Collecting forms without understanding their application. [Archive]

Chief Fox

11-27-2006, 05:10 PM

My old school did/still does this.

I would ask my sifu what a certain move or technique was and I could tell that he was making it up right there on the spot.

Now there is something to this because some different moves can be interpreted differently by different people. He encouraged us to find the meaning of certain moves on our own but never made time for drilling or practicing these techniques.

This is actually one of the main reasons why I left my old school.

I'm of the opinon that techniques need to be drilled, drilled again and drilled some more. Only through constant drilling and practice can a technique be internalized and made your own.

My old sifu didn't see it this way. By his own admission, he just loves forms.

He would probably argue that there are so many similar techniques in forms that the repetition and eventual internalization of a technique would come from form practice.

Now I like forms and think that they are a major part of learning kung fu but they are not the only part. You have to practice individual techniques on a bag or dummy and then practice them with a partner and then hopefully you can make the jump to using them in a sparring situation. Again, just my opinion.

MonkeyKingUSA

11-27-2006, 05:57 PM

I discourage my students from becoming "forms collectors". Many MA peeps want to run from style to style collecting forms, or are in a hurry to learn all the forms in one style.
Our style has only three empty hand forms. Each form teaches the same theories, yet each form builds on the previous in complexity.
I could teach a beginning student the moves of one of the forms in a month at the most. A skilled martial artist could pick up the first or second form in a single seminar. But making the theories a part of one's skill set takes quite a bit of time.
In my experience, the more highly skilled a person is, the more superficially they approach forms training. :(
Richard

Royal Dragon

11-27-2006, 06:34 PM

I used to collect forms, now I only do the core set of my style, and that is it.

Shaolin Dude

11-27-2006, 11:16 PM

I'm a forms collector. Right now I got 30 something forms in my arsenal. lol

SPJ

11-28-2006, 08:32 AM

my friends used to call me a form-nator and form maker at the same time.

I like to make apart the forms and practice single move in several parts such as stance only, hand move only and then together.

a form terminator or taking them apart into bits one posture at a time.

I also like to combine some variants of the same posture and string 2 or 3 postures together as a practice set.

I make more short sequences out of the forms.

a form generator, sort of.

:D

SPJ

11-28-2006, 08:38 AM

usually the teacher would show you some applications.

but if you take the forms apart or look at hand/wrist, forearm, elbow, shoulder, chest/back, waist, hip, knee and foot etc. you may derive more apps based on theories and principles.

--

take notes of apps and your derivations.

is there only one app in the posture, 3 or more?

;)

Fu-Pow

11-28-2006, 12:49 PM

Forms are out, drills are in. :D

David Jamieson

11-28-2006, 12:54 PM

drills are always in...especially after you learn the form they are taken from. :D

SPJ

11-28-2006, 08:23 PM

mid size forms, from 35 postures to 60 postures. I can handle them.

88 or more are just too long.

I would remove the repeats or continuation moves and shrink them down to non repeatable.

forms are like items in a menu.

you pick some and practice.

you probably would not eat every single item on the menu in a restaurant.

you probably would just pick some items for a meal/practice session.

:D

5Animals1Path

11-28-2006, 08:38 PM

I consider myself kinda lucky in this regard. My sifu won't teach me anymore forms till I get better at the ones I already know. And ya know what? He's right. 10 open hands, 1 pole form. That's alot to digest man. I already figured out I "ate" too much, but I don't wanna have to go back and relearn anything, so I'm dealing with the slower process of learning as it is.

Would it be easier just focusing on one form, then progressing through more and more? Probably. Hell, I've been everything but told in those exact words it would be.

But it wouldn't be nearly as challenging. ;)

The Xia

12-01-2006, 05:14 PM

I haven't experienced forms without applications being shown with.
Really? Never? I notice something about you. From your posts, it seems you have never seen a lousy school under a Kung Fu banner. :confused:

Knifefighter

12-01-2006, 06:03 PM

drills are always in...especially after you learn the form they are taken from. :D
One reason that much of kung fu doesn't work very well is because of the emphasis on forms. Drills should come from fighting, not from forms.

Flying-Monkey

12-01-2006, 06:08 PM

One reason that much of kung fu doesn't work very well is because of the emphasis on forms. Drills should come from fighting, not from forms.

This is the endless circle of "can fight".

Knifefighter

12-01-2006, 06:36 PM

This is the endless circle of "can fight".

Effective fighting = concepts, principles, techniques, drills and conditioning are all informed by fighting. These things are constantly evolving as fighting proves some things to be more efffective than others. Fighting is what matters and techniques come directly from this.

Ineffective fighting = concepts, principles, techniques, drills and conditioning are all informed by forms. The main consideration is on how close one can come to doing his forms correctly, not on how effective he can fight. Techniques come from the forms, rather than from fighting.

Flying-Monkey

12-01-2006, 06:41 PM

Effective fighting = concepts, principles, techniques, drills and conditioning are all informed by fighting. These things are constantly evolving as fighting proves some things to be more efffective than others. Fighting is what matters and techniques come directly from this.

Ineffective fighting = concepts, principles, techniques, drills and conditioning are all informed by forms. The main consideration is on how close one can come to doing his forms correctly, not on how effective he can fight.

Sorry. I wanted to write "can't". I was agreeing with you.

jera

12-01-2006, 06:52 PM

I am a form collector, I can preform around 20 perfectly(well I have won form competitions with 3 of my 20 forms).

