced 'gong fu'.

I have no idea what 'gong fu' means, since I'm not Chinese. I was told by Chinese people that it means skill achieved through work.

I guess I'm a bit confused. Did nobody understand what I wrote there?

If you read a Romanized Chinese (Wade-Giles, Yale, etc.) translation of a book, in the beginning of the book they usually mention how romanizing works. Instead people just skip over that, and don't bother. That's how we got 'Pee-King' and 'Kung-Fu'. Because people phonetically read what is supposed to be a Romanized pronunciation.

And then they don't bother to realize that 'gong fu' doesn't mean martial arts.

So instead in the U.S. you have 'kung fu' meaning martial arts, and I've even run into Chinese people who come over here and don't realize it is really a mis-pronunciation and mis-use of a Chinese word! I had to spend about an hour once explaining to somebody FROM CHINA, and a native MANDARIN speaker that 'peking duck' meant duck cooked 'Beijing' style!!! How's that for irony.

Fu-Pow

06-08-2006, 11:04 AM

art is defined as a word.

we don't practice martial craft, we practice martial art. we become craftsmen (hopefully) through the practice of the techniques and methods that define the art.

semantics is moot.

art is art by definition as given in whatever dictionary you choose. It will be same.

Semantics is not moot.

Art, craft and skill mean different things. Asia's contention is that they all mean the same thing. They are "synonyms" meaning that they have a similar meaning but don't mean exactly the same thing.

I refer you to the merriam-webster definition that I posted. It delineates the difference. Merriam-webster is pretty much the gold standard in regards to dictionaries. Oxford is pretty good too.

neilhytholt

06-08-2006, 11:05 AM

Semantics is not moot.

Art, craft and skill mean different things. Asia's contention is that they all mean the same thing. They are "synonyms" meaning that they have a similar meaning but don't mean exactly the same thing.

I refer you to the merriam-webster definition that I posted. It delineates the difference. Merriam-webster is pretty much the gold standard in regards to dictionaries. Oxford is pretty good too.

OED is THE gold standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary

Fu-Pow

06-08-2006, 11:09 AM

One thing on all this and that is that language changes.

It sucks and I am a language conservative. I constantly go back to original meanings and semantic roots but unfortunately (**** the heathen mobs!) the thing keeps changing and evolving. It's a pain in the ass because it means that I have to keep clearing up definitions at the begginings of conversations as I never know which one a particular person is using.

So nowadays people are using "martial arts" to mean something akin to the "fine arts" or "arts and crafts" usage of the word "art". It's historically unfounded and kind of dumb and really doesn't reflect anything the way the term came to be but I have to admit, that's what it means to a lot of people NOW.

The term "art" isn't reserved only for "fine arts" or "arts and crafts." But there is an undeniable connection between those things and anything that you raise to an "art" form.

So suit yourself. If you want to add some additional meaning to the term I can't stop you. It's like a secret code that I have been fortunate enough to crack just like how "biscuits" means kind of dry backed muffins UNLESS I am speaking with someone from England in which case I have to take a mental note that what they really mean is cookies or if they say "chips" what they mean is french (freedom?) fries.

Actually, the meaning of the word "art" is pretty well defined and differentiated from its synonyms.

I think it is that YOU want to divorce martial arts from the "artistry" side of it. Some people want to reduce martial arts to a martial science ie you do this, this and this and you become a great fighter.

There will always be a kind of "creativity" and "artistry" to be a good fighter. Sure you have to learn the skills but ultimately you have forget that stuff and let your movements become an extension of your "self."

yenhoi

06-08-2006, 11:37 AM

You are already yourself capable of expressing yourself.

Until, that is, you find some neo-hippie that wants to teach you right from wrong, in between teaching you how to be crafty about waving your hands in the air, and learn bits and pieces of another language.

Learning to fight is not about learning to be a good person, and neither one of those aspects has to do with arts or crafts or how you chose to define them or choose to ignore the definition.

It wont matter what you call your self, or what you "do" after you have been beaten to a pulp. The same is true after you have beaten someone to a pulp. Why would you need to "express yourself truthfully" in order to survive or avoid an altercation?

Why does it matter if you "do" Martial Arts, vs Martial Science, vs Martial Crafts, vs Methods of smashing other people faces? Whats really in a name? How does it help you fight on after being pepper sprayed, tazered, or smashed with a baton in the legs or with a beer mug in the face?

yenhoi

06-08-2006, 11:40 AM

Its pretty creative to walk up behind someone and smash their face into a slot machine. its much less creative to tweak a few parts of an age old form so you can get the nod from some old dudes.

:eek:

TaiChiBob

06-08-2006, 01:01 PM

Greetings..

You are already yourself capable of expressing yourself.
yenhoi: Capable, yes.. but, too few know how to express themselves.. they usually express how they think others would most appreciate them.. Most of the tripe i see in here is intended to demonstrate how macho someone wants others to think they are, i.e.:

Its pretty creative to walk up behind someone and smash their face into a slot machine. its much less creative to tweak a few parts of an age old form so you can get the nod from some old dudes.
Martial Arts, an interesting phrase.. we see the differing perspectives, and the passions those perspectives generate.. I will share my vision, the how and why i got into this stuff..
After being introduced to Judo by my dad in the mid 60's, I was really influenced by the movies and such of the late 60's - early 70's.. so i went looking for that elusive place where i could learn it all.. serious combat skills, deep meditational skills, calligraphy, music, philosophy.. the whole thing.. i really wanted to be the "Scholar Warrior".. 40 years later i have begun to scratch the surface, i've taken a few steps on the journey.. One of my great lessons has been to realize that each of us has our own reality, that to each of us a word or phrase has a meaning unique to our individual history of experience, unique to our individual aspirations.. As we can see, "Martial Art" means many things to many people.. but, the wisdom is in the respect we afford to anyone seeking to improve their condition, regardless of its conformity to our own unique perspective..

I do not understand the thought processes that arrive at the theory that Martial Art is purely about "survival of the fittest".. it is one of the gifts of being human that we can evolve beyond that primitive mentallity.. we can insure the survival of many.. we can organize a society of "Warriors in the Garden", supremely prepared and consciously reluctant.. I do not train to prove how good i am, i train to avoid conflict, or.. if no alternative is apparent, to prevail in the field of battle.. Lessons learned through competitive combat training are equally applicable to life in general, like Sun Tzu's "Art of War".. which applies to inter-personal relationships as well as organized combat..

Until, that is, you find some neo-hippie that wants to teach you right from wrong, in between teaching you how to be crafty about waving your hands in the air, and learn bits and pieces of another language.As much as some people dislike "hippies".. i am neither fond of swashbuckling, tatooed, muscle-shirted, shaved head wannabes.. walking advertisements for conflict.. you wouldn't notice me in a crowd, you wouldn't suspect i had any potential as a fighter by casual observation.. and i will generally seek to avoid physical confrontation.. the power of surprise should not be under-estimated..

Neither superior fighting skills nor cultural studies are mutually exclusive.. they can and do blend nicely.. that someone prefers one or both over another is simple preference, not a universal law.. That UFC or NHB proponent's challenges to TCMA proponents go unanswered neither validates or invalidates either.. it indicates people's preferences. Taunts and challenges are generally primitive responses to undesirable stimulus..

So, i will pursue my "Scholar Warrior" goal and i will not neglect the warrior aspect.. as always, i will respect the drive, dedication, and sacrifice made by the elite warriors, those that reject all but the most intense warrior's code.. My hope in starting this thread was that we might find a middle ground, some mutual respect.. oh well, we'll see...

Be well...

neilhytholt

06-08-2006, 01:26 PM

Neither superior fighting skills nor cultural studies are mutually exclusive.. they can and do blend nicely.. that someone prefers one or both over another is simple preference, not a universal law.. That UFC or NHB proponent's challenges to TCMA proponents go unanswered neither validates or invalidates either.. it indicates people's preferences. Taunts and challenges are generally primitive responses to undesirable stimulus..

So, i will pursue my "Scholar Warrior" goal and i will not neglect the warrior aspect.. as always, i will respect the drive, dedication, and sacrifice made by the elite warriors, those that reject all but the most intense warrior's code.. My hope in starting this thread was that we might find a middle ground, some mutual respect.. oh well, we'll see...

Be well...

It's kindof telling that people like Musashi who wrote books wrote them after they were accomplished martial artists in a fighting sense and had survived that experience.

In terms of culture being somehow incompatible with the fighting arts, I don't think that it is, but I don't think you can say that somebody's culture has to include fighting arts.

For example, I have yet to meet a single person from China or Japan outside of a martial arts class that practices any martial arts. I met one person from Chinese who took tai chi because his school required a phys ed class and that allowed him to sleep in until 7:00 instead of getting up at 6:30.

I don't think you will find many that the great majority of Americans or Europeans practice traditional non-gun based American or European martial arts from the past 200 years or so, including archery, knife fighting, axe fighting, fencing, rapier, boxing, etc. Shooting sports are more popular. Because shooting has been the main mode of fighting in the West for at least 150 years.

So does learning how to shoot include learning about the history of shooting, great gun battles, etc.? No, not really. Do they teach western military history in police or SWAT classes? I don't know. I don't think so.

So if you are really interested in traditional Japanese or Chinese culture, how much of that actually includes war? Surely traditional house building, dress, beliefs, ideals, etc., do not include war.

War and martial arts were for protecting the village, protecting oneself and actually fighting people.

For example, I was told that in China or Japan it was rare for non-nobles or non-samurai to actually learn swordsmanship because swords were very expensive and rare. The common people even if they went to war wouldn't learn sword, they would usually learn spear.

So how can you figure that martial arts means something besides studying fighting methods and arts of war? ??? Hmmm???

It sounds like you're trying to make something into something that it's not.

neilhytholt

06-08-2006, 01:30 PM

Basically it's one thing for an old man, after the battles are fought, to sit in the tea house and read books and talk about culture and martial arts.

It's quite another for a young person, whose battles are yet to be fought, to waste time worrying about culture and waste time sipping tea, instead of learning how to fight. Such a person probably will not make it to old age, unless they live in a very low violence society like ours.

FuXnDajenariht

06-08-2006, 02:04 PM

whos to say that extra "baggage" doesn't help someone become a better martial artist? look how zen buddhism influenced bujutsu. the whole no mind(mushin?) concept that samurai developed and bushido for instance. its inseparable from japanese culture and influenced it for the good i think.....for the most part.

artistry to me simply means someones individualistic unique expression in the tasks they perform. which is to say everyones skill is unique. no ones has any choice but to have individual ways of doing things. we aren't automatons after all. and since no situation is the same in combat martial arts are the perfect medium to express artistry in. just like no painting or piece of music is exactly the same. or you can think of martial arts like dancing. it may be harder to see in martial arts becuz fighting is dirty business after all, but like a couple other people already said, learning the skills only takes you so far.

neilhytholt

06-08-2006, 02:30 PM

I guess I just don't get the guys who are talking about 'art' other than fighting or pertaining to war. Martial art is war. If it wasn't war, then it would be called cooking art or building art or something like that.

So I guess I retire from this discussion. Confused.:confused:

Fu-Pow

06-08-2006, 04:52 PM

Chinese "arts" have always had a civil and a martial side....Wen and Wu.

Kung Fu literally means "work/skill and effort." Through the mastery of the "art" of fighting we master our "self." Beating someone up is easy, even easier to shoot them or cut them. That is not "art." Because you can win simply by being big and strong or in the case of guns and knives you just have to be able to pick them up.

Fighting is elevated to an art when you have total control of your self, mind, body and spirit.

It is really the difference between process goals and product goals. A "process goal" is something you pick up along the way. The "product goal" is what you achieve at the end of the journey.

Both are important but for different reasons. The "product goal" is like a real world marker of your progress. It tells you if you need to change something in your "process."

However, a "process goal" is transferable. For example, if I elevate something like cooking to an "art," then I may not know a thing about martial arts but I know the "process" by which I elevate something to an "art." Though the specific skills involved are different I will know the right mindset to achieve the "product goal."

So there is a difference between Wu Shu and fighting. The mindset of "kung fu" as applied to fighting elevates it to "art." But it could just as easily be cooking, knitting, math, meditation, etc. What you learn through the discipline involved spills out into everything that you do in "civil" life.

And that's just part of it....

Asia

06-09-2006, 04:21 AM

Art has an ambiguous meaning...it has more than one definition.

Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: 'ärt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at ARM
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
synonyms ART, SKILL, CUNNING, ARTIFICE, CRAFT mean the faculty of executing well what one has devised. ART implies a personal, unanalyzable creative power <the art of choosing the right word>. SKILL stresses technical knowledge and proficiency <the skill of a glassblower>. CUNNING suggests ingenuity and subtlety in devising, inventing, or executing <a mystery plotted with great cunning>. ARTIFICE suggests technical skill especially in imitating things in nature <believed realism in film could be achieved only by artifice>. CRAFT may imply expertness in workmanship <the craft of a master goldsmith>.

Emphasis is mine.

You are limiting the definition of art to the one definition when in fact there are at least three and they to some degree overlap. Your interpreting the term "martial art" to mean "martial skill" but others are including the other definitions of art....something Bruce Lee hinted at in his writings.

So I would appreciate it if you didn't represent your interpretation of the "art" in "martial art" as some kind of hard fact.

Now, my question to you is why choose the word "art" when there are less ambiguous terms like "skill" or "craft"?

To me, art is something different than a skill or craft even though technically the words can, in some cases, be used interchangably.

There are examples in the vernacular that demonstrate that art and craft are not the same thing.....

for example...artshow vs craftshow, artist vs. craftsman.

To me the "craft" is the part that can be learned. Its the "skill" part but the "art" part is the part that can't be learned...you can only be helped along to express your own "art."

Its like when you learn from your kung fu teacher. He can show you the moves (the "craft" or "skill") but you have to make it work for you, make it part of you, then it becomes an "art"....your "art."

Or something like that...I don't think there is a right or wrong here.

As I told Pang. Because a word has several definitions that doesn't mean they are all apt to certian terms. Just like a work can be a adj. or a noun but it wouldn't be used as both at one time. ART has also been a verb. an indicative to "be". (ex: Thou art mad!) Thats the form fo the word apply to the term Martial Art? No. The difinintions I posted were what are revelant to the subject matter and the term of MA. Its is pretty cut and dry.

Asia

06-09-2006, 04:32 AM

Well SPJ and I showed pretty conclusively that Asia was wrong.
No you didn't.

His chosen definition of the word "art" was used arbitrarily to fit his interpretation of "martial art" when there are 3 other definitions.

Also, he has not addressed why the word "art" was chosen over the synonyms (BTW, syn means "like," not exactly same) "craft" and "skill."