Though I collect forms, I still attend my long fist/praying mantis class and my sifu teaches me the meaning behind the forms. Knowing the forms for me is a base on which I can advance.

Edit: Oh and just to make it clear, I spar and practice on bags twice as much as I do forms.

SPJ

12-01-2006, 08:18 PM

collecting techniques. I was so guilty of it in the beginning.

after a while, I know that it is only a useless exercise.

b/c fighting is a random event, you strike where the opening occurs or when the opponent is not prepared.

one teacher said we have to change b/c everything changes meaning we have to be flexible and not fighting the way as you practice or "expected".

another teacher said if you only master one move that is all you need. everything else is a set up for your ultimate move.

another teacher said the highest level of forms is actually formless.

--

I was like--

--

:eek: :D :)

SPJ

12-01-2006, 08:23 PM

what I meant to say is that we have to understand the functions or functionality of a move/posture which is the trunk of the tree or the essence of the move.

apps are just leaves or branches of a tree or derivatives from the main function/trunk.

--

:D ;)

David Jamieson

12-01-2006, 08:58 PM

knife-

forms are built from fighting concepts. They are built up, then broken down. Drills are extrapolated from form, or sure, you could do it your way too, but that would be making forms. :)

xia- I'm lucky to have been shown to the right doors I guess. I know there is crap out there, but it doesn't concern me in the least. I'm not involved with it.

Yao Sing

12-01-2006, 10:16 PM

One reason that much of kung fu doesn't work very well is because of the emphasis on forms. Drills should come from fighting, not from forms.

Drills created from forms are fine provided the forms aren't defective. Unfortunately I think there's a lot of defective forms out there that have morphed over the years due to insufficient translation to drills and fighting.

Forms are created based on realistic and effective fighting moves so it's safe to assume the process can be reversed and effective moves can be extracted from the forms. If this process fails to occur then minor adjustments to the form over time will blur the application and all is lost.

The Xia

12-01-2006, 10:24 PM

xia- I'm lucky to have been shown to the right doors I guess. I know there is crap out there, but it doesn't concern me in the least. I'm not involved with it.
I think you are in a minority here David.

YouKnowWho

12-01-2006, 11:01 PM

Fighting is what matters and techniques come directly from this.
If this assumption is true then why in UFC (#8 ?) Tank Arbot lost because his BJJ opponent kept kicking on his leg? Did he learn from fighting that how to:

- Bend his knee and allow the low round house kick to pass under his leg (conservative approach)?
- Turn his shin into the coming low round house kick (aggressive approach)?

Not all MA skill can be learned from fighting.

If you put a boy

- In water for 3 years then I doubt that he can swim as "effective" as any professional swimmer does.
- On wrestling mat for 3 years then I doubt that he can wrestle as "effective" as any professional wrestler does.

Yao Sing

12-01-2006, 11:03 PM

I think you are in a minority here David.

Personally I'm still waiting to run into the little old :p chinese master in a park that will teach me the real deal for free.

lkfmdc

12-01-2006, 11:05 PM

Personally I'm still waiting to run into the little old :p chinese master in a park that will teach me the real feal for free.

you want a little old man to feel you up for free? :eek:

Yao Sing

12-01-2006, 11:18 PM

Dang my typing is getting worse.

Um, er, I'm talking sensitivity and listening skills, yeah, that's the ticket. :o

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 10:55 AM

The above KniFi inspired posts chime in on something relevant to the thread, for once.

People are too obsessed with forms in an absolute sort of way. Its not either or.

Yes, you need to have contact fighting to be able to develop an understanding of how one flows and reacts to an opponent. (this horse is deader than Elvis)

Is this dependant on whether or not you do forms? No. Form work is just another conditioning tool. Those who do forms exclusively and don't do any contact work will obviously fail in something they don't do. (this Elvis is deader than the horse)

To assume that everyone that does a form doesn't fight is fauty logic. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Knifefighter

12-02-2006, 10:57 AM

If this assumption is true then why in UFC (#8 ?) Tank Arbot lost because his BJJ opponent kept kicking on his leg? Did he learn from fighting that how to:

- Bend his knee and allow the low round house kick to pass under his leg (conservative approach)?
- Turn his shin into the coming low round house kick (aggressive approach)?
That's exactly what he should have learned.

Those techniques, and whether or not they are valid, come from fighting and are proven to be valid or invalid in the fighting arena.

- In water for 3 years then I doubt that he can swim as "effective" as any professional swimmer does.
- On wrestling mat for 3 years then I doubt that he can wrestle as "effective" as any professional wrestler does.
The professional swimmer is good because he swims. All his swimming techniques are informed by how he does as a swimmer.

Same with the wreslter.

Techniques and doing are inexorably linked to each other and techniques that are valid come directly from the doing.

Knifefighter

12-02-2006, 11:08 AM

To assume that everyone that does a form doesn't fight is fauty logic. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Forms would be OK if they were just used for conditioning and were used in a more improvisational method, like shadowboxing.

The problem with forms is when people start "extrapolating" from them, finding "hidden" techniques in them and worrying about whether or not they are made up (as a matter of fact, the more valid a form is for fighting, the more likely it has been "made up" by the practitioner from his fighting experiences).

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 11:12 AM

Thats another fault in your logic. The assumption that forms were created in some fanciful dream then put out in a "lets see if this works" type of condition.
The creation of a set (form is individual movement a set is the routine) came about quite in reverse. Its more of a logical procession that sets were created by those that fight and want to pass what works for them on to the next generation.