Again I asked if you ever heard the term WARCRAFT it was used as well and I also pointed out that the in historical Martial Arts manuals the term ART was used for SKILL often. You should research this before thinking you have it down. I will even point you in the right direction.

The merriam-webster quote that I pulled perfectly delineates between the words "art" "craft" and "skill" even though they are synonmyms and mean something like "method to achieve a desired result."
See above.

Asia

06-09-2006, 04:42 AM

For example, I have yet to meet a single person from China or Japan outside of a martial arts class that practices any martial arts. I met one person from Chinese who took tai chi because his school required a phys ed class and that allowed him to sleep in until 7:00 instead of getting up at 6:30.

I lived in Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong (a total of 13yrs) plus I've visited mainland China several times and very few pple practiced practiced MA. Of those few most had to take some in school and never kept it up after they left. This is why I say Taichibob is very wrong if he thinks Taijiquan is China's greatest gift because the Chinese don't even think so.

For example, I was told that in China or Japan it was rare for non-nobles or non-samurai to actually learn swordsmanship because swords were very expensive and rare. The common people even if they went to war wouldn't learn sword, they would usually learn spear.

This is true. Swords are expensive and not common among commenors. If you look at many of the "layman" arts they contain common tools or very cheap weapons (ie a bo or baton) This is seen alot in various JMA of jujutsu like Asayma Ichden Ryu, Tenshin Koryu Kenpo, etc.

SPJ

06-09-2006, 08:06 AM

If you want to go back to the English definition, think for a moment, why is it called "martial arts" and not "martial art"???

It's because "martial arts" means mar-tial arts. Arts of or pertaining to WAR. Including for example, strategy, sword fighting, guns, pugilism, etc.

Everything that is about the fighting is part of it.

So in the MIG Alley, F-86 pilots downed more MIG's due to more experiences and skillfulness in the dogfight.

Later, Taiwan's F-86 downed some MIG's were due to the heat-seeking Sidewinder air to air missiles. Dogfight skills were still important but not as demanding.

After Taiwan air force got hold of the MIG 15 or 17, the test pilots flied the planes and said I only wish we have the planes ourself.

My point is that there are many factors to win in the fight. Sometimes, the skillfulness is the only thing to rely on. Sometimes, there are more factors, such as better weapons, planes, tactics, strategy, outnumbering etc then just personal skills.

--

Ray Pina

06-09-2006, 09:52 AM

I used to think Martial Arts was such a great term. And it must have been in a time when people were hacking each other apart with axes to see someone with such skill that was devoid of effort, something smooth and beatiful. Something that looked elevated from pure adrenaline and hatred. A master. An artisan of war.

Today that term has been basterdized. Martial artists? I rarely see martial practioners. Though every once in a while I meet someone on bullshido that shows me real martial arts will never die, someone who comes and tests there stuff and win or lose leaves energized to train and further perfect their stuff. Unfortunately, this is the exception in "martial arts" today.

I see the UFC today and I see great fighters, great warriors, disciplines men who devout their time and body to become the best weapon they can ... but rarely do I see a martial artists. I think Diego is a great example of a martial artists. A warrior who has elevated beyond hate and anger and sheer adrenaline for victory. He is calm and composed and fighting from a different place. This is the great benefit if Asian martial arts and a source of efficiency into older age. I always wish him well. At the same time, I fear fighting a guy like that dude that got beat down by Bonner but kept coming, who KOed someone after getting his arm broken. That fierceness is invaluable and part of it. But I haven't seen a master in there yet. Maybe it's impossible with everyone's level so high. But Gracie showed mastery when he first came in. I'm hoping there will be another revolution in MA and we'll all have the game changed on us again.

This is artistry. Pushing beyond the regular. Right now, everyone's fighting the same again. Everyone's trying to do everything and the overall level of each part doesn't seem so good.
.....

As for traditional. Traditional time is over. What is traditional? What people call traditional today is not traditional... it's neo classical. It's guys pretending to be traditional. But when you really had bandits coming to your place to rape and pillage, you didn't have time to learn Gun jee fook fu .... you better get your basics tight -- and fast!

People training traditional today ... the proof is in the pudding. They can't fight. Most won't fight. They give you a list of reasons ranging from too deadly to its not the point of martial arts. Then what is the point of martial arts? You can get spiritual training from a number of places, but where do you go for martial training if you don't want to join the military? You go to a martial art gym.

How many actually provide that level of learning?

Martial artists need to be honest with themself. Do you want to work hard, have sore muscles, GET BLOODY AND HURT? Now, I train not to get hurt, not to trade blows .... but the other guy isn't sitting at home on the couch either. It will happen.

OK, too many words already. We all know the answers to this question. It's obvious. You have to choose not to be a pu$$y and walk the walk and do it right, or fool yourself and dabble and talk the talk and pretend.

The funny thing is, doing it right takes less time and is easier. The hard part is committing.

Ray Pina

06-09-2006, 09:57 AM

Everything that is about the fighting is part of it.

So in the MIG Alley, F-86 pilots downed more MIG's due to more experiences and skillfulness in the dogfight.

Later, Taiwan's F-86 downed some MIG's were due to the heat-seeking Sidewinder air to air missiles. Dogfight skills were still important but not as demanding.

After Taiwan air force got hold of the MIG 15 or 17, the test pilots flied the planes and said I only wish we have the planes ourself.

My point is that there are many factors to win in the fight. Sometimes, the skillfulness is the only thing to rely on. Sometimes, there are more factors, such as better weapons, planes, tactics, strategy, outnumbering etc then just personal skills.

--

In the end, it still takes a pilot with the balls to get in the plane, take off, and put himself in harms way. Sidewinder missiles, ect. = arm bar, etc.

Fighter pilot = martial artist. ..... kid playing latest Nintendo fighter pilot video game = traditional form expert.

Fu-Pow

06-09-2006, 09:58 AM

What is traditional? What people call traditional today is not traditional... it's neo classical.

That's a great point.

Fu-Pow

06-09-2006, 10:03 AM

FuXnDajenariht

06-09-2006, 10:04 AM

well im just saying. i dont understand how you can see every individual style of fighting thats exists as anything but an artistic creation.

PangQuan

06-09-2006, 10:12 AM

I'm hoping there will be another revolution in MA and we'll all have the game changed on us again.

i had decided to stay out of this, but i usually read your posts ray, and had to comment on this.

I believe that this course is inevitable. it must happen simply because in the heart of the martial arts, there is evolution and change. if martial arts are to continue in our world this has to happen.

WinterPalm

06-09-2006, 10:57 AM

I think the art is in all the components that make what you do more than just fighting. The world is increasingly becoming more and more violent and this is trickiling down into day to day life in our society.

The art, to me, is not to hold yourself up to someone and compare...not to let the slightest little bothersome thing make you fly off the handle and want to fight like so many I see here...the art is about working through the difficulties and training so that if you should have to fight...then you will. Many people I know think I can fight real well because in several confrontations I have used words, presence, and attitude to disuade and ultimately end confrontations. I haven't had to raise my fists, all I had to do was work through the problem and accept the aggression of the other as what it is which is fear, and make them understand that there was no reason to fight. I could have entertained them and fought...I'm also not saying that this will always work but it does...

How many people here actually think a war veteran enjoys seeing bodies and violence all around him/her? I've taken my lessons well that violence and war are wrong...but sometimes necessary. It seems to me that all the people who want to fight so bad, must fight so often...like the idea of the thrill of knifing someone, these people aren't artists...they have no self-control, no discipline (which goes well beyond the discipline to train hard everyday), and are quite childish. Many of us live in relative security and our comfort has produced a sickening fear of violence that has lead many to embrace it and want to be a part of it having never fully understood it.

Without a doubt the art means skill in fighting...but it also means the necessary skills to not have to fight and the mental attitude that goes with it.
And please, the guys in the UFC aren't warriors....they're fighters. A warrior goes to war not to a sanctioned bout with referees, judges, and rules.

Asia

06-09-2006, 10:58 AM

Also, I really have to question if we are going to see one of these "artisan's" in an event like the UFC. If you have mastery over the self then you have nothing to prove to anyone. So why would you enter an event like UFC which is all about proving something? It's like this weird paradox that the more you master something the less you care about proving your skill to someone else.

I strongly suggest researching indepth MA history and warrior cultures the world over. Fighting competitions have ALWAYS been a part of Martial Arts and was seen as a way to hone real fighting skills and to simply see who was better. The Chinese did it, the Japanese did it, Greeks, Romans, Africans, Native Americans, etc. They fought for spectators and in rings (you can find several historic illustrations of pple fighting in rings or platforms in from of pple) UFC and MMA is society returning to true traditional MA practice. You never really master something until you put it to a test and there is not better way right now to do that in the realm of MA than a MMA match.

The problem is that it make it impossible to separate the wheat from the shaft because you will always have those teachers that hide behind "my art is too deadly" argument that have no skill.

You will never be able to differentiate between them from the teachers that do. However, if you test hands with them then you will know right away. At least that's true in the internal arts.
The reason MA competitions were done was to keep pple form hiding behind things. The reason pple do it is because in modern society pple can call themselves MArtist and not be put to task. Before if you were a MArtist or seen as a "master" you were likely to be challenged to prove you worth. Those that refused either lost face or were likely forced to fight. (Sometimes directed by higher authority) Now if you call someone out the have excuses or will used Lawyer Fu.

Fighter pilot = martial artist. ..... kid playing latest Nintendo fighter pilot video game = traditional form expert.
I am so using that.:D

neilhytholt

06-09-2006, 11:05 AM

I think the art is in all the components that make what you do more than just fighting. The world is increasingly becoming more and more violent and this is trickiling down into day to day life in our society.

Why do people keep saying the world is getting more and more violent? It seems like the world is getting less and less violent.

Just 110 years ago, they used to get into fistfights in the New York stock exchange for example. 150-200 years ago they used to settle disputes of honor in the U.S. (and much of the world) in the form of duels to the death.

Just 50 years ago the cops would think nothing of roughing a guy up instead of taking him to jail. Now they can hardly even hit somebody without getting into trouble.

Life expectancies have never been higher. Murder rates are down all around the world. Fewer people than ever are dying in wars

So why are we thinking that violence is increasing??? It seems like it is actually decreasing.

neilhytholt

06-09-2006, 11:13 AM

The reason MA competitions were done was to keep pple form hiding behind things. The reason pple do it is because in modern society pple can call themselves MArtist and not be put to task. Before if you were a MArtist or seen as a "master" you were likely to be challenged to prove you worth. Those that refused either lost face or were likely forced to fight. (Sometimes directed by higher authority) Now if you call someone out the have excuses or will used Lawyer Fu.

I am so using that.:D

Yeah, without somebody trying to take your head off, you just have no idea if your stuff works. That's the bottom line.

People who do forms and stuff and think they can defend themselves are totally deluded.

Ray Pina

06-09-2006, 11:16 AM

The big thing I see today is that the focus is on learning everything, but can you? I see punching, kicking and locking, but the punching is nowhere near the boxer's, the kicking nowhere near the thai's and the ground nowhere near the grecco roman's. So it's kind of like chop suey.

This does not mean to say you don't have to understand all those areas, but very hard to be a doctor, lawyer and accountant all at once. Understand and respect the law in your medical practice, pay your taxes as a lawyer and go get your check up as an accountant. Know the strengths of each, but focus on what you do best.

Everyone I've been fighting lately -- kung fu, to Silat, to Shoot fighter to Thai Boxer to BJJ -- automatically goes for the grab and pull down. They've been so influenced by martial media today that all they think about is the ground. And the ground is important, but I think we're going to see a move back toward's striking soon. Everyone's ground seems to be cancelling each other out.

Likewise when you hear Royce and Hughes talking about standup, you know something's wrong. Neither can compare to the boxer's punching, no way. Even the striking Hughes used to TKO Royce, any karate brown belt's is better.

Just because X beats X doesn't mean X is the ultrimate. Yes, X proved very succesful against Y when Y was sleeping. What if Y lwakes up? What if Z comes along? Z is inevitable. As a martial artist you can't be stagnant and frozen in thinking.

Asia

06-09-2006, 11:16 AM

Why do people keep saying the world is getting more and more violent? It seems like the world is getting less and less violent.

Just 110 years ago, they used to get into fistfights in the New York stock exchange for example. 150-200 years ago they used to settle disputes of honor in the U.S. (and much of the world) in the form of duels to the death.

Just 50 years ago the cops would think nothing of roughing a guy up instead of taking him to jail. Now they can hardly even hit somebody without getting into trouble.

Life expectancies have never been higher. Murder rates are down all around the world. Fewer people than ever are dying in wars

So why are we thinking that violence is increasing??? It seems like it is actually decreasing.

Media.

News, TV, Music, etc. Although some forms of violence have decreased soem have increasesd but we are far from as violent as the media makes it out to be.

yenhoi

06-09-2006, 11:37 AM

The message coming loud and clear from the artsy ****sies: if you dont prescribe to the idea of non competitive marriage of fighting skills and the all important life skills that are impossible to find elsewhere because of peer presure and the media, that you must be a bald headed, tattooed, roid-monster, baby killer, cage fighter who MUST jump at every opporatunity to show himself off and beat people up.

Who is to say you cant learn the skills of deception (and/or fighting) without being force fed this philosophical nonsense that you can find ALMOST EVERYWHERE ELSE.

People and professionals from all walks of life claim that only they can show you the way of right vs wrong, and if you dont sign-up then you are a heathen. They all say it the same way as the so-called Martial Artists. At our gym we drink water, not koolaid, and we bring our own.

No one is telling you you have to get a tattoo, fight in the cage, show off your skills just to be a "Martial Artist." On the flipside, you artsies are saying that if you do any of those, that you are automatically a bad person on the wrong path, simply because your learning/training/teaching isent paired up with social skills and life lessons.

If people arent willing to step into a competition format and fight it out for the sake of others entertainment and true belief/demonstration of Martial Skills, then why spend so much energy trying to convince people otherwise. If those so-called masters-of-self dont care about this type of nonsense, then why are they constantly being mentioned? Real masters of self dont go around pointing it out, or ripping others down for their choice of a seperate path up the mountain. Why do you care if we arent trying to climb up your molehill? If we are truely on the path to nowhere, why are you walking right next to me yelling in my ear?

You still have to forge the steel before you can wrap it in cotton. Neither forging or wrapping requires good ethics.

:eek:

Ray Pina

06-09-2006, 12:15 PM

WinterPalm, I highly respect your post and those words sound like the words of a wise, secure man.

A few months ago I had to seriously reflect on something. The Gracie's specialize in locks and thus in their cage matches it is not uncommon for them to break someone's arm. Right now, when these guys shoot on me I almost always get them in a Hold The Ball or guillotine lock and have to ride it our and sprawl .... I'm trained to use Pow Kuen (an uppercut motion driving off the leg) to crank their neck to kingdon come. I don't know what would happen, my master is honest enough to say he's never done it. But in a few instances I've had enough control to do it slow and steady and have gotten taps, I can feel the potential.

What am I getting at? I consider myself a man of God, or Tao. In that nothing is more important to me than doing right by myself and fellow man. At the same time every man is given God-given gifts and a unique mission in life. I personally feel, given my childhood experience, that I am destined to do something for my master's style. That's why I'm so serious about this, why I'm working to get a shot to showcase my stuff in the UFC. Though I'm not there yet. Probably need another two years.

When I get there, I made peace with myself not to edit my movements. Now, because of risk of being sued and the fact it's not worth hurting someone seriously over a weekend challenge match, I have to refrain from doing certain things. And I've stopped participating in Throwdown because it's not right to lure a weekend warrior to a match when they're determination, motivation and intensity is simply not at the same level. This past weekend I had someone contact me saying they're training for a competition too so I did go.... it wasn't even close. Thankfully, he learned something. That he has to pick it up or give it up. And I learned something too because I had bad position for a mere second and got thrown pretty hard.

I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself well here. I just know this is what I have to do for myself, I'm 32 and a writer and my best chance to do something in this life is demonstrate that an internalist can compete at the level. I mean, I see guys making good livings who just talk about chi. I figure if I train and become the real thing I can provide a life for myself and future family. I've been blessed to have found a real master so I'm going for it.

I hope I don't get hurt, and I hope I never kill or maim anyone. That is my prayer before a fight. But part of my growth is being true in thoughts, words and actions. And I hope when I'm in the spotlight and some BJJ guy shoots on me, I capture his unprotected head and seperate it from his spine ..... because that's truth. That's a new potential being born. And to me, as a amrtial artist, that is beautiful.

neilhytholt

06-09-2006, 12:23 PM

Ray, are you freaking crazy? Of course you can snap their necks or arms. You're supposed to NOT do that if you're just fighting. That's for life or death, not for the cage or the ring or the throwdown.

We always used to train lethal techniques but we never used those in sparring. When I took karate there were probably hundreds of times I could have come in on my opponent, hit them in the face with my forehead, grabbed their arm and broke it, kicked them in the nuts so hard they threw up, got behind them and broke their neck, etc. But I never did it. I often 'lost' to people far worse than me, because I was playing their game, sparring.

Using holding the ball in the ring will cause fatalities. But at least now we know your teacher actually teaches that, and not some useless fluff stuff.

Edit...

Basically, the UFC is totally stupid. It's as real as it gets, yes. It's as real as it gets without seriously maiming or killing the opponent.

Unfortunately that also means that there's a lot of pummeling involved usually in getting the knockout, which is why I don't do it because the $/face damage isn't worth it. Scars for life vs. some fame and a little bit of money. No, I don't think so. If they raised the $ to millions then I might consider it.

But those type of lethal techniques are not allowed. Of course somebody shoots you, they leave their entire head and back of their neck open. It's one of the most asinine things you can ever do in a fight. Same with guard and leaving the groin wide open.

But that's ring sports. That's not real fighting.

PangQuan

06-09-2006, 12:48 PM

neilhytholt

06-09-2006, 01:07 PM

im behind ray on this one.

truth, i want ray to succeed in this, very much so. not the breaking necks thing, though if that is what happens, that is what happens.

i want ray to take it to the top and show the world.

why? because im not going to, and someone needs to, and also, because i believe it to be possible.

???

It's a GAME. Of course it's rigged. Of course it's possible to grab their head.

The second you try it, though, the ref will probably tell you to stop it.

You can't hit the back of the head or the neck or drop vertical elbows on it like that, so I highly doubt they'll let you grab the head.

Anyways you want to be known as the person who KILLED Forrest Griffith or Tito Ortiz or somebody in the ring? Bad show.

Edit ...

Anyways with all the trauma science they're coming up with in Iraq now, you'll probably just paralyze them for life, but still that's not the purpose of the game.

PangQuan

06-09-2006, 01:12 PM

i doubt he will try to kill anyone.

neilhytholt

06-09-2006, 01:15 PM

i doubt he will try to kill anyone.

Turn their neck like that, and it's easy to make mistakes. All he has to do is slip or they try to crank out, and it breaks.

Some things are not meant for the ring.

Ray Pina

06-09-2006, 01:32 PM

I've been training basics a lot lately and it's increasing my power but also opening up my mind and I'm finding two things: locks just fall into place sometime.... and when they do, there is no time for tapping.

When someone pushes your arm down and at the same time stretches their's out, and you step in against the elbow with the body while pulling their forearm towards you, it happens very fast, it's sudden and sharp. This is different than mounting somone, using leverage to pull their arm from their chest and fighting them to the lock. There is a lot of time for someone to tap that way. It's viable, and good to have. But taiji locks happen unexpectantly, and look almost accidental, like, "What happened?" Or that it's the other guy's fault.

Fu-Pow

06-09-2006, 01:58 PM

I strongly suggest researching indepth MA history and warrior cultures the world over. Fighting competitions have ALWAYS been a part of Martial Arts and was seen as a way to hone real fighting skills and to simply see who was better. The Chinese did it, the Japanese did it, Greeks, Romans, Africans, Native Americans, etc. They fought for spectators and in rings (you can find several historic illustrations of pple fighting in rings or platforms in from of pple) UFC and MMA is society returning to true traditional MA practice. You never really master something until you put it to a test and there is not better way right now to do that in the realm of MA than a MMA match.

Agree, however, the ones that truly have mastery are not going to be fighting in those types of events...now or then. Maybe on the way there but not once they have reached that point.

So it is up to the student to determine if the teacher is worthy. You can't base it on how many trophies they have sitting in the case. You've got to touch hands with them and you will know instantly if they have skill or not.

The reason MA competitions were done was to keep pple form hiding behind things. The reason pple do it is because in modern society pple can call themselves MArtist and not be put to task. Before if you were a MArtist or seen as a "master" you were likely to be challenged to prove you worth. Those that refused either lost face or were likely forced to fight. (Sometimes directed by higher authority) Now if you call someone out the have excuses or will used Lawyer Fu.

C'mon we all know the real reason....to get more chicks...:D. But seriously, I think competition is good, but there the oiginal argument is about art and artistry. I'm saying the true "artist" is not going to be found in ring matches. He's too beyond that.

Fu-Pow

06-09-2006, 01:59 PM

Ray Pina

06-09-2006, 02:13 PM

I'm saying the true "artist" is not going to be found in ring matches. He's too beyond that.

I don't know about that. If you're too old, that's one thing. You can't look down on somone who missed the UFC because it wasn't around in their day and age, or someone who's pushing their mid-40s.

But who is skilled at something and doesn't like to do it? Kelly Slater has won 7 world titles, is 30-something and still competing. There are pro surfers in their 40s. Pro fighters in their late 30s and early 40s. This is what they do and love.

I don't know if there are too many of these master's ontop of the hill anymore. I suspect there are no more in China at least. I recently saw a video from last year's Hsing-I gathering in China.... my God! Terrible! No power.

Our generation will make or break Kung Fu. BJJ, Thai Boxing, and MMA are in good hands. What happens to Kung Fu is up to the last remaining masters and those of us who are learning it today.

WinterPalm

06-09-2006, 02:38 PM

Ray, I respect your passion and your dedication to your Sifu.

I don't know if I'm a very wise man...maybe a wise guy!:) But I respect your drive to do what you do and to take what everybody is saying is no good for fighting and putting it to use to maybe shut some people up. Then we can get off this whole style vs. style debate now cleverly desguised as methods vs. methods.

Like you, I too wish to do great things with the style my Sifu teaches and to see the art florish for generations. I think that every generation is responsible for the transmission of the art as a complete package that includes many elements not directly related to toe to toe. For if no one in the generation takes up the practice in earnest and propagates it, it will die. And for those that have tasted what there is to offer, after all the blood, sweat, and tears of generations, we know that dropping something in favour of a daily flavour or exotic blend isn't going to cut it. Many will dissect and reassemble, and maybe come up with something but that is like starting from scratch with component pieces, lets take our approach and try to understand it and bring it with us into the future.
I really don't think that there has ever been a time when Kung Fu was not a quality art...at least as it is taught and trained. I think there are just so few real authentic masters who have made it work for them, that it appears that way. What if we took every person that works out at a boxing gym and doesn't compete, probably at least half if not more, and said that boxers were no good because of the majority?

Ray Pina

06-09-2006, 02:48 PM

What if we took every person that works out at a boxing gym and doesn't compete, probably at least half if not more, and said that boxers were no good because of the majority?

I agree with everything you're saying, but this last point says something. Yes, perhaps most boxers don't go out, but there are so many that do that when the public hear's "boxer," they picture somone in a ring striking effectively.

No Kung Fu guys go out, and I'm not pleased with how Kung Fu is viewed today because I've seen it's potential in many different systems but very few seem to be tapping into it. And like you said, very few seem to be puring freely.

neilhytholt

06-09-2006, 03:31 PM

But who is skilled at something and doesn't like to do it? Kelly Slater has won 7 world titles, is 30-something and still competing. There are pro surfers in their 40s. Pro fighters in their late 30s and early 40s. This is what they do and love.

I quit my job doing word processing and transcribing because it didn't pay that well even though I typed 120 words per minute and was at the top of the field. (And it was boring as heck).

Just because you're good at something doesn't mean you like to do it.

Asia

06-09-2006, 04:31 PM

Agree, however, the ones that truly have mastery are not going to be fighting in those types of events...now or then. Maybe on the way there but not once they have reached that point.

They all reached mastery through such things. Retirement was something due to either injury, advanced age.

C'mon we all know the real reason....to get more chicks...:D. But seriously, I think competition is good, but there the oiginal argument is about art and artistry. I'm saying the true "artist" is not going to be found in ring matches. He's too beyond that.
But he's not. A true artist is not going to be one without testing his skills. Thats like Mario Andretti only playing Grand Turismo and then saying the Grand Prix is beyond him.

Our generation will make or break Kung Fu. BJJ, Thai Boxing, and MMA are in good hands. What happens to Kung Fu is up to the last remaining masters and those of us who are learning it today.

I truly believe CMA has a place in MMA. I think its very weird that when pple bring up CMA and MMA that you get tired arguements like "Ring vs Real" but will point out things like Lei Tai matches!?!?!?!?!:confused:

Fu-Pow

06-09-2006, 04:46 PM

They all reached mastery through such things. Retirement was something due to either injury, advanced age.

Uh..no.

I truly believe CMA has a place in MMA. I think its very weird that when pple bring up CMA and MMA that you get tired arguements like "Ring vs Real" but will point out things like Lei Tai matches!?!?!?!?!:confused:

I think you should only study from a teacher that has competed in and won a San Shou/Lei Tai/MMA/NHB/UFC type event.

Based on what you are saying nobody has anything to teach that hasn't competed in that type of event or something similar.

More power to you, but you are missing out on a lot of good teachers out there that don't compete in those sorts of events.

Your loss.

Asia

06-09-2006, 04:57 PM

Uh..no.
Uh YES.

Give me an example of a true master that has NOT tested his skills either in a challenge match, competition, etc.

I've studied with alot of pple around the globe and the ones the truly desevered the label of "master" were all ones developed their skills throw competition

I think you should study MMA because you are only going to believe that a teacher has skilled if he has competed in and won a MMA/NHB/UFC type event.

More power to you, but you are missing out on a lot of good teachers out there that don't compete in those sorts of events.
Doubtful. What good teacher has never tested his skills? If you never applied it then can you trully teach it to someone else?
So if I looking for a GOOD teacher I going with one who has the experience in actual application vs those who don't.

Again warriors of old, just that the ones now, used competitons to hone their skills for real situations. The military playes war games to help prepare for war. Even using paintballs. We even have Combatives touranments for the H2H aspect.

yenhoi

06-09-2006, 05:14 PM

what you are saying nobody has anything to teach that hasn't competed in that type of event or something similar.

Arent you knda saying the same thing, but backwards?

:confused:

omarthefish

06-09-2006, 05:16 PM

You can't hit the back of the head or the neck or drop vertical elbows on it like that, so I highly doubt they'll let you grab the head.

I'm following your logic here. I really am. SOME decent points there but you stepped of the path of reality with that sentence there.

Can't grab the head?

Can you spell "guillitine"? Neck crank? Face lock? (that last one is rude as hell and many Jujitsu tournaments I am told it's either illegal or just bad sportsmanship BUT, not dissalowed in MMA)

Grabbing the head is legal and common.

But I am totally there with you on the problem of how to test certain things. One I think about a lot is the Baji "ying mian zhang" or "welcoming the face palm". Kind of superficially similar to a pi quan but with a huges leaping forward step. Most obvious application is just a forward palm to the face but with about 6 feet of followthrough. Basically just try to palm theur head like a basketball that your were passing down court to somoene. There's just no way to check out how it works with the follow through on a friend. You have to be satisfied just knowing you landed your hand on his face.

But that sort of thing is just another aspect of training. Don't think for a minute I haven't spent a LOT of time trying to think about how to "un-deadly" lots and lots of Baji moves. That's all you have to do. I got a 3 hit combo that opens up with an eye gouge. Big deal, change it to a regular punch to the nose. The idea is still there. It's still baji. Got a defense against a hogh round that involves stabing your elbow into his chest? Change the angle a bit so you are just smacking him with your forearm.

Judo is just "un-deadlied" jujitsu. You can do the same thing with whatever "too deadly for the ring" gong fu you've got.

But I'm totlally rambling now. I originally just wanted to point out that grabbing the head is NOT dis-allowed in most MMA.

neilhytholt

06-09-2006, 05:24 PM

I'm following your logic here. I really am. SOME decent points there but you stepped of the path of reality with that sentence there.

Can't grab the head?

Can you spell "guillitine"? Neck crank? Face lock? (that last one is rude as hell and many Jujitsu tournaments I am told it's either illegal or just bad sportsmanship BUT, not dissalowed in MMA)

Grabbing the head is legal and common.

I've never seen somebody grab somebody's head with both hands.

Guillotine choke is different. Neck crank, totally different. Face lock, totally different.

http://www.bjj.org/techniques/barra/soca/
http://www.grapplearts.com/picofweek.php?picid=109
http://farmerburns.com/catchwrestling_techniques.html (this is not a real face lock, but I couldn't find a better image in 2 seconds).

neilhytholt

06-09-2006, 05:45 PM

But I am totally there with you on the problem of how to test certain things. One I think about a lot is the Baji "ying mian zhang" or "welcoming the face palm". Kind of superficially similar to a pi quan but with a huges leaping forward step. Most obvious application is just a forward palm to the face but with about 6 feet of followthrough. Basically just try to palm theur head like a basketball that your were passing down court to somoene. There's just no way to check out how it works with the follow through on a friend. You have to be satisfied just knowing you landed your hand on his face.