"As part of a balanced diet". They were by no means the sole "food group". Conditioning, drill, et al, were very much part of the equation.

You can't escape the use of a "form" or "shape" in teaching. You were taught the form of everything you know BEFORE you actually fought. How to thow a punch, kick, grab, etc, etc, etc.

Yao Sing

12-02-2006, 11:29 AM

The problem with forms is when people start "extrapolating" from them, finding "hidden" techniques in them and worrying about whether or not they are made up (as a matter of fact, the more valid a form is for fighting, the more likely it has been "made up" by the practitioner from his fighting experiences).

But forms were "made up" by the practitioner from his fighting experiences.

SifuAbel called it exactly. I get the impression that you think forms and their content have no relation whatsoever to fighting. The truth is that forms are a compilation if fighting techniques assembled by the creator from his fighting experiences.

I would seriously question the recent crop of forms since the priority these days is Performance Fu.

With that said though there are traditional forms that the sole purpose is to drill moves and not meant to present them in an application setting. I already know you don't believe in this form of training so you can skip that rant.

lkfmdc

12-02-2006, 11:32 AM

Forms originally had to be made up by someone, they certainly didn't come to us on stone tablets from G'd

The better forms come from times and/or places where people actually used their skills to fight. IE the form made up by a fighter is a lot better than a form made up by his student's student who learned some techniques but has never had to fight with said techniques

Still, a form is just one particular collection of techniques. Jab, cross, hook is a valid string. So is jab, hook, cross. So is jab, same hand uppercut, overhand....

Yet how often in CMA do you hear arguments about "Real" forms? The sequence is the same until movement 28, then instead of turning left and doing technique X he goes into technique N....

Heck, what if all the techniques are correct but NONE of the sequences look like your sequences.... is that "fake" and is that teacher a "fraud"?

Forms have become an unnatural obsession in CMA....

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 11:32 AM

The problem with forms is when people start "extrapolating" from them, finding "hidden" techniques in them and worrying about whether or not they are made up (as a matter of fact, the more valid a form is, the more likely it has been "made up" by the practitioner).

People do tend to go over board trying to find "the hidden" in their work. But thats the basic difference between someone who is "hunting and pecking" through the set instead just understanding it as a whole. To me a set is a base ripe with improvisational potential. Not because I found "the hidden" in it. But because I see it like a muscian sees a piece of music. To the musician the piece is written to conform to a certain rythm, notes, style etc. It is the base material, either written by the musician or not. The musician can very easily change and flow with the playing because his over all understanding of music allows him to do so. He is not bound to the notes.

To me, a form is just a potential. Lines of force, eb and flow of movement. I can see pretty much any form and see whats going on. Its not a great mystery to me. To me its just a story.

The main diffenece in concept between a whole set and individual drilling of techniques is simple. Both are necessary componets in teaching. The drill teaches the individual form of the technique. The set teaches how these individual forms can come together in a possible flow.

When I fight I am not thinking of the specific sequences of the forms I know. It is after all just the base material, a foundation. The actual fight fluidly ebbs and flows. I draw upon my foundation to feed and support the fluidity. No sea is bottomless.

Knifefighter

12-02-2006, 11:37 AM

Thats another fault in your logic. The assumption that forms were created in some fanciful dream then put out in a "lets see if this works" type of condition.
All you have to do is read the posts of people who "find" techniques in forms that they have never actually used in fighting or sparring to see how common this approach is.

The creation of a set (form is individual movement a set is the routine) came about quite in reverse. Its more of a logical procession that sets were created by those that fight and want to pass what works for them on to the next generation.
That would be fine if they were taught as individual techniques and not strung together one after another into sets.

"As part of a balanced diet". They were by no means the sole "food group". Conditioning, drill, et al, were very much part of the equation.
Again, all you have to do is read the posts here to see that a large percentage of CMA practitioners probably spend at least 50% of their time doing forms.

You can't escape the use of a "form" or "shape" in teaching. You were taught the form of everything you know BEFORE you actually fought. How to thow a punch, kick, grab, etc, etc, etc.
Yes, individual techniques are learned and maybe three or four of them are learned in combinations by the beginner in an alive environment. However, it isn't long before he begins to put combinations together on his own... and never more than five or six combinations at the most.

Knifefighter

12-02-2006, 11:41 AM

Yet how often in CMA do you hear arguments about "Real" forms? The sequence is the same until movement 28, then instead of turning left and doing technique X he goes into technique N....
Heck, what if all the techniques are correct but NONE of the sequences look like your sequences.... is that "fake" and is that teacher a "fraud"?
Exactly... If anything, forms should be constantly changing based on a practitioner's fighting experience.

Knifefighter

12-02-2006, 11:42 AM

But forms were "made up" by the practitioner from his fighting experiences.
The problem is that most forms are at least three generations old.

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 11:42 AM

Yet how often in CMA do you hear arguments about "Real" forms? The sequence is the same until movement 28, then instead of turning left and doing technique X he goes into technique N....

Heck, what if all the techniques are correct but NONE of the sequences look like your sequences.... is that "fake" and is that teacher a "fraud"?

Forms have become an unnatural obsession in CMA....

I agree, it is the rediculous aspect of the politics in CMA that screws the pooch.