Taiji has a similar move. The way you can practice that one is use it as a throw against their chest. That's the way most taiji teachers seem to teach it anyway.

omarthefish

06-09-2006, 05:45 PM

I know they're different.

Just saying, still legal.

How about finding which rule a face lock would violate:

UFC fouls:

Fouls:
1. Butting with the head.
2. Eye gouging of any kind.
3. Biting.
4. Hair pulling.
5. Fish hooking.
6. Groin attacks of any kind.
7. Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
8. Small joint manipulation.
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
12. Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.
17. Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
18. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
19. Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
20. Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
21. Spitting at an opponent.
22. Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
23. Holding the ropes or the fence.
24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
25. Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
26. Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
27. Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
28. Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
30. Interference by the corner.
31. Throwing in the towel during competition.

Downwards elbows? Sure that's number 10. Neck cranks or face locks? Which rule does that violate? Grabbing the head? That's even more vague.

neilhytholt

06-09-2006, 05:58 PM

I know they're different.

Just saying, still legal.

How about finding which rule a face lock would violate:

UFC fouls:

Downwards elbows? Sure that's number 10. Neck cranks or face locks? Which rule does that violate? Grabbing the head? That's even more vague.

That's interesting ... there doesn't seem to be anything specific against breaking somebody's neck. I thought they wouldn't allow that.

There also doesn't seem to be anything against palm strikes. Hmmm ... how much do you get for fighting in and winning the UFC?

Although it seems like: grabbing their head and breaking their neck would violate:

Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.

But still ... how much do UFC fighters make? I had no idea those were the only rules.

Edit ...

" Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea. "

Does this mean they can strike to the side of the neck?

omarthefish

06-09-2006, 06:32 PM

Side of the neck it fine. Hardly lethal though. That's the sort of thing that causes unconciousness, not death or sever injury.

I've been over the rules quite a few times because of thise very topic, not the thread topic but our topic here. Pride rules are a little different but my connection is strangely slow today so I don't feel like looking for them. Basically here's the rules I feel put someone like me at a disadvantage:

8. Small joint manipulation.
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
10. Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
11. Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
13. Grabbing the clavicle.
14. Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
16. Stomping a grounded opponent.

I bolded the one's that have the biggest influence. But to be fair, I don't have it in me to attack the trachea in a sporting contest anyways. The other side of that is that I expect my opponent to respect my tap. In exchange it's only fair that I not attack the throat. Of all of those, the only ones that really influences the "game" in any signifigant way are the rules protecting the back of the head and the spine. While it may be true that it is very difficult to land a good shot there on someone shooting in, when you consider the risk/payoff-cost/benifit analysis, protecting those areas gives a huge insentive to shoot in and influences HOW you can shoot in.

From a serious MA perspective, you could shoot in safely or at least be safe even on a failed shot 9 out of 10 times but if the penalty for that 1 out of 10 is a spinal injury.....would you take that chance? At the absolute minumum you would be extremely carefull about keeping your head up on the shots which in turn would make it more difficult to not take some face shots on evey shot that didn't end in a takedown. So it's a factor.

I didn't used to think small joint manipulatoin mattered but I am getting better at them. OTOH, the gloves protect you from a lot of that. The fingers are open but there is enough bulk and material around the hands even on MMA glvoes to hinder that sort of attack. Again, hardly decisive stuff, but it does make a difference.

Conversely, I am happy to know that I don't have to worry about ****ing blood the day after spendinf 15 minutes in someone's guard and the rest of the rules are mostly just good sportsmanship stuff. Who really wants to be spit on or to have to deal with their shorts being pulled down on PPV? :D

13. is a not a big deal but it is in my arsenal.

14 and 15 are not tactics I am inclined towards but they do shape the game. They make is less risky to fail on a takedown or to be on the bottom.

All in all, pretty **** good set of rules though. I prefer pride mainly because of the standups and that works to my favor but I head UFC was going to or maybe already did implement standups. Either way, it's just stuff to think about. Just like you already thought of a good alternative to my "ying mian zhang" you can do the same with other techniques. I don't know how to snap a persons neck or anything but I know a few ways to break an elbow standing. Basically just the same mechanics as a standing arm bar but without all the controll so all you could do "for real" is break it right of the bat as trying to controll the person with it wouldn't work. But then you find you self thinking about the next time you are on the ground in a regular armbar with someone who saw you just break a guys arm in another fight....maybe it was his. I'd rather not deal with it.

SPJ

06-09-2006, 07:16 PM

In the end, it still takes a pilot with the balls to get in the plane, take off, and put himself in harms way. Sidewinder missiles, ect. = arm bar, etc.

Fighter pilot = martial artist. ..... kid playing latest Nintendo fighter pilot video game = traditional form expert.
There are many good discussions already. Not to clutter more.

But. Yes. nowadays, commercial or military pilots, they play flight in a simulator before actual things. sort of video games, too.

I still stand the point. MA is about fighting. The skills and techniques are only part of it. There are more to them.

You have to have everything in place for you to win;

including luck.

You may have all the skills, all the weapons, and what not. If it is not your day, you lose.

For example, in the Midway isles during WWII. The Japanese had 4 or five carriers with seasoned pilots. They were not aware of the whereabouts of US carriers. One US dive bomber squad luckily got close without detection and destroyed 3 carriers.

You have all the odds to win. And yet the wind is not blowing your way.--

:D

Fu-Pow

06-10-2006, 12:11 AM

Uh YES.

Give me an example of a true master that has NOT tested his skills either in a challenge match, competition, etc.

My point is that it was probably when they were ****y young and didn't know any better. The master's that truely got it didn't get there by brawling, they got there by practicing.

I've studied with alot of pple around the globe and the ones the truly desevered the label of "master" were all ones developed their skills throw competition

OK.

Doubtful. What good teacher has never tested his skills? If you never applied it then can you trully teach it to someone else?
So if I looking for a GOOD teacher I going with one who has the experience in actual application vs those who don't.

Like I said go find a teacher that has a proven competition record. That's the only way you are going to be satisfied. But you are missing out on a lot of good stuff out there that is outside of the realm of UFC/NHB. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong....but you'll never know. :rolleyes:

Asia

06-10-2006, 04:51 AM

My point is that it was probably when they were ****y young and didn't know any better. The master's that truely got it didn't get there by brawling, they got there by practicing.

Incorrect. Those who were truly great MA did get there by fighting and not just practicing alone.

Just like no one becomes a master chef just by reading recipies and chopping things up. The have to actually apply their craft to master.

But you are missing out on a lot of good stuff out there that is outside of the realm of UFC/NHB. .
Uhm who ever said I was limited to UFC/NHB? I use MMA as a testing ground. I STILL study and train several CMA as well as JMA, European, and African. Which is why I got a very good idea abouit the world of MA.

Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong....but you'll never know
Although I woud say you are leaning towards wrong its actually very easy to know whose approach is better if you just want to get out there and try it.

David Jamieson

06-10-2006, 05:59 AM

sadly, or not, depending on your perspective, mma/san shou et al venues are the only place you can actually pressure test whatever it is you do as a martial art.

tournaments for wu shu / tai chi / kungfu forms are one thing that display a different aspect of the study than that of the "applied" version of same.

point sparring and continuous sparring are more akin to the way one would learn how to fight than the actual task of fighting. They don't give you a 100% complete picture of what would happen. Having said that mma doesn't give you 100% either of what could happen in a reality situation, but it will definitely give you astrong outline of where you suck and where you can maintain the position of strength.

It is a valuable thing to have this venue available to all martial artists. It can be used to make your traditional art even better in my opinion by allowing you the opportunity to make it work under circumstances that you would otherwise not encounter in the school setting.

Fu-Pow

06-10-2006, 09:40 AM

Uhm who ever said I was limited to UFC/NHB? I use MMA as a testing ground. I STILL study and train several CMA as well as JMA, European, and African. Which is why I got a very good idea abouit the world of MA.

So all your teachers of these arts have competed in documented verified comptetition, challenge matches, etc?

Although I woud say you are leaning towards wrong its actually very easy to know whose approach is better if you just want to get out there and try it.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for keeping things civil. :D

Fu-Pow

06-10-2006, 09:45 AM

sadly, or not, depending on your perspective, mma/san shou et al venues are the only place you can actually pressure test whatever it is you do as a martial art.

tournaments for wu shu / tai chi / kungfu forms are one thing that display a different aspect of the study than that of the "applied" version of same.

point sparring and continuous sparring are more akin to the way one would learn how to fight than the actual task of fighting. They don't give you a 100% complete picture of what would happen. Having said that mma doesn't give you 100% either of what could happen in a reality situation, but it will definitely give you astrong outline of where you suck and where you can maintain the position of strength.

I see where you are coming from but when I spar with my training partners we go pretty hard...anywhere from 30%-75% of full power. I've gotten a few bloody noses and we often have to take breaks from sparring because of injuries.

So my point is that you can learn a lot from sparring without "brawling." It just has to hurt enough that you know where you screwed up.

I think that this is more the traditional way than challenge matches and sanctioned fights, those are for the ****y *******s with something to prove. ;) That said, I'm interested in sparring in some san shou fights. Just working my skills up to it. :p

FP

Asia

06-10-2006, 11:20 AM

So all your teachers of these arts have competed in documented verified comptetition, challenge matches, etc?

All my current ones have. I've been doing this for a couple of decades now and all the teachers that made an impression and had a lot to over have fought in one form or another and used competition to hone their skills.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for keeping things civil

Don't tell anyone. I have a reputation to uphold. ;)

I see where you are coming from but when I spar with my training partners we go pretty hard...anywhere from 30%-75% of full power. I've gotten a few bloody noses and we often have to take breaks from sparring because of injuries.

So my point is that you can learn a lot from sparring without "brawling." It just has to hurt enough that you know where you screwed up.

Hard sparring is good but its not the same and you won't develop as well. The reason being is that you will grow accustomed to your sparring partners where in competiton or a challenge match you face new and more unfamiliar opponents as well as there are addes "stressors" that are more similar to what you will deal with during a real altercation as opposed to just sparring.

I think that this is more the traditional way than challenge matches and sanctioned fights,
You are very incorrect in this line of thinking. This is why I urged doing the research. Competition and challenge matches are very much part of the tradtion. As I mentioned before the label MArtist or MA teacher carried much more weight with it than now. You represented you school, style, teachers, teachers teacher, etc. You trained hard so you didn't lose face for them and competitons were common as well as being challenged.

Again look at those who are revered as MA masters, Jigoro Kano, Huo Yuanjia, Lee Koon Hung, Wong Fei Hong, Mas Oyama, Helio Gracie, and more have ALL engaged in competition and challenge matches to develop their skills and actually attain mastery. Did they do it just because they had something to prove or was it a natural part of true martial training and development?

EarthDragon

06-10-2006, 11:26 AM

Asia

06-10-2006, 11:34 AM

Asia, you said

I STILL study and train several CMA as well as JMA, European, and African. Which is why I got a very good idea abouit the world of MA.[/B]

To me this statement means you havent spent enough time in becomming good at any art much less becomming proficent in one.

Part of the reason people make statements about such things before they have a good understading of what it is they question...sad but true
You are extremely mistaken on this.;)

First off it doesn't take long to become proficent in MA. The idea of it takes years of training to understand an art is really for the most part BS. If you look at it historically and logically one didn't have years before they would have to use their art so proficiency had to come quickly. Besides MA is not as deep a subject matter as pple try to make it out to be.

Lastly I have become profiecnt in several arts over the years and have tested it with great success. :D

EarthDragon

06-10-2006, 11:44 AM

ASIA
First off it doesn't take long to become proficent in MA. The idea of it taken years of training to understand an art is really for the most part BS. If you look at it historically and logically one didn't have years before they would have to use their art so proficiency had to come quickly. Besides MA is not as deep a subject matter as pple try to make it out to be.

LOL Ok dude what ever... how many black belts do you have ????

OK humor me, so how long do YOU feel it takes to become proficent in MA?

I have been training in 8 step for 16 years and feel I am pretty good but not compred to others I have had the pleasure to touch hands with...

what history and logic are you speaking of? My teachers teachers spent 22 years learning this new system.

In what part of MA is not deep? again perhaps you havent spent the time to check its depth before you made these sweeping assumptions.

16 years my friend and I' m startying to understand a little....

Asia

06-10-2006, 12:01 PM

OK humor me, so how long do YOU feel it takes to become proficent in MA?

It depends on the method of training. 1~2yrs to beable to understand and use it well on a consistent basis. 5yrs to proficient and after that you are just fine tuning.

I have been training in 8 step for 16 years and feel I am pretty good but not compred to others I have had the pleasure to touch hands with...

I'ved studied Judo more 20yrs, there are still pple better than me. That doesn't mean I'm not proficent. So this point is moot.

what history and logic are you speaking of?
Pick a time in history when pple actually needed MA skills. Then exam how they trained it.

My teachers teachers spent 22 years learning this new system.

Did he spend 22yrs LEARNING it or 22yrs practicing and fine tuning the things he actually learned in the first few yrs of training? There is a difference there.

In what part of MA is not deep?
No part, I mean the whole thing. What about MA is really a deep concept?

again perhaps you havent spent the time to check its depth before you made these sweeping assumptions
Again you are mistaken and what sweeping assumptions have I made?

16 years my friend and I' m startying to understand a little....
Not trying to be harsh but after 16yrs and you understand little that seems to be a problem with either you or your training.

EarthDragon

06-10-2006, 02:49 PM

[B]It depends on the method of training. 1~2yrs to beable to understand and use it well on a consistent basis. 5yrs to proficient and after that you are just fine tuning.
dont know about what ever style you train but i have students that have 1-2 years and they are considered begginers. Our system is etremley complex, nothing but sheer basics can be learned in such a short time, perhaps this is the problem with todays americanized schools. the 1 year black belt program and the ever famous childrens jr black belt camps...

I'ved studied Judo more 20yrs, there are still pple better than me. That doesn't mean I'm not proficent. So this point is moot.Ok I agree with you here.

Pick a time in history when pple actually needed MA skills. Then exam how they trained it.

not a history buff, but our system is 350 years old and fights were mostly to the death either from people trying to take what is yours, stealing, rodbbing infringing. etc etc

Did he spend 22yrs LEARNING it or 22yrs practicing and fine tuning the things he actually learned in the first few yrs of training? There is a difference there.

One cannot possible learn all there is to learn in a complete system in just a few years, we have an entire medical side of which takes many years to learn in of its self. I am still learnig the OMD material many years later, just the accupuncture points meridian flow, greater and lesser tendencies in the body is 1-2 years.

No part, I mean the whole thing. What about MA is really a deep concept?philosophy, medical understanding, religious depth, meditation. shall I go on?

Again you are mistaken and what sweeping assumptions have I made?

most all the above. again my opinon

Quote:
16 years my friend and I' m startying to understand a little....

Not trying to be harsh but after 16yrs and you understand little that seems to be a problem with either you or your training.

no problem with my training at all, its called humblness, something grossly neglected in this day and age.

I have had the opportunity to be adopted and train directly under 2 world famous masters, to them I know a little.......... to others perhaps a lot......... it depnds on where you are at with the people that surround you...

Asia

06-10-2006, 03:22 PM

dont know about what ever style you train but i have students that have 1-2 years and they are considered begginers. Our system is etremley complex, nothing but sheer basics can be learned in such a short time, perhaps this is the problem with todays americanized schools. the 1 year black belt program and the ever famous childrens jr black belt camps...
I am not talking about belts I am talking about skill level.

Kano took Kodokan Judo and pple who only had 1~2yrs of training and defeated pple with decades of training.

In Beijing just two years ago a BJJ White Belt with only 6~8months of training defeated several CMA practionters with years of training.

Thai boxers are able to apply their skills with just 2yrs training.

All these have a very similiar training methodology.

As far as the American scene, I'm just gettin used to it first hand. I spent most of my life overseas and only moved back to the US last year.

not a history buff, but our system is 350 years old and fights were mostly to the death either from people trying to take what is yours, stealing, rodbbing infringing. etc etc

Do you think you are training the way they were 350yrs ago? If so do you have proof to support that, training manuals for example?

Not that I don't believe you but it evident that the vast majority of pple don't train the way pple did centuries before but believe they are.

One cannot possible learn all there is to learn in a complete system in just a few years
Says who?

we have an entire medical side of which takes many years to learn in of its self. I am still learnig the OMD material many years later, just the accupuncture points meridian flow, greater and lesser tendencies in the body is 1-2 years.

Sounds great but how useful is the infor now? Serious question.

philosophy, medical understanding, religious depth, meditation. shall I go on?

No because what you listed for the most part are not really part of MA. This iw wash was talked about earlier in the thread. Many pple confuse social and cultural aspects with being a part of or even germane to MA practice. If you stripped those things you listed away you still can have a MA, therefore they are not required. If you wish to study in your system that all fine but you can't say there are a required part of MA.

no problem with my training at all, its called humblness, something grossly neglected in this day and age
Humbleness has nothing to do with it. If you told me it took you 16yrs to learn to drive a car, cook, dance, hike, etc. I would say there is something wrong with it. Becoming a fighter pilot doesn't require years to do. Becoming an ACTUAL Medical Doctor doesn't require 16yrs and that is way more difficult and complex than MA.

I have had the opportunity to be adopted and train directly under 2 world famous masters, to them I know a little.......... to others perhaps a lot......... it depnds on where you are at with the people that surround you...
I trained under and with alot of world famous and legnedary pple but thats not what we are talking about here. The issue is that MA is a rather simple concept that doesn't really require a huge lenght of time to become proficient at if you train properly.

Royal Dragon

06-10-2006, 03:41 PM

Asia!

Hey man, how have you been? Wow, it has to be years since I have seen you here! I think you were on Cyberkwoon? or Dragon's List last we spoke.

I have a question, last I heard you were a a straight up Baji man, how long have you been playing withother things too?

Asia

06-10-2006, 04:04 PM

Hey RD,

Yeah its been awhile. :D

I have a question, last I heard you were a a straight up Baji man, how long have you been playing withother things too?
BAJI! is my favorite, but I started training much later after I was into MA.
I've done Boxing, Judo, and TKD longer than anything. Many places I've trained offered more than one art at a time. You would have Judo, Jujutsu, and Karate at one school but on different nights but only had to pay for the membership to the school. Others I either actively sought out or was a chance oppurtunity.

Royal Dragon

06-10-2006, 04:14 PM

Yes, the club I am at now is like that. We offer Long Fist, Hung Gar, Taiji, Hsing I and Bagua as well as Jujitsu, and we even have a Yoga teacher. Each class is taught by a specialist in thier art.

We have good guys there, and I have been mixing it up a bit with most of them from time to time. Right now, I do the Taiji class, and especially enjoy the pushhands. It's cool becasue punches and kicks are a part of it depending on the theme for the session.

It gives me a good place to work my Tai tzu material. I am hopeing I will be able play with the applications against a variety of people from different systems.

EarthDragon

06-10-2006, 04:38 PM

I am not talking about belts I am talking about skill level.

me too, how much skill could you possibly have in 24 months of training? and obviously we are talking about 2 hours classes 3 days a week.. so providing you dont miss a single class in a whole year thats only 288 hours of learning. hardly skilled in such a short time.

Kano took Kodokan Judo and pple who only had 1~2yrs of training and defeated pple with decades of training.

there will always be an exception to the rule, hell people train all thier lives for the olympics and can be beat by a natural from time to time.

In Beijing just two years ago a BJJ White Belt with only 6~8months of training defeated several CMA practionters with years of training.

depends on the person, i have seen people wil no martial art training beat up people with years, again exception to the rule. way too literal

Thai boxers are able to apply their skills with just 2yrs training.

kickboxing is a basic sport. I hope your not comparing the two?

All these have a very similiar training methodology.

so Bagua, xingyi and kick boxing have all the same training methodology? are you serious?

Do you think you are training the way they were 350yrs ago? If so do you have proof to support that, training manuals for example?

absolutly, I learned the old school way my friend, passed down from generation to generation in our family from poems and manuscripts and learned everything in its native tongue and ways. My shifu just came here less than 20 years ago.
perhaps you should do a search on ba bu tang lang it is not taught to the masses. its actually a very rare system. 3 or 4 masters and lineage holders teach it in the US.

Not that I don't believe you but it evident that the vast majority of pple don't train the way pple did centuries before but believe they are.

absolutly agree 100% thats the problem with todays watered down wushu versions of what was... to reinforce my point no one takes the proper time to study.. as you say 1-2 years..

Quote:
One cannot possible learn all there is to learn in a complete system in just a few years

Says who?

anyone who studies a complete system. I am not talking about a style, a complete system with wei and nei gong, taji, herbology, medicine, bone setting, tui na accupunture, fighting, etc etc. if you are learning a style which has only a piece of the pie and not the whole pie is like learning to use your hands and not your feet

Sounds great but how useful is the infor now? Serious question.

extremly for me as I will go on to get my OMD's licsense and to the patients I treat..

Quote:
philosophy, medical understanding, religious depth, meditation. shall I go on?

No because what you listed for the most part are not really part of MA. This iw wash was talked about earlier in the thread. Many pple confuse social and cultural aspects with being a part of or even germane to MA practice. If you stripped those things you listed away you still can have a MA, therefore they are not required. If you wish to study in your system that all fine but you can't say there are a required part of MA.

everything I listed is a part of TCMA if not your learnign on a a part of a system "style" I feel like I am repeating myself....all true and authentic martial arts have the above parts to make it a whole. if not what are you learning?

Humbleness has nothing to do with it. If you told me it took you 16yrs to learn to drive a car, cook, dance, hike, etc. I would say there is something wrong with it. Becoming a fighter pilot doesn't require years to do. Becoming an ACTUAL Medical Doctor doesn't require 16yrs and that is way more difficult and complex than MA.

If it took 16 years to learn to drive i would say theres definalty somethng wrong. LOL however we are talking about learning a complete martial arts system are we not? I will admit that I have put my time in and as you say fine tuning what i know but it takes a minimum of 5 years to reach our high levels.

I trained under and with alot of world famous and legnedary pple but thats not what we are talking about here. The issue is that MA is a rather simple concept that doesn't really require a huge lenght of time to become proficient at if you train properly.

depends on the person. world famous masters take more than 1-2 years to reach thier level dont they? if not seek a real mater perhaps read the book the sword polishers record from my kung fu uncle Adam hsu

omarthefish

06-10-2006, 04:46 PM

Even back on Cyberkwoon I remember Asia was ranked in both Judo and Kyokshin since probably way before these discussoin boards were popular, especially Judo but I'm still looking forward to hearing him "come out of the closet" with his "external affairs" (martial arts-wise)....

omarthefish

06-10-2006, 04:54 PM

This thread is moving way too fast for me.

Asia

06-10-2006, 05:05 PM

me too, how much skill could you possibly have in 24 months of training? and obviously we are talking about 2 hours classes 3 days a week.. so providing you dont miss a single class in a whole year thats only 288 hours of learning. hardly skilled in such a short time.

Thats more than enough time depending on how you trained.

there will always be an exception to the rule, hell people train all thier lives for the olympics and can be beat by a natural from time to time.
True but that wasn't the case with the Kodokan.

depends on the person, i have seen people wil no martial art training beat up people with years, again exception to the rule. way too literal
That scenario I mentioned has been played out way to many times to be an expection.

kickboxing is a basic sport. I hope your not comparing the two?

Thai Boxing and Kickboxing are two seperate, but similar things.

so Bagua, xingyi and kick boxing have all the same training methodology? are you serious?
I didn't mention Bagua or Xingyi, nor Kickboxing. Look at what I actually wrote.

absolutly, I learned the old school way my friend, passed down from generation to generation in our family from poems and manuscripts and learned everything in its native tongue and ways. My shifu just came here less than 20 years ago.
perhaps you should do a search on ba bu tang lang it is not taught to the masses. its actually a very rare system. 3 or 4 masters and lineage holders teach it in the US.

You have copies of thes manuscripts? Even when passed down 350yrs is a long time for things to remain the same. I collect manuals and I often see changes in practice now as opposed to when they were founded. It just tends to happen with the changing times.

anyone who studies a complete system. I am not talking about a style, a complete system with wei and nei gong, taji, herbology, medicine, bone setting, tui na accupunture, fighting, etc etc. if you are learning a style which has only a piece of the pie and not the whole pie is like learning to use your hands and not your feet
Again these are things that go outside of MA. It is the Martial skill I am speaking on.

everything I listed is a part of TCMA if not your learnign on a a part of a system "style" I feel like I am repeating myself....all true and authentic martial arts have the above parts to make it a whole. if not what are you learning?

No they don't and I can back that up with documentation. Again what you listed even goes outside the realm of TCMA. This was not the case of ever CMA. Some schools taught Flower arranging. I wouldn't consider that part of the MARTIAL training.

however we are talking about learning a complete martial arts system are we not?
I am but you are going outside of that.

world famous masters take more than 1-2 years to reach thier level dont they? if not seek a real mater perhaps read the book the sword polishers record from my kung fu uncle Adam hsu
Read the book and I had toe occation to speak with Hsu. However I have stressed that MAKING the sword ready for battle doesn't take a long time. Polishing the sword is for its maintance and upkeep.

Again there is a diffrence in learning a MA over a course of years and fine tuning the things you learned before. You said in another thread that your teacher told you something that is similar to what I was told long time ago and preach today.

My Sensei told me many years ago that the average person in the street hasnt thrown a punch since thier last fight. You threw 1,000 yesterday. Who's punch should be better?

What I told was something along the lines that a novice may have done an armbar 100times where as a BB has done it a 10000 times. This is what I mean by fine tuning what you learn early on.

Royal Dragon

06-10-2006, 05:16 PM

I get what Asia is saying.

To say it differently, I think he is refering to the fact that you should eb able to get a style functional, and effective pretty quick. It's the fine tuneing, and seeking mastery that takes such a long time.

EarthDragon

06-10-2006, 08:24 PM

Thats more than enough time depending on how you trained.

more than enough to learn to defend yourself or to become proficient?

can someone else with 2 years or less tell me if they think they are proficient in thier choosen art?

Thai Boxing and Kickboxing are two seperate, but similar things.

agreed i thought you were talking about kickboxing and TCMA. my apologies

You have copies of thes manuscripts? Even when passed down 350yrs is a long time for things to remain the same. I collect manuals and I often see changes in practice now as opposed to when they were founded. It just tends to happen with the changing times.

Yes, I have our iron palm recipe copied from rice paper. As well some very old writings.. copies of course not the actual poems and scripts

Again these are things that go outside of MA. It is the Martial skill I am speaking on.
you are speaking of only the combat side of a much bigger picture. with 20 years you should know this. My shifu said traditionally you would become doctor before fighter. this is absolutly true do you not agree?

No they don't and I can back that up with documentation. Again what you listed even goes outside the realm of TCMA. This was not the case of ever CMA. Some schools taught Flower arranging. I wouldn't consider that part of the MARTIAL training.

How can you back up this with documentation? are you speaking about every system in exsitence or just the style you pratice?
How can you possibly say that what I listed goes outside the realm of TCMA when it is in ALL TCMA????????

so the internal and medical side is outside this realm of yours?

I would not consider breathing excersizes MARTIAL however it is in everything style that I have ever heard of.

I am but you are going outside of that.

How is in my system then which came from henan province in gimore county? how can you possibly say what i am speaking about is outside of a complete system?

Again there is a diffrence in learning a MA over a course of years and fine tuning the things you learned before. You said in another thread that your teacher told you something that is similar to what I was told long time ago and preach today.

agreed but you cant get good or even have a handle on something in 1-2 years. especially how to defend yourself against an attack, hell it takes a 3 -4 years to learn how to block correctly. then what about distance and timming, weight shifting footwork. bagua walks to circle for 5 years just to learn to shift the weigh effortlessly. this meaning proficient not fine tuning, I am talking about the basics.

What I told was something along the lines that a novice may have done an armbar 100times where as a BB has done it a 10000 times. This is what I mean by fine tuning what you learn early on.

agreed but if you have 240 ground techniques you mean to tell me that a person that studied for 1-2 years can not only learn them all but make them work in actual combat???????????????????????????
__________________

omarthefish

06-10-2006, 09:48 PM

OMG you SERIOUSLY need to learn to use the quote funtion or at least italics or something to separate the quotes from the responses. Your nettiquette sucks a$$.

can someone else with 2 years or less tell me if they think they are proficient in thier choosen art?

Almost anyone I've ever talked to from good Thaiboxing gyms or BJJ schools make this claim. After crossing hands with them, in most cases I agree. I think Shooter puts his people into MMA with Taiji inside of that time frame. It's reasonable enough for any traditional art if you train seriously AND train smart. The traditional time frame is about 3 years for basic competency so 2 is pushing it a bit but hardly extroardinary. Just depends how the training is presented.

...My shifu said traditionally you would become doctor before fighter. this is absolutly true do you not agree?

Respectfully, that is not true. In fact, it's rare. Huang Feihung popularized this idea in the popular culture but there is almost no evidence of it as an actual tradition. There is lots of overlap in the knowledge bases sure but the traditional medical role of the martial arts instructor goes little beyond setting fractures, re-insterting dislocatoins and other kinds of first aid. Those who are actually qualified to practice medicine are rare in deed. There's enough of them around for it to be statistaclly signifigant but hardly a tradition.

agreed but you cant get good or even have a handle on something in 1-2 years. especially how to defend yourself against an attack, hell it takes a 3 -4 years to learn how to block correctly. then what about distance and timming, weight shifting footwork. bagua walks to circle for 5 years just to learn to shift the weigh effortlessly. this meaning proficient not fine tuning, I am talking about the basics.