Knifefighter

12-02-2006, 11:44 AM

To me a set is a base ripe with improvisational potential. Not because I found "the hidden" in it. But because I see it like a muscian sees a piece of music. To the musician the piece is written to conform to a certain rythm, notes, style etc. It is the base material, either written by the musician or not. The musician can very easily change and flow with the playing because his over all understanding of music allows him to do so. He is not bound to the notes.
To me, a form is just a potential. Lines of force, eb and flow of movement. I can see pretty much any form and see whats going on.
Thats just another problem with forms. You look at it and "see" all these things about it. There is nothing to "see" without an oppoent in the equation.

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 11:45 AM

Yes, individual techniques are learned and maybe three or four of them are learned in combinations by the beginner in an alive environment. However, it isn't long before he begins to put combinations together on his own... and never more than five or six combinations at the most.

You are assuming whole forms fight just one guy. Thats not the way.

lkfmdc

12-02-2006, 11:46 AM

I've said it before, the strength of CMA is also it's weakness in many ways

In one sense, forms were meant to provide a training method in which options were presented. Avoiding obvious extremes and silliness as such, forms DO present the techniques so that there are more than one option. Pretty much in most of the sets I learned, there were 2 or 3 logical and reasonable different techniques I can do. Not 27, not the death touch, not anything secret only the "in door" can learn..

The problem is, people start to argue over the different possible interpretations, they look for stuff that isn't there, they get interpretations that are fanciful and not practical

They also often don't actually DRILL those applications, feeling that if they know the application then tht's good enough

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 11:46 AM

Thats just another problem with forms. You look at it and "see" all these things about it. There is nothing to "see" without an oppoent in the equation.

I disagree. There is nothing mystical about a block and a punch.

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 11:48 AM

They also often don't actually DRILL those applications, feeling that if they know the application then tht's good enough

Right on point. Many do go overboard. They tend to forget what the base is.

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 11:51 AM

Pretty much in most of the sets I learned, there were 2 or 3 logical and reasonable different techniques I can do. Not 27, not the death touch, not anything secret only the "in door" can learn..

Whats funny about "in the door" is that if and when you are "in the door" you realize that what you are learning is just correct basics. More BS politics that is ruining CMA in america.

The Xia

12-02-2006, 11:54 AM

The problem is that most forms are at least three generations old.
That's not the problem. What worked three generations ago will work today. Forms coherently organize the techniques of a given style. In good Kung Fu training, those techniques are taught and drilled. It becomes a problem when the person practices forms without having a clue as to the material present within them. When these people do spar, I tend to see sub par kickboxing and whacky Bruce Lee imitations.

lkfmdc

12-02-2006, 11:56 AM

Whats funny about "in the door" is that if and when you are "in the door" you realize that what you are learning is just correct basics.

That is probably a whole new thread,,,, why CMA developed a concept of teaching the mass either incorrectly or just plain sloppy only to later bring them "in the door" and only then start to teach them correctly

Whole different mentality.... my sifu a PRIME example. Why teach crap when you have good stuff? Don't you care that people who say they trained with you have utter trash?

Nope, don't care, the people who "know" know about in and out door, etc etc blah blah

But I also know a lot of people who got out of the door stuff who think they got in teh door stuff!

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 11:58 AM

When it shows up in sparring, thats a sign that they don't even have the faintest clue as to what they are doing. Where are the defenses and strikes, where is the footwork. Where is the power?
This is true cloud walking form fairy stuff.
It does happen. It IS a problem .

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 12:03 PM

But I also know a lot of people who got out of the door stuff who think they got in the door stuff!

Then the desception was complete. Its no good that the rice bag gets "boiled" before dinner.

Its the way teachers mark their student. I was luckey that my teacher only changed one or two movements slightly in order to mark the forms, etc in case of video theft. The moves themselves were incosequential in the change or just out of order. Others took it to an extreme.

Ravenshaw

12-02-2006, 01:20 PM

Some traditional teachers have this sort of "I show you the door, you walk through it" teaching method. This kind of teacher may show his students some applications, but expect them to find others by themselves and to drill and spar with them. Wing Lam used to avoid answering my questions outright. Usually, he just said "you tell me." From his point of view, once we had shown some basic facility, we should figure out what works and what doesn't on our own; he wouldn't hold our hands. If we showed the initiative to try to figure things out on our own, then he'd offer his own insight and tweak stuff for us. Similarly, Lai Hung has never offered to teach me anything other than forms. It's up to me to practice the drills and spar and then he'll come over to correct and teach me. He doesn't speak much English though, so usually he mimes something, hits me with it, and then asks if I understand.

The problem is that, without someone forcing us to drill, some do and some don't. Also, this method of teaching leads to all kinds of different interpretations and, in some cases, blatant misunderstandings. Basically, if the student only drilled enough so that he thought he knew how it all worked, and if that student opens his own school and takes students, we get a lot of the clueless guys we see today.

Obviously, this traditional method doesn't really turn out a large number of good fighters... more like a majority of bad ones and a handful of good ones. I guess the practice ethic must have been different "in the old days" when self protection was more of an issue, but when you don't have to fight all the time in the real world, you probably won't have the initiative you need to learn this way.