That entire bit there is just absurd. I can teach someone to block properly in a week or so, a month tops. There is no 5 year tradition for circle walking either. Even the most greulingly traditional teachers will only make you go that route for about 3 years but the vast majority will present other material withing months.
Again, traditional landmark for basic competence is about 3 years. They say 3 years for a "small achievement, 10 years for the larger one." ie. 3 years for basic skills and 10 years for any kind of mastery.

agreed but if you have 240 ground techniques you mean to tell me that a person that studied for 1-2 years can not only learn them all but make them work in actual combat???????????????????????????
__________________

Newsflash: You only need about 4 or 5 techniques. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% or all submissions could be narrowed down to:

Basic armbar
RNC
Triangle
Guilliting
Kimura
Keylock

And I'd bet that 3/4 of those end up being just the first 2 on the list.

Just Armbar, RNC and Triangle can take you a looooooooong way. 1-2 years is PLENTY to get a solid grip on those 6 techs and be able to apply them all.

Royal Dragon

06-11-2006, 01:00 AM

You know, when you look at the fact that, for the most part, Kung Fu in the Ming dynasty was taught ONE technique at a time, along with a LOT of basics and conditioning, I'd be willing to bet fighters training 3-4 hours a day were very competant fighters in 6-9 months, and were using only a small handful of tehcniques. In 3 years, they were surely outstanding, and masters in 10.

Heck, the original form of my style is 32 techniques, and that is it. If you spent you time really working only 8 of them a year, in 4 years you would be pretty potent with the whole system, but especially so with your favorite techniques.

The style didn't start getting huge until it was taught to the military, and everyone's favorite techniques got added to the original form.

I think most styles from the pre modern era were pretty lean, only had a few forms at best, and developed skill quickly. In the old days, it was 10 years to mastery with full time training. Today styles are so huge it 40+ years to mastery.

So yeah, orignally, in 3 years you'd be a pretty bad Mofo if you kept your techniques limited to the core of the style, and just did basics, basics, basics along with application and conditioning all day.

EarthDragon

06-11-2006, 07:52 AM

omar, yes please teach me the quote thing and how to do it.

That entire bit there is just absurd. I can teach someone to block properly in a week or so, a month tops. There is no 5 year tradition for circle walking either. Even the most greulingly traditional teachers will only make you go that route for about 3 years but the vast majority will present other material withing months.

So you can take a newbie and teach him hot to block a punch in a week or so or better yet 30 days? so I can walk up to him and punch him full force in the face and he will block my attack almost every time? like 8 out of 10 would be considered proficient. How can you sat that to be true?

you guys are crazy. This is why modern kung fu is getting a bad name and the MMA guys think it sucks, because you have people out here pretending to be profienct in a year and learning to block an attack in a week.

Again, traditional landmark for basic competence is about 3 years. They say 3 years for a "small achievement, 10 years for the larger one." ie. 3 years for basic skills and 10 years for any kind of mastery.

agreed when we are speaking about basic skills...... the argument is proficientcy. To use what you have learend to defend yourself in combat. it can take a year to learn to unsheath and sheath a sword and to swing it around but i wouldnt call someone with that little bit of training proficient with we sword.

EarthDragon

06-11-2006, 07:57 AM

pro·fi·cient (prə-fĭsh'ənt)
adj.
Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.

n.
An expert; an adept.

Proficient implies an advanced degree of competence acquired through training: Skilled implies sound, thorough competence and often mastery, as in an art, craft, or trade: a skilled gymnast who won an Olympic medal. Expert applies to one with consummate skill and command: an expert violinist who played the sonata flawlessly.

SPJ

06-11-2006, 09:07 AM

Some terms:

Chuan (Quan) Fa: boxing methods or fighting methods.

Men or Pai: school or division.

Such as Shaolin Quan Fa, Ba Gua Men, Tang Lang (Mantis) Men or Ba Ji Men.

MA is too broad a term.

:D

EarthDragon

06-11-2006, 04:03 PM

SPJ................. Huh?

omarthefish

06-11-2006, 04:11 PM

The bold print thing works ok for making the posts readable.

For that cool quote thing just replace the "b" that you have in the brackets for bold print with the word "quote", minus the quotation marks.

(quote)yada yada yada.....(/quote)

Except with square brackets [ ]

TaiChiBob

06-11-2006, 05:36 PM

Greetings..

Everybody's right... except the ones that say that someone is wrong...

"My Sifu did this and my Sifu did that".. lineage wars, who's teacher fought more.. hogwash! Talking about what your teacher did or didn't do is like reading the packaging on the unopened video game.. you havent even started to play. Your teacher will be known by the students they produce.

I hear so may people pronounce so many judgements because they have seen so many masters/teachers.. i doubt seriously that all but a very few have anything but hearsay gossip to back their assertions.. "I've been all over the world", really? and, actually spent enough time with how many teachers to make such opinionated statements.. I think, if we were honest, most of us would admit romanticizing much of our beliefs based on little actual evidence..

I see two main divisions.. one group fervently "believes" that pure martial skills born of hard testing in combat is "The Way".. The other group "believes" that they can achieve reliable self-defense skills AND enhance many aspects of their life through immersion in the culture which spawned their preferred style... I don't see why both can't be right..

I lean toward the Holistic approach.. but, i also know that untested skills are unreliable, there is simply no evidence they work.. Forms, alone, may (unlikely) or may not (more likely) work when needed.. mid-level contact sparring will suffice for most self-defence needs, experience under moderate pressure.. For the elite battle hungry fighters, yes, they need to push it to the edge.. but, that level of training leaves little time for developing a Holistic life.. when i train competition fighters they use their spare time to condition and maintain their skill level, they have little time for "living".. their life becomes the next opportunity to prove their worth as a fighter.. i seldom train fighters now, i will coach them for about 4-6 weeks before their next match.. help them with the "tricks" and the finesse.. but, too few have the heart to really train.. heck, i think i'm ready settle down a bit myself.. i teach about 8 hours a week and train myself another 6-8.. the rest, is just living well..

I have found real substance in the wisdom of Taiji, at 55 it's a very comfortable fit.. it's like the past has been the construction project, building a really good road.. now, i can drive that road all-out, i built it..

I don't want to disillusion the elite fighters in here, but.. contrary to much of what i hear, i have visited too many schools and too many retreats where i see guys (and some gals) taking it right to the same edge as the "elite".. they simply have no desire to "prove" anything, it's a personal quest.. It is a self-deception to believe that because someone or some school doesn't fight in the popular venues that they are somehow less for it.. Of course, that doesn't include the obvious McKwoons, but, they are obvious.. everyone knows the truth, if they buy the McKwoon propoganda they get what they wanted.. McKwoons exist because there is a market that wants the social comradship of weekend-warrior status.. they watch UFC/NHB and they "know" where they fit in.. it's their choice.

The "weekend warriors" are better-off than the couch potatos.. have an advantage over most thugs/rednecks.. and, hopefully, have the wisdom to stay out of real harm's way.. live and let live, we each know, deep down, who we really are.. if Mat Hughes or Tito threatens me, i'm gonna start writing checks until they're happy..

We can get along.. traditional/MMA/NHB etc... a little respect rather than self-righteous indignation goes a long way.

Be well..

neilhytholt

06-11-2006, 06:47 PM

The only thing worse than out of shape, lying, thieving teachers is paying a lying, thieving teacher when they are lying to you straight in the face and playing their little games, when they are the only one around that has some rare fighting style.

But yeah, I have to agree with Omar and Asia here because I've had MA teachers who used and tested their skills and their students made more actual progress in 3 months to 2 years than I've seen in those forms and character schools in over 25 years.

Because it's real simple. They are better martial arts teachers because they teach from experience, not theory.

I mean, there's people studying in taiji lineages who are now considered like taiji gurus who can't fight their way out of a paper bag. They write articles and get respect even though they never tested their stuff and don't even spar.

How's that for irony? So I'm sorry, but IMHO the so-called character and forms schools are a load of B.S.

TaiChiBob

06-12-2006, 05:38 AM

Greetings..

So I'm sorry, but IMHO the so-called character and forms schools are a load of B.S.
neilhytholt: Suppose a teacher has verifiable combat history, suppose that teacher's students are able to hold their own in competition combat.. and, suppose that teacher offers forms and philosophy.. now, does that diminish the quality of the combat arts? Hint: no... You see, contrary to your limited experience there are truly well rounded schools and teachers out there..

I mean, there's people studying in taiji lineages who are now considered like taiji gurus who can't fight their way out of a paper bag. They write articles and get respect even though they never tested their stuff and don't even spar.I am familiar with quite a few Taiji personalities, so.. would you mind naming the "gurus"? You might be very surprised at how many of these guys can really back it up...

It is disappointing to think that someone actually believes that because someone else doesn't conform to their notions of teaching or proof of skill, that they are lacking in quality.. For me, personally, i don't comment on someone's abilities unless i have crossed hands with them or i am willing to make the journey to cross hands.. i don't disrespect someone's school or their system unless i have direct knowledge.. even then, it is a signature of weak character to tell others how bad someone else is.. strong character demonstrates (not yaps) their own benefits, or others will testify as to someone's abilities.. in any case, without supporting evidence this forum is no more than idle chatter..

Culture, philosophy, meditation, and spiritual discipline.. are elements of Martial Arts.. while in the ring no one spouts philosophy, meditates or chants.. each of those aspects can and do enhance the total fighter's fighting skills.. if it isn't one player's cup of tea, so what.. What if you're sitting on your butt holding a hand-full of your own teeth and the guy that separated your teeth from your face is now sitting in meditation.. you're still screwed.. The disrespect for the paths of others is immature egotistical foolishness.. If you want to disrespect their path, have the character to do it in person, you assumed the role of challenger.. follow it up..

This forum is a really great way to share ideas, training tips, insights and such (thanks Gene!).. not so good for proving anything.. agreements and disagreements can be civil and productive, depending on the character and intention of the posters.. Mostly, i see a lot of hungry egos that need a fraternity of supporters to feel validated, or they instigate conflict to protest someone's differing experiences.. There is a huge difference between agreement and correctness..

Be well..

neilhytholt

06-12-2006, 07:37 AM

Greetings..

neilhytholt: Suppose a teacher has verifiable combat history, suppose that teacher's students are able to hold their own in competition combat.. and, suppose that teacher offers forms and philosophy.. now, does that diminish the quality of the combat arts? Hint: no... You see, contrary to your limited experience there are truly well rounded schools and teachers out there..

If the teacher has a verifiable combat history, and their students hold their own in competition combat, then they are doing well, right? They are not a forms and character school.

I am familiar with quite a few Taiji personalities, so.. would you mind naming the "gurus"? You might be very surprised at how many of these guys can really back it up...

Yeah, let me do some searches. But the easy way is to find a list of the tai chi teachers in your area, and then call around and see if they do any sparring or teach any applications.

Most all (90%+) do not.

Here's an example of when I was searching around Seattle.

I called many people in the Seattle area. The only people doing a lot of applications are Doc Fai Wong's lineage, Prather and Akrish evidently. Cedar Acosta, Kim Ivy, M. Andrew Curry, and Yang Jun evidently don't teach anything beyond push-hands. Andy Dale evidently teaches some Rou-shou, but no free sparring. Andy Dale's Chen teacher, who is now deceased, Madame Gao Fu, who was considered some sort of extreme guru, evidently did not do any fighting at all. I was actually admonished by Yang Jun's students when I suggested they should do some sparring. They said violence wasn't 'civilized' and that I had a 'bad attitude'. Sound familiar?

Many places just laughed at me when I mentioned applications.

It is disappointing to think that someone actually believes that because someone else doesn't conform to their notions of teaching or proof of skill, that they are lacking in quality..

Do you realize what you wrote here? You basically said it is disappointing that because someone doesn't conform to their notions of teaching or proof of skill that they are lacking in quality.

???

Basically that's saying if you don't think they're good, it's disappointing that you think they aren't good. That's a little weird.

In my experience if you don't use your stuff at least in sparring, it doesn't work!!! That was learned the hard way by getting my face beaten in.

All's I'm saying is that teaching people that they're ready for a fight by doing forms and thinking they're ready does not make them ready. That's ALL I'm saying here.

Ray Pina

06-12-2006, 08:00 AM

Earth Dragon, you're wrong about a lot of things. And your insistance that you're correct only shows just how wrong you are.

If you're training right, you should be able to fight in 2 to 3 years. My master always says, 2 to 3 years to be a fighter, lifetime to be a martial artist.

Everything is the basics. You put somone into a MMA program for 2 years, I'll put good money on them sweaping the floor with a 8 year "mantis" practioner.

Why? Because it only takes 1 to 3 classes to UNDERSTAND how you should strike, the mechanics of it; isolating the shoulder, etc. You're punching with power already. Then you spend the whole month punching for real, with boxing gloves.

After two months you're better than the guy who only punches in form, with total disconnection.

Same goes for kicking, clinching, etc. The idea, concept and mechanics can be picked up very quickly. And if you don't waist time with form, lion dancing, stance training, and praising Shaolin, you get a lot of training in in 2 hours.

With time, you focus on detail, adding hip and rib power into your strikes. Breathing. Adding foot power, etc. But all of this can be grasped in 3 years.

But again, the proof is in the pudding. All these Kung Fu guys training for all these years, rarely do you find one with any real APPLICABLE skill. They may have good sticking and reading skill, they may have good "short power" skill .... but they can't use it. It's like the rich kid who goes to unicersity his whole life but has no common sense, no means to apply his knowledge in the real world. It's book smarts.

EarthDragon

06-12-2006, 08:06 AM

neithholt
The only thing worse than out of shape, lying, thieving teachers is paying a lying, thieving teacher when they are lying to you straight in the face and playing their little games, when they are the only one around that has some rare fighting style.

sounds like you a re alittle bitter and someone who did this to you, let it go and move one this is always the same rant in every post

But yeah, I have to agree with Omar and Asia here because I've had MA teachers who used and tested their skills and their students made more actual progress in 3 months to 2 years than I've seen in those forms and character schools in over 25 years.

very well may be however this is not the disscussion, the disagreement is if they are consiered profiecinet in that 3 months to 2 years.

mean, there's people studying in taiji lineages who are now considered like taiji gurus who can't fight their way out of a paper bag. They write articles and get respect even though they never tested their stuff and don't even spar.

where do you get these ideas and assumptions? are you speaking from expereince or out your arse? can you name these guru's and what makes you say things like this? your basing your opinon on a few that you might have possibly met?

you base your whole ideas on very little experience. thats like saying all chinese resturants tastes the same and all the cooks suck..... when I have only visited a handful in the city I live in.... way to general my friend.......

TaiChiBob

06-12-2006, 08:11 AM

Greetings..

neilhytholt:
All's I'm saying is that teaching people that they're ready for a fight by doing forms and thinking they're ready does not make them ready. That's ALL I'm saying here.No, you've said much more.. labeled schools, styles and people without any actual experience to base it on.. if all you had said was the above, this thread would have been much shorter.. i agree with the quote above..

If the teacher has a verifiable combat history, and their students hold their own in competition combat, then they are doing well, right? They are not a forms and character school.By definition, if they offer forms and philosophy.. they are a "forms and character school", but they are also a fighting school..

Basically that's saying if you don't think they're good, it's disappointing that you think they aren't good. That's a little weird.No, what i am saying is that your standards are only your standards.. regardless of similarity, each person has a different set of standards.. if you find no favor with forms or ethics or character building, that doesn't diminish a good fighting system's results if they incorporate that as well.. it is simply your preference.. My statement implies that the standard you use to form your opinions does not shape reality.. just as my standards and opinions don't either.. we are limited by our perspectives, our prejudices and our willingness to consider other possibilities..

So, your unofficial random sampling of the Seattle area does find some internal and traditional schools that test skills.. good! Now, apply that same ratio to the rest of the planet and you see that there is a respectable number of people trying to keep the essence of Taiji and traditional arts alive.. and, if as you suggest, that the others fail to deliver, they will vanish due to their own inadequacy.. or flourish as a social club.. i'm not worried about them, i do what i do without letting them irritate me.. it's not my job to out them or change them, my job is to teach my students well. Worrying about other matters only takes away from my obligation to my students..

Be well....

Ray Pina

06-12-2006, 08:21 AM

The truth of the matter, and this addresses the issue of these magazine masters (internal and external) is that martial arts aren't for everyone. For every 100 studying martial artists maybe 1 or 2 is really suited to "get it," that has the athleticism and coordination to pick up on things and the mind to understand it. Of course, you'll always have the determined clumsy guy who will not take no for an answer and with time will improve.

But generally, to really learn takes the right guy. Then, of those guys, who has the balls to really test their stuff and make it real?

It's no shame in saying, "Hey, I do Taiji and the last thing I want to go is fight with a trained fighter." The truth of the matter is you're not trained, equiped to handle the MMAist. It is blairingly obvious from the outside. You see guys playing flag football, you see they are not equiped (literally) to play collegiate or professional football.

The problem is alot of people like the idea of being a master, and people make money off of marketing this, so they lie .... to others and themselves. Let's cut the bull$hit. With the exception of two or three taiji teachers (I'm including mine), which one has been open to challenges, has produced students who are open to challenges?

Don't talk about not having to prove something, spirituality, etc., etc. YOU HAVE TO PROVE EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD! You sit down at the Washington Square Park chess tables, and ontop of that put out a sign that you're an expert, you better be prepared to play serious chess --- traditional or blitz -- all day. The guy who plays speed chess doesn't want to hear you don't like playing with the clock. The guy who likes a long strategic game, doesn't want to be rushed by you.

You don't study chess to avoid playing chess. You don't study martial arts to avoid fighting. Believe me, I came from a Issin-Ryi background which focused on morality and I get it. That's good for little kids and old men. But for those who want to really get it, push their art, you have to be fighting.

Again, it's not for everyone. But don't be an occasional chess player, someone you pulls out the board after Christmas dinner over coffee, and talk to someone who's a chess fanatic about what chess is or should be. Chess is only only a hobby to that guy.

Likewise, I'm glad MMA is here. Nobody wants to hear talk anymore. We don't want to be preached to by somebody. As we develop our body's and focused, and disciplined minds, we already gain spiritually. Who's to say?

In fact, let's be real, these suedo masters are confused by what's going on right now; they're overwhelmed by this new reality in martial arts. They are confused .... they are afraid .... they are cowards.

It takes a man to admit when they are wrong, or have been mislead themselves. It is a selfish greedy heart that knowingly misleads others for gain.

omarthefish

06-12-2006, 08:28 AM

ED you are now just arguing semantics.

You want to pick and choose definitions of "proficient"? Go ahead. Everyone's idea of expertese is going to be different. You picked a definition of profficient that sounds close to mastery. I'm going with the more common use of the word as simply a synonymn for "pretty **** good" or "can do it under most situations".

To use your hypothetical of "Can I teach a guy in a month to block so that you can throw a punch in his face and he can block it?" is impossible for me as I have never crossed hands with you and really don't have a clue as to how well you punch, how well you feighnt, what kind of jin you can put into a punch and more. I will say that I can certainly teach most people, inside of a month, to block 80% of what 80% of the marital artists out there can throw in terms of punches to the face. As far as I am concerned, that's "proficient". I can take a guy from zero, as long as he is reasonably fit and co-ordinated (ok not truly zero but no MA experience) and teach him how to protect his head. If you put him in the ring with Bas Rutten or even an amateur boxer with a few fights under his belt, he will still probably get clobbered but people will not say, "Man, that guy didn't know how to block. He took everything on the chin!". My hypothetical one month student would have to at least be faked out or might gass out of excess tension within 2-3 minutes and get clobbered but the basic skills of blocking and punching would be there.

You want expetese? Sure. That takes longer. Basic profficiency? Like being able to handle most any untrained fighter off the street in a random drunken encounter? That takes a couple of years more or less depending on talent and fitness.

Now to teach someone something like Baji, which I am a lineage holder in, I'd say it takes at least 2 or 3 years just to get a solid handle on it. To really fight with it, if you were starting from bupkis, would take longer. But that wasn't the question. Just something simple like "how to block.". Doesn't take that long. I think I was able to start really using Baji in about 3 years but that was 3 years on top of 8 years of Shaolin stuff and about 4 or 5 years of miscelaneaous random stuff. Lookign back on it all I can say with great confidence that I was a tremendously untalented fighter and did not really receive the best instruction for a long time. I do not intend to teach people the way I was taught.....IF they really want to learn to fight. Honestly, I think it was quite a number of years before I even conciously made that decision for myself.

neilhytholt

06-12-2006, 08:30 AM

neilhytholt: No, you've said much more.. labeled schools, styles and people without any actual experience to base it on.. if all you had said was the above, this thread would have been much shorter.. i agree with the quote above..

Without any experience? I have wasted my time in schools that didn't do fighting. I had no idea, for example, when I first took tai chi that most schools didn't do any fighting. Why do you think I have no experience to back it up?

Anyways, this discussion is a waste of time.

Yes, it is MY OPINION. Anything discussed is OPINION, unless it is verifiable by evidence.

So, your unofficial random sampling of the Seattle area does find some internal and traditional schools that test skills.. good! Now, apply that same ratio to the rest of the planet and you see that there is a respectable number of people trying to keep the essence of Taiji and traditional arts alive.. and, if as you suggest, that the others fail to deliver, they will vanish due to their own inadequacy.. or flourish as a social club.. i'm not worried about them, i do what i do without letting them irritate me.. it's not my job to out them or change them, my job is to teach my students well. Worrying about other matters only takes away from my obligation to my students..

Actually, it is reverse. If I counted the number of martial arts schools when I was growing up that I could find that didn't do fighting, it would be 0.

If I count them now, it is far higher.

Anyways this discussion is a complete waste of time, so I bid you adieu.

EarthDragon

06-12-2006, 08:34 AM

ray Pina,

Earth Dragon, you're wrong about a lot of things. And your insistance that you're correct only shows just how wrong you are.

says who? that's your opinion.

If you're training right, you should be able to fight in 2 to 3 years. My master always says, 2 to 3 years to be a fighter, lifetime to be a martial artist.

perhaps thats what you have been told but that doesnt make it right now does it? i.e. some religions say you must wear red clothes on sundays, but that doesnt make it right?

Everything is the basics. You put someone into a MMA program for 2 years, I'll put good money on them sweaping the floor with a 8 year "mantis" ractioner/B]

LOL ok ray whatever.... thats a empty made up assumption.

[B]Why? Because it only takes 1 to 3 classes to UNDERSTAND how you should strike, the mechanics of it; isolating the shoulder, etc. You're punching with power already. Then you spend the whole month punching for real, with boxing gloves.

please stop, your killing me here.... 1 to 3 classes? isolating the shoulder? punching for REAL with boxing gloves for a whole MONTH???? yeah thats for real alright boxing gloves 18 Oz er's maybe let me guess chest protecter too?. ha ha ha ha ROTF OMG

After two months you're better than the guy who only punches in form, with total disconnection.

60 days to learn the body mechanics and exucute power during combat? BTW I am not nor ever talking about forms.

Same goes for kicking, clinching, etc. The idea, concept and mechanics can be picked up very quickly. And if you don't waist time with form, lion dancing, stance training, and praising Shaolin, you get a lot of training in in 2 hours.

we dont lion dance, prasie anybody, do some history on mantis before you talk out of your arse like all the others... save face dont make yourself look silly when you say things like that, mantis is a fighting system through and through.

With time, you focus on detail, adding hip and rib power into your strikes. Breathing. Adding foot power, etc. But all of this can be grasped in 3 years.

the power from a punch is not from the waist its from the foot. but yes it can be grasped in 3 years and practiced many times over, but not proficient in less than 2 which is what i have said all along...

But again, the proof is in the pudding. All these Kung Fu guys training for all these years, rarely do you find one with any real APPLICABLE skill. They may have good sticking and reading skill, they may have good "short power" skill .... but they can't use it. It's like the rich kid who goes to unicersity his whole life but has no common sense, no means to apply his knowledge in the real world. It's book smarts.\

who are all these kung fu guys you speaking about???????? THIS IS MY POINT HELLO CAN ANYONE HEAR ME? if you condiser being proficient in 1 -2 years then call yourself a kung fu guy then yes you make a vaild point and I agree with you 100%.

you can learn guitar in 1-2 years but i dont think you would be very proficient and playing the guitar is easy compared to fighting to save your life or at least your a$$

Ray Pina

06-12-2006, 08:37 AM

Another thing is the excuses.

Externalists have to train hard, that's just the bottom line. You have to develop yourself. If you're going to train, you have to tell the old lady you have to train x amount a days a week. Other do it, you can do it.

Jobs, we all have them. Nobody wants to get a broken nose. Visible injuries are a lot more rare than the mad jammed thumb I got right now from using unbropken in boxing gloves, sore neck muscles from working clinching, etc. On the rare occassion I have a visible wound, you'd be surprised how people are actually into it. I've done interviews where someone has noticed something and I tell them how I got it and they're amazed, we usually spend some time talking about how crazy it is but how they have a cousin that hang glides or something.

Internalists, 40 and 50 is not too old if you are legit. That is the golden age. My master has been collecting social security for some time now, is past 65 years old. He's powerful, he's speedful, most of all he's efficiant and experienced... and he's powerful.

That's it, I'm done. To sum it up. If you're going to train, train and cut the bull$hit. Cut the excuses. Be a hobbyist, but don't talk like you've committed to go al the way. Because you'll be called on it sooner or later when you disagree with someone and your excuses shout the truth to the trained ear.

Just be honest. I surf and know my limitations. I'm good till the mid-teens. I don't want anything to do with a 20 or 30 foot wave. Sucks that my girlfriend surfs bigger waves than me, but that's just how it is.

TaiChiBob

06-12-2006, 10:20 AM

Greetings..

Ray: If Alberto crosses the peninsula in good shape we're looking at 6-10 byWed-Thurs. YEEEHAWW! i know what you mean, Ray.. i paddled into a 15+ elevator-shaft in Puerto Rico and started grabbing for the rip-cord.. that dang clear water is really deceptive..

Internalists, 40 and 50 is not too old if you are legit. That is the golden age. My master has been collecting social security for some time now, is past 65 years old. He's powerful, he's speedful, most of all he's efficiant and experienced... and he's powerful.Yep, I was at Nick Scrima's tournament this past weekend.. i played a little with David Chin (Hop Gar and Guang Ping).. and, he can rock your world with grace and poise.. and from a very short distance.. a number of "seasoned veterans" were eager to rough it up a bit just for the fun of it, a good weekend.. San Shou was robust (light contact my butt) there was plenty of blood and guts.. My fighter got trashed :( but didn't lose heart, he's ready to go again (or he will be after his neck and shoulder heal).. he got dumped hard after a lazy kick.. he did okay for a first fight, he finished the match..

Keep the faith, Ray.. you have a pretty balanced perspective.. Be well..

SPJ

06-12-2006, 10:39 AM

neilhytholt

06-12-2006, 11:26 AM

We may talk about our own experinces and how we like or dislike what other is doing.

But if we are to critic or say some one else is no good, this would mean that we know better or we are better than the one we "put" down.

The challenge is that we have to prove that we are better than the one we criticize,

So when my friends and I watched some fights or boxing on the TV. When they said that so and so should do this and that. That was why and how he or she failled. I only smiled and no comments.

Implying if you are so good, why don't you go up to the stage and fight yourself.

moral: dun say some one is bad unless you are better than him.

:D

That's an awful boring attitude. People talk about things they don't know 100% or all about all the time, don't they? It's called 'shooting the sh*t' or 'making conversation' or 'pub talk', etc. Otherwise boxing matches would be awful boring if you didn't talk about it. How many pro boxers are out there? Pro wrestlers? Pro football players?

People who aren't that skilled in sports talk about sports all the time, bub.

WinterPalm

06-12-2006, 11:33 AM

TaiChiBob: You've got a good attitude.

SPJ: I know exactly what you mean. I had a friend, he trained briefly in my school a couple years ago. Anyway, he wanted to spar with me one day so I said sure and after about thirty seconds, if not way less, he was breathing like a dying animal...all wheezing and sluggish in his movements. Then we watched a UFC and he's saying all these things about how the fighters are no good, can't fight, should have, would have, could have...Like you, I just smiled; why must people talk such trash without realizing their own limitations....especially when they were just shown quite bluntly?

neilhytholt

06-12-2006, 11:36 AM

Ray Pina

06-12-2006, 11:43 AM

I saw the storm in the gulf, is it supposed to come across? Hope it does.

Where in PR were you? My girl manages a place in Isabella, right up the block from Shacks. I love it there. I'm talking to my boss now about working from home so I can do winters there. If so, thinking about a few fights into Oct., then Nov. down there, and then see if my master will let me come up for 3 weeks straight and train every day, then go back down for a month, come back up for a few weeks. Just something I think about.

As far as waves, usually I start wigging a bit at like 12 feet:( I can do 15, but it's got to be clean, like a nice point break or something I'm relatively sure won't close out on me.