I learned a lot from doing San Shou as well as the limited Muay Thai and BJJ I've practiced. In order to ensure some proficiency, a core of techniques need to contantly be taught, drilled, sparred with, and tweaked. There's really no other way. And the arts that train to compete do this all the time. A good coach makes the student drill way more than they would without someone yelling at them. TMA can and do benefit from the same approach.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the forms-collectors are allowed to do so by the traditional way of teaching. If they don't drill their stuff or show interest in sparring, that's on them, right? On an individual level, yeah, but doesn't it seem important to ensure some base-level proficiency? I'm grateful to my teachers for what they've taught me, but I always wondered at this. I suppose the two methods might not be completely incompatible, though. Group classes could be run like a San Shou class, while small-group stuff might be more open-ended for intermediate and advanced students. Just letting students "figure it out" definitely doesn't produce a lot of fighters. Of course, there's more to TMA than fighting...

That's just this student's 2 cents, anyway.

Edit: god**** it, I'm long-winded. Sorry about the length, people.

lkfmdc

12-02-2006, 01:26 PM

Fantastic F-in POST, 3 thumbs up!

Some traditional teachers have this sort of "I show you the door, you walk through it" teaching method. This kind of teacher may show his students some applications, but expect them to find others by themselves and to drill and spar with them. Wing Lam used to avoid answering my questions outright. Usually, he just said "you tell me." From his point of view, once we had shown some basic facility, we should figure out what works and what doesn't on our own; he wouldn't hold our hands. If we showed the initiative to try to figure things out on our own, then he'd offer his own insight and tweak stuff for us. Similarly, Lai Hung has never offered to teach me anything other than forms. It's up to me to practice the drills and spar and then he'll come over to correct and teach me. He doesn't speak much English though, so usually he mimes something, hits me with it, and then asks if I understand.

The problem is that, without someone forcing us to drill, some do and some don't. Also, this method of teaching leads to all kinds of different interpretations and, in some cases, blatant misunderstandings. Basically, if the student only drilled enough so that he thought he knew how it all worked, and if that student opens his own school and takes students, we get a lot of the clueless guys we see today.

Obviously, this traditional method doesn't really turn out a large number of good fighters... more like a majority of bad ones and a handful of good ones. I guess the practice ethic must have been different "in the old days" when self protection was more of an issue, but when you don't have to fight all the time in the real world, you probably won't have the initiative you need to learn this way.

I learned a lot from doing San Shou as well as the limited Muay Thai and BJJ I've practiced. In order to ensure some proficiency, a core of techniques need to contantly be taught, drilled, sparred with, and tweaked. There's really no other way. And the arts that train to compete do this all the time. A good coach makes the student drill way more than they would without someone yelling at them. TMA can and do benefit from the same approach.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the forms-collectors are allowed to do so by the traditional way of teaching. If they don't drill their stuff or show interest in sparring, that's on them, right? On an individual level, yeah, but doesn't it seem important to ensure some base-level proficiency? I'm grateful to my teachers for what they've taught me, but I always wondered at this. I suppose the two methods might not be completely incompatible, though. Group classes could be run like a San Shou class, while small-group stuff might be more open-ended for intermediate and advanced students. Just letting students "figure it out" definitely doesn't produce a lot of fighters. Of course, there's more to TMA than fighting...

That's just this student's 2 cents, anyway.

Edit: god**** it, I'm long-winded. Sorry about the length, people.

YouKnowWho

12-02-2006, 01:38 PM

why CMA developed a concept of teaching the mass either incorrectly or just plain sloppy only to later bring them "in the door" and only then start to teach them correctly
I don't think teacher will need to do that. Even if a teacher teaches his students 100% correct movement but if his student don't spend enough time to work on it then that movement still won't work for his students. If his students do spend time and make it work for them then the teacher would love to have them as one of his "biting dogs".

A. Dear teacher! I just beat up 1 BJJ guy, 2 MMA guys, and 3 Muay Thai guys yesterday by the move that you taught me the day before.
B. Excellent! You can skip your tuition for the next 6 months. But I do have a small favor to ask.
A. What's that? Dear teacher?
B. Tonight, I want you to kick down that TKD school 3 blocks from here. Just don't let them know that I send you over.

lkfmdc

12-02-2006, 02:00 PM

I don't think teacher will need to do that. Even if a teacher teaches his students 100% correct movement but if his student don't spend enough time to work on it then that movement still won't work for his students. If his students do spend time and make it work for them then the teacher would love to have them as one of his "biting dogs".

I think a lot of teachers pick the "in the door" based upon who is the dog (and who is the prey). By this I think that many teachers gave the ones with potential all the attention while teaching pretty much crap to the rest....

I think this was prevelent, I aslo think it was WRONG ethically and morally

YouKnowWho

12-02-2006, 02:03 PM

"find" techniques in forms that they have never actually used in fighting or sparring.
If that form was created when the form creater was in his old age than that may be possible. For example, a combo such as a side kick followed by an elbow strike may look good in form demo but may not be effective in combat.

David Jamieson

12-02-2006, 02:20 PM

there is an onus on the student as well.

Teacher is there to teach and student is there to learn.
Most learn by doing. If student is not practicing whatt hey are taught, they stagnate their own progress. Teacher can recognize this because it is obvious.

So, what is wrong with not wanting to waste time with those who refuse to practice on their own and instead use lesson time for reiterative practice?

Those who do not practice do not move forward more from their own inaction than of the sifu not taking them forward. If you are not ready to move ahead, imo, it is an error to continue anyway. It degrades the art and doesn't improve the student at all.

The Xia

12-02-2006, 02:23 PM

There are places out there that don't teach applications regardless of the student's ability, attitude, etc.

David Jamieson

12-02-2006, 02:30 PM

maybe so.

but if you do not want that, then don't go there. :)

patient: doctor it hurts everytime i do this.

doctor: then don't do that.

:D

The Xia

12-02-2006, 02:38 PM

Unfortunately, these types of places, and far worse, clog the martial arts scene. There are some areas where a decent martial arts studio is rare or nonexistent.

YouKnowWho

12-02-2006, 02:48 PM

There are places out there that don't teach applications regardless of the student's ability, attitude, etc.
I have met many Taiji people in California. They can't care less about application. Everytime I want to discuss Taiji application with them, they looked at me like I came from another planet. Sometime I really don't know if they are the minority or we are.

David Jamieson

12-02-2006, 04:26 PM

Good martial arts are rare. That's why they are good.
Where there is a void of information, people will do their utmost to fill it, even if it means not having completeness or even correctness. It's human nature to do so.

Due dilligence is required in the western buy and sell market of everything. Heck, it's required anywhere. If you don't know, it's best to know that you don't know.
Or you may very well end up with rex kwon do. :p (that rhymed!)

You can't legislate against stupidity anymore than you can blame a hawk for killing a rat.

there's a two way street. If it's acceptable for people to remain gullible, then it has to be expected that they will be preyed upon by all sorts of people.

Not that I support fraudulent martial arts dissemination, I think the act of doing that is dubious, but at the same time, i can't be bothered with pointing it out all the time. More often than not it's self evident at this point.

Yao Sing

12-02-2006, 05:35 PM

That would be fine if they were taught as individual techniques and not strung together one after another into sets.

I'm not following you here. What exactly is the problem with multiple techniques strung together? Just because they're in a certain order in the forms does not mean they always have stay in that order or progression.

Of course I'm an advocate of mix and match and creating your own forms. Once you get a handle on a system you should be able put them together as needed depending on the situation. Some combos are best left together since sometimes the initial move is a set up for teh following moves.

Most of the CMA Masters can put sequences together with smooth transitions on the spot. Quite a few do just that whenever tehy perform. Isn't that what you do when you fight, string moves together depending on what the situation (your opponent) call for?

The problem is that most forms are at least three generations old.

Again, I'm not following. Do you think newer forms would have more value? As I mentioned I think the newer ones would be suspect since a lot of focus is on Performance Fu these days.

Most likely the older stuff would have more realistic fighting combos and apps since they come from they days when they were used more often.

I know you're extremely anti-forms but in all your posts I still haven't figured out what it is that you think is wrong, other than thinking that time could be spent on something you feel is more productive. In that case you're right. You should do what you feel is productive for yourself. To each his own.

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 06:48 PM

Most of the CMA Masters can put sequences together with smooth transitions on the spot. Quite a few do just that whenever tehy perform. Isn't that what you do when you fight, string moves together depending on what the situation (your opponent) call for?

Right, Like a musician that knows his instrument. One should be able to know what works in what range and what are the outcomes of their movement.

ALA youknowwho's side kick and elbow example. The elbow wouldn't work since you'd be out of range after the side kick. This is evident to anyone who is keen to all the mechanics of their techniques.

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 06:57 PM

SanHeChuan

12-02-2006, 07:42 PM

The applications aren't always what they appear to be.
In the form it may look like a strike combo, simple.
But when shown the application it's a grab, break, throw. WTF?

It's like looking at a painting, and trying to guess what the artist was trying to express. You know what you feel when you see it, but is that what they intended. Only the artist knows.

The movements in the form represent a principal of movement, abstract like an artist painting. And from that Ideal, that concept, many interpretations of application can be seen.

Everyone sees the painting different. The only one who can tell you the way it was intended, is the artist, or the holder of his knowledge, Your Teacher.

If you have to find you own interpretation look to others arts for inspiration, but don't be surprised when your art starts looking like something else.

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 07:54 PM

It is on the student to dig deeper. Although , a break and throw would be much more involved than a simple block and punch.

SanHeChuan

12-02-2006, 08:26 PM

Even the simple block strike isn't always easy to see, and some times you have to see the application before you can even do the movement right.

How deep am I suppose to dig? The block or the throw?

SPJ

12-02-2006, 09:51 PM

If that form was created when the form creater was in his old age than that may be possible. For example, a combo such as a side kick followed by an elbow strike may look good in form demo but may not be effective in combat.

it is usually followed by a backfist or hammer fist (Fan Za or Za Quan) with your lead hand.

:D

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 10:52 PM

Even the simple block strike isn't always easy to see, and some times you have to see the application before you can even do the movement right.

How deep am I suppose to dig? The block or the throw?

I think you are missing the point. This goes back to the essence thread. What is the essence of your style?

How deep? All the way. The block or the throw? Both if you can wrap your head around it.

Follow the lines, your opponent only has 4 limbs. its not that hard.

A better exercise is to give an example. What did you think was just a block and punch that turned into a break and throw? And, what did you think the simple block and punch you didn't see was?

This goes way deeper than trying to decipher a form. Its an understanding of movement. To go back to the muscial anology, You are either playing chopsticks, learning "stairway"in the garage or jamming on stage.

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 10:54 PM

Even the simple block strike isn't always easy to see, and some times you have to see the application before you can even do the movement right.

How deep am I suppose to dig? The block or the throw?

I think you are missing the point. This goes back to the essence thread. What is the essence of your style?

How deep? All the way. The block or the throw? Both if you can wrap your head around it.

Follow the lines, your opponent only has 4 limbs. Its not that hard.