That's the thing I don't like, you can do everything right and itcan shut down on you, even if you kick out, often the one behind ya gets ya. I'm getting better though. I got Wilderness at 12 feet in March and was feeling pretty good. Got a new 6'9 mini-gun, tuff light style, rounded pin.

Ray

PS
Congrats on your fighter. Seriously. Got to add you to the list, say, well, I know some guy in Florida who trains taiji and has a few students who put up. Awesome!

Ray Pina

06-12-2006, 12:06 PM

Earth Dragon, when I'm wrong, I'm the first to admit it. When I don't know a subject, like swordsmanship, I'm the first to say, well, I don't really know but .....

When I talk boxing, I know! I started Isshin-Ryu when I was 4; trained 5 days a week, two classes a night (regular/black belt). I trained Hung Gar, Wing Chun, S Mantis.

Before, I was real good at sparring. Got A LOT of trophies, A LOT! Growing up where I grew up instilled me with some street pride and I could get through lots of fights on sheer determination. Then I saw I couldn't compete with the seriously trained fighter and found my master.

I learned some really good shielding in about a year and felt good about it. So good I entered my first San Da match. I'm proud of how I did in that I didn't cut weight, just showed up, got on the scale, and I can honestly say the guy never landed on me. I punched him from rope to rope but he covered up real good, clinched me good, and sweapt me good..... my fat a$$ gassed with 25 seconds left in round 2.

I trained about another year. Worked the clinch a bit, had a Gracie member join up and worked the ground. Started fighting out. Started winning real challenge matches with no gear. Everyone hear said it was nothing, the guys were bums .... they were sort of right.

I learned that in my second San Da match. I hesitated, looking to counter and a really tough, focused, determined guy attacked me to the ropes. Somehow I fought out of it without taking much more than a good thai kick to the leg but I chased him.... he caught me with another kick that spun me, bounced me off the rope and right into a hook that hit nothing but the air between it and landing on my nose directly breaking it. I fought on with the blood but he put me down 2 more times and TKO. That was the best fighter I ever faced. I learned about having to come out shooting, not reacting, also about being calm and never chasing. I learned a lot.

My master I think now realizes I aint joking, I doubled my training to show that I aint joking. I keep fighting challenge matches on the side. Some of the guys are so so, some aren't. I've been clear now with them about my focus to deter someone who isn't ready.

That's where I am right now, and I'm seriously considering a MMA event this summer. I'm training, maintaining my weight with swimming, etc.

I'll tell you this: my students train with 12oz boxing gloves. For certain shielding drills, no head gear (it't not neccessary, the shielding is easy to do and no one is beaking tricky). When the drills are more free, they must weat closed headgear.

The chest protectors you talk about do nothing .... if I hit you with that on you'll still be hurt. You might as well have the free mobility.

This is what I'm talking about. Don't confuse your world with what's out there. Boxing gloves are standard for my students, we use them almost every class. We roll .... sometimes just to submission (though this isn't our goal, just want them to feel it, know it), but often with closed head gear, MMA gloves and full punching.

This is one side of it. There is a lot, most of it, is drills working mechanics, structure, position.

I actualy have a student who has been with me 2 years this month. He dropped from 225 to a pretty solid 200, he just turned 18 .... I'd put him up against ANY teenage Kung Fu player on Long Island with full-fight conditions and I'd put my money on it. He has no prior experience. Just two years with me.

I wouldn't let him go fight MMA or San Da yet because he doesn't have the experience. He does have the fight mind and can pull the trigger, but he just hasn't seen enough yet. But because of my background, he's seen plenty of traditional tendencies when I play as his sparring partner. Sometimes I play karate with side kicks, sometimes wing chun trapping, sometimes take downs and submissions.

This is training. Yes, in 6 years he'll be very good. In six years I think he can be pro. Bexcause I'm getting better and hoping to pave the way. But in two years, this kid has changes a lot, you can see it in how we walks in talks. I've changed a lot too.

I've been with my master now 4 years. The first two to three years were basics. Now that I'm training harder, guess what I'm training: the same basics, just with a little more detail.

My master always says, "Do you worry about how to buy?" ....Meaning, everyone knows how to spend money and buy..... "But can you afford it?"

Technique is nothing. Do you have power and structure and position. Technique is how you respond to what represents itself.

You can spend 16 years training technique a, b, c, d, e, .... a2, b2, d2,e2, etc, etc., etc..... if you lack the core you have nothing. This is why most Kung Fu players have nothing. Why they talk like you're talking, trying to intellectualize this thing which is physical. Trying to justify the long years with no return. Your teacher sounds like a preacher or broker who keeps taking your money but your prayers and stock have given you know return.

My master has bored me doing the same thing day in and day out and then one day I realise, I aint too easy to beat.

TaiChiBob

06-12-2006, 01:10 PM

Greetings..

Ray: We go to Rincon, Tres Palmas, Shacks and the hole.. gotta love those sea urchins, i wear sneakers down there, now.. I take my 9'2" West Wind and the 8'6" Robert August (Tuflite).. too old for the shorties, heavy whitewater wears me out.. (great activity for endurance). Would love to hook up with you on a fall storm blitz.. we usually charter a commuter flight and 10-12 of us slide in for 4-7 days before and after a storm.. Flight runs around 4-500 per person RT, Casey puts us up for next to nothing (we fronted him the money to start the business).. anyway, we can chat this up PM.. Thanks..

Be well..

EarthDragon

06-12-2006, 04:00 PM

Ray, congradulations on you career and my hat goes off to you for your acomplishments.
I am not talking bad about anyone, I am just saying that it takes more than classes 3 days a week for 1-2 years to be proficient thats all. Yes you can learn the basics but the argument was proficient in 2 years or less and we all know this is not true.
while thier are exceptions this is generally not the case. I hate a 2 year black belt... they havent put enough time in in my opinon. I have been teaching for 10 years and seen many many students stuggle with 18 -24 months of learning, you simply cant get enough experience in such a short time in TCMA perhaps sproting arts like boxing, kick boxing, TKD and judo. these are sport but only a piece of the whole pie.

You can spend 16 years training technique a, b, c, d, e, .... a2, b2, d2,e2, etc, etc., etc..... if you lack the core you have nothing.

absolutley

This is why most Kung Fu players have nothing.

dont agree, perhaps the few you have met fall into this catagory but thats like saying all middle eastern men are terrorists judge many by knowing one?

Why they talk like you're talking, trying to intellectualize this thing which is physical. Trying to justify the long years with no return.

what return are you speaking of? that you know how to throw a punch?

Your teacher sounds like a preacher or broker who keeps taking your money but your prayers and stock have given you know return.

LOL well he is the tawainese all art full contact champion for 5 consecutive years. Perhaps you should do a search on shyun kwon long before making a uneducated statement such as this...BTW I never paid for lessons when I lived with him in Chinatown S.F again a gross assumption. my friend always said TKD sucks until he got his jaw broken fighting ISKA by guess who a TKD guy this was the last time he judged anyone... the word ASSUME makes a what?

My master has bored me doing the same thing day in and day out and then one day I realise, I aint too easy to beat.

let me guess, this after you trained for 2 years????

Ray Pina

06-13-2006, 07:14 AM

I am just saying that it takes more than classes 3 days a week for 1-2 years to be proficient thats all. Yes you can learn the basics but the argument was proficient in 2 years or less and we all know this is not true.
while thier are exceptions this is generally not the case. I hate a 2 year black belt

The student I'm talking about trains with me 3 days a week for 1.5 hours a class.

As for me, I will always be a students and have much to learn. I still have a lot to learn from my master in hand to hand and haven't even touched upon his weapons knowlegde. At the same time, if feels good to be confident, and actually enjoy fighting. I admit it. I like the unknown aspect going into a fight, what's going to happen, what position will arise, etc. So a lifetime to be a martial artists, but only 2 to 3 years to be a fighter.

As for belts, I can't wait to get a black belt from my master, but I don't use them with my students. It's too easy to give a belt to someone because of their loyalty, history, etc. We all know where we stand on a daily basis by who beats who, who submits who. It's usally the same people winning the same way. Then I have to jump in to keep them honest. But they've helped me learn so much. Teaching is invaluable. For the sheer fact that you get to train what you feel like training

SPJ

06-13-2006, 07:59 AM

Ray Pina

06-13-2006, 08:09 AM

Great post

When you rely too much on the physical, you start talking about bulking up, conditioning and cutting weight. But you can never condition yourself to be taller, younger etc. That is the sporting mind.

When you rely too much on theory you can fall into the trap of talking and over thinking and you loose the heart of martial art, that inner, deterimined spirit that goes beyond theory and technique.

David Jamieson

06-13-2006, 08:26 AM

The theory and study are as important as the practice or learning from sparring matches. Sparring is part of the practice or learning.

WWI and WWII are still studied. Even the warfare from 2400 years ago is studied, such as Sun Tzu.

People do evolve however more from intellectual sides. The intellect is useless without practice. However, practice without intellect will not go far.

We are not going to be as big as an elephant, as fast as a leopard, as verocious as a tiger---

And yet we do not predominate on the planet by being physical alone.

One without the other?

MA is about fighting on the physical level. But is that all?

:D

Fighting is dead simple. It is not as eleaborate as some would like tothink it is. Training it to a level of artistic expression is another matter and even then, it certainly doesn't give one any sort of advantage against real danger these days.

I would site Alex Gong (r.i.p) to back that statement up. And in a wider sense entire rebellions have been put down by force of a stronger variety than any martial art.

Having said that, humans predominate with force over another always. That has been the way of humans since the dawn of time. We multiply and seek new space to live in, if it's occupied, we fight for the space. If we are persuasive enough, we gain the space through negotiation. Mostly though, things are taken by force at the root.

TaiChiBob

06-14-2006, 05:27 AM

Greetings..

Negotiations are used when the parties have sufficient force to threaten each other.. clearly superior force just tell the other party what to do, and occasionally puts on a negotiation appearance.. (i.e.: US policy)..

The current bias against forms is a misunderstanding. Shadow-boxing, drills, etc. are still forms by another name.. forms are never a substitute for combat experience and training, but forms (in appropriate context) can enhance the combat experience.. Of course, there are forms that defy common-sense in their relationship to street combat or full-on competition, but.. i think some wise people could develop current "forms" that instill muscle memory, refine patterns of application, and work-out integrated power delivery options such that the student can maintain a solo drill that is relevant to today's combat environment.. stick drills, knife drills, roll-outs, various repetitive conditioning regimens, etc.. are "forms" or repetitive actions that offer a solo practice in preparation for actual testing against an opponent..

A critical review of forms and their relationship to modern combat scenarios is essential if forms are to retain their usefulness. Flashy, inefficient, ineffective patterns of movement are counterproductive in searching for a model related to reality.. "Forms" that repeat basic movements and skills at different angles and transitions that have proven useful in actual contests can be combined into a solo practice drill that will enhance the student's understanding of the most useful patterns of modern combat.. Now, a form developed based on today's combat perspective will have little in common with the artistic embellishments of the "traditional forms" we are used to.. they should more closely resemble shadow-boxing.. perhaps, include a sequence where you throw your feet out in front of you and you land on your back, conditioning and a liklihood in combat.. be comfortable with it, and understand it.. Forms are only useless when the fail to address reality, or when they inspire someone to use an impractical technique in face of real danger..

I have taken-up a drill that my partner uses and it is very good at teaching me how to refine my body structure on the ground.. take a 100lb heavy bag, lock your arms and legs around it and roll it from side to side without unlocking the arms and legs.. arch your back and try to rip the bag in-half.. position the bag on top of you and push/thrust it up as high as you can, letting it impact you on the way down and repeat.. there are other possibilities, but.. doing this i can analyze, repeatedly, subtle position and muscle refinements for maximum power and efficiency with some conditioning as well.. this is a way to get some solo practice while also taking the time for detailed analysis that is absent in the sparring/grappling game..

I think there may be some wisdom in developing current patterns of repititious movement that passes current knowledge developed from combat experience on to others.. it gives the aspiring student solo time to develop body awareness and power integration in a sequence of movements that are applicable in a current context.. There could, and should, be a middle ground.. where fighting and forms merge to offer a complete combat system.. the challenge is to keep it practical..

Be well..

SevenStar

06-14-2006, 10:18 AM

position the bag on top of you and push/thrust it up as high as you can, letting it impact you on the way down and repeat.. there are other possibilities, but.. doing this i can analyze, repeatedly, subtle position and muscle refinements for maximum power and efficiency with some conditioning as well

I used to do something similar with a hanging bag. I would push it with both palms as hard as I could with as little actual movement as possible. When the bag came back, I let it hit me, then repeated.

Fu-Pow

06-14-2006, 03:13 PM

Fighting is dead simple. It is not as eleaborate as some would like tothink it is. Training it to a level of artistic expression is another matter

Fighting is simple, elevating it to an art is not.

and even then, it certainly doesn't give one any sort of advantage against real danger these days.

I would site Alex Gong (r.i.p) to back that statement up.

Fighting or fighting at the level of an art? Actually neither of those would have saved Alex Gong, he was blown away by a gun even though he practiced a "realistic" combat sport.

So what's the point of hand to hand martial arts today? Coercion? To hurt people by fighting? Or is there another aspect that has more relevance to today's world?

Hint: Its the "kung fu" mindset that is more relevant to today's world than the more practical matters of self-defense. Kung Fu's relevance today is as a vehicle to make better people,ethically, mentally and physically.

This is where the artistry and discipline come in. Sure you can get the similar results by "mastering" another discipline, but kung fu is a wholistic method of doing so that conditions the body, mind and soul....for the ancient chinese those were not separate entities but all worked together.

So I reject the notion that kung fu is all about fighting and now that guns exist and it is less practical that its usefulness is gone.

I will use myself as an example. When I started kung fu I was partying alot, smoking cigarettes, out of shape, I had dropped out of college, was underemployed and lacked direction.

One year of dedicated practice in Hung Gar/Choy Lay Fut (among some other factors) and my life began to turn around. I owe alot of that to a great sifu and the tradition of kung fu which forced me to develop my body, mind and spirit.

I don't think that I would have gotten such quick results if I had taken up weight lifting, for example.

So I owe alot to the tradition of kung fu and I'm sure alot of people feel the same way so we are not so quick to dismiss kung fu just because some "modern" method for combat sport training comes along.

Kung Fu is a tradition that's importance extends beyond fighting. Its important that we preserve the most important elements of its character (ie hard work and effort, wholistic approach, etc) so that we can pass that benefit on to future generations, while updating some of the training methodologies and strategies to better reflect the types of situations (street and ring) that the modern student is likely to encounter.

Currently, my classmate and I are putting together a program that incorporates western boxing as well as Choy Lay Fut. I think that this is a powerful approach because we've got a great wholistic tradition in CLF and also a bare bones pragmatic approach in boxing.

You can learn more about it at:

www.myspace.com/seattleclf

FP