A better exercise is to give an example. What did you think was just a block and punch that turned into a break and throw? And, what did you think the simple block and punch you didn't see was?

This goes way deeper than trying to decipher a form. Its an understanding of movement. To go back to the muscial anology, You are either playing chopsticks, learning "stairway"in the garage or jamming on stage.

lkfmdc

12-02-2006, 10:57 PM

so, are you saying that this is "missing the point"? :D

SifuAbel

12-02-2006, 11:01 PM

I missed the point about you posting about is "this" missing the point. :rolleyes:

YouKnowWho

12-02-2006, 11:50 PM

The applications aren't always what they appear to be. In the form it may look like a strike combo, simple. But when shown the application it's a grab, break, throw. WTF?
I have heard this theory from many people before but none of them could convince me on this. The principles applied in throwing and striking are complete different. Throwing usually require

- 2 points to 3 points contact, along with
- Body bending, raising, or spinning (this also require maximum head twisting which end with you are looking away from your opponent), and
- Usually end with single leg balance.

which is quite different from the striking requirement. There is no way that a form creator could create any throwing combo without following these guide lines. A friend of mine tried to interpret most of the moves in his forms as throwing moves and later found out it just didn't work on the wrestling map because the “intent – extreme body commitment on body bending, or spinning” was missing in the form. If you spin your body and you are still look at your opponent then you are not doing your maximum spinning. By examing where your eyes focus on should be the easiest way to judge whether a move is a throw or a strike.

No intent -> no maximum rotation power -> throwing won't work.

If we use our

- "Common sense" to interpret the forms then the truth should not be too far away.
- "Imagination" to interpret the forms then we may lead ourselves into a world that's far away from reality.

SPJ

12-03-2006, 07:49 AM

If we use our

- "Common sense" to interpret the forms then the truth should not be too far away.
- "Imagination" to interpret the forms then we may lead ourselves into a world that's far away from reality.

excellent post.

:)

SanHeChuan

12-03-2006, 10:28 AM

The forms don't look exactly like the application. The movements have been slightly modified, either A) to hide the true application from the casual observer, or B) to make the form more ascetically pleasing.

In the form it may look like you block and strike one guy then turn to face a new direction and block a new guy.

But you could have grabbed, broke the first guy, and the threw him with the turn and block.

Their are plenty of throws in forms, but not every movement is a throw. And they certainly don't look like wrestling throws, like double legs. The tend to rely of joint locks, etc... and require less leverage to execute them.

Yao Sing

12-03-2006, 11:22 AM

The forms don't look exactly like the application. The movements have been slightly modified, either A) to hide the true application from the casual observer, or B) to make the form more ascetically pleasing.

I'm not so sure I buy into that. It has always bugged me when the app doesn't look like the form. Either the app is wrong or the form is wrong. I don't think forms were purposely modified to hide the apps.

Maybe for public performance but certainly not when teaching your students.

YouKnowWho

12-03-2006, 11:53 AM

The forms don't look exactly like the application.
In another forum people argue whether Taiji has the same kind of "shoulder throw" as Judo does. Because Taiji is so abstract and can be intepreted in many different ways. To me, it's the transition that define Shenfa. It's the Shenfa thaining that make a move work and not the ending posture.

onyomi

12-03-2006, 01:12 PM

I'm not so sure I buy into that. It has always bugged me when the app doesn't look like the form. Either the app is wrong or the form is wrong. I don't think forms were purposely modified to hide the apps.

Maybe for public performance but certainly not when teaching your students.

This is somewhat true with PM, but not really true for LF. PM forms generally don't try to hide the applications, though there are sometimes extra applications hidden within them that may take some thought or guidance to find. LF forms on the other hand are usually performed in a very extended fashion that isn't very realistic. They also will include high-flying kick combinations designed to increase strength, agility and coordination, but which you wouldn't likely use as-is in a fight. This serves a training purpose (train long, use short) and also is designed to hide the applications from casual observers. Longfist forms are full of qinna and throws, but unless you've got a lot of experience (as Youknowwho does), they look mostly like a bunch of striking and pretty poses.

PM doesn't really hide apps like this, which is why LF people often learn PM in order to understand how to use their LF. LF can be formidable on its own, but you either have to be very smart or have a generous and patient teacher to show you everything. Does that make PM "better" than LF? That's a value judgement depending on your priorities in studying martial arts.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:04 PM

You are assuming whole forms fight just one guy. Thats not the way.
Forms for fighting mutliple opponents are even more ridiculous than forms for fighting a single person.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:06 PM

I've said it before, the strength of CMA is also it's weakness in many ways... forms DO present the techniques so that there are more than one option.
... and, hence, another problem with forms. Without an opponent in the equation, there are no options. A technique practiced in the air is just a technique done in the air. There is no application until you put an opponent into the equation.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:09 PM

It becomes a problem when the person practices forms without having a clue as to the material present within them. .
The problem begins when the person practices forms before he learns how to fight

lkfmdc

12-03-2006, 07:12 PM

Forms for fighting mutliple opponents are even more ridiculous than forms for fighting a single person.

are you possibly saying that I've wasted time developing deadly techniques like this?

http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/voice/img/TaekwondoScissorKick3.jpg

say it isn't so! :eek: :o :mad: :confused: :o :eek:

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:12 PM

This is somewhat true with PM, but not really true for LF. PM forms generally don't try to hide the applications, though there are sometimes extra applications hidden within them that may take some thought or guidance to find. .
Only in pretend, theoretical fighting can applications be hidden.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:16 PM

Whole different mentality.... my sifu a PRIME example. Why teach crap when you have good stuff? Don't you care that people who say they trained with you have utter trash?
Nope, don't care, the people who "know" know about in and out door, etc etc blah blah
But I also know a lot of people who got out of the door stuff who think they got in teh door stuff!
If you have a system that constantly tests itself, you can't teach crap. Can you imagine trying to teach your fighters "pretend" techniques. Even beginners would figure out pretty fast that those techs don't work.

lkfmdc

12-03-2006, 07:16 PM

Only in pretend, theoretical fighting can applications be hidden.

At the risk of sounding like an ex-president, it depends what you mean by "hidden"

In many TMA places, ALL the material is technically "hidden" because anything approaching practical application is totally absent...

I was in a certain school where a movement which was clearly a set up for a standing arm bar was instead taught as nothing more than blocking a punch... in this case, the application was "hidden"...

if by "hidden" you mean "blow up a chicken at 30 paces with a special chi blast" then OK I agree completely :D

lkfmdc

12-03-2006, 07:22 PM

If you have a system that constantly tests itself, you can't teach crap. Can you imagine trying to teach your fighters "pretend" techniques. Even beginners would figure out pretty fast that those techs don't work.

Traditionally speaking, ie the "old days" you have both YES and NO

In the "old days" at least the teacher himself had to know something real and be able to fight. That was because there was always the threat of a challenge.

But, unfortunately, Confucian ethics, Asian culture, do not question the teacher, patience, in time you will understand, blah blah, hype hype, beg, grovel bow etc and teachers got away with teaching crap, ie NOT what they used in their challenges. to MOST of the students

It's said to see this mentallity attaching itself to perfectly logical modern North Americans who shop for cars, look for the best cell phone deals, etc but still accept absurd assertions when it comes from a "master"

In theory, the sports, the alive, the competitive, the MMA schools have to teach effective stuff becuase how are you gonna wrestle, roll, spar and compete with crap?

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:22 PM

I guess the practice ethic must have been different "in the old days" when self protection was more of an issue, but when you don't have to fight all the time in the real world, you probably won't have the initiative you need to learn this way.
I doubt much real fighting occured "back in the day". If it really was that common, it would be ingrained into the system. Systems that really had fighting "back in the day" have all kept that key value alive by incorporating some kind of continunous live testing methods, such as competition- i.e. fencing, kendo, wrestling, BJJ, Judo, Sambo, Muay Thai, and boxing.

A system that is based on fighting will always find a way to keep the fighting as an integral part of that system. If your system doesn't have some kind of competitive "fighting" outlet, the chances are, it didn't have much fighting in the first place.

lkfmdc

12-03-2006, 07:24 PM

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:26 PM

At the risk of sounding like an ex-president, it depends what you mean by "hidden".I n many TMA places, ALL the material is technically "hidden" because anything approaching practical application is totally absent...
I was in a certain school where a movement which was clearly a set up for a standing arm bar was instead taught as nothing more than blocking a punch... in this case, the application was "hidden"...
if by "hidden" you mean "blow up a chicken at 30 paces with a special chi blast" then OK I agree completely :D
When it comes to real applications, there is no hidden. The word has no meaning and is completely irrellevant to fighting. You cannot have a hidden technique. It is either there or it isn't. In the case of the standing arm bar, there is no technique until the opponent is there.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 07:26 PM

Forms for fighting mutliple opponents are even more ridiculous than forms for fighting a single person.

Thats not it either. :rolleyes:

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 07:28 PM

if by "hidden" you mean "blow up a chicken at 30 paces with a special chi blast" then OK I agree completely :D

LOL!! RPFL Standing ovation!!!!

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:29 PM

Even if a teacher teaches his students 100% correct movement but if his student don't spend enough time to work on it then that movement still won't work for his students.
Wrestling, BJJ, MMA, Sambo, Judo, boxing, and Muay Thai coaches don't expect their athletes to develop their skills on their own. That is what training is for.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 07:32 PM

When it comes to real applications, there is no hidden. The word has no meaning and is completely irrellevant to fighting. You cannot have a hidden technique. It is either there or it isn't. In the case of the standing arm bar, there is no technique until the opponent is there.

And you spontaneously learned everything you know about fighting in the first second you fought someone? Without being taught how? Amazing....

All this circular logic is making me dizzy.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:33 PM

For example, a combo such as a side kick followed by an elbow strike may look good in form demo but may not be effective in combat.
Then by practicing it in forms, you are teaching yourself to be a worse fighter, rather than a better one.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:34 PM

In theory, the sports, the alive, the competitive, the MMA schools have to teach effective stuff becuase how are you gonna wrestle, roll, spar and compete with crap?
Exactly... that's what weeds it out.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:36 PM

Lei Tai, Shuai Jiao competition, San Shou, San Da.... lineages that had real fighting "back in the day" tend to still do this stuff, the obvious question is

.... why is that only about 5% (or LESS) of CMA out there today??????
Because it was probably only 5% or less who did it in the first place.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 07:36 PM

If your system doesn't have some kind of competitive "fighting" outlet, the chances are, it didn't have much fighting in the first place.

True, next!! You got anything else? You've used this tired old 45 record for almost any point made on this thread.

The oulet doesn't supercede anything. To create global walls of separation is articifial and self serving. IE if you do forms , you don't fight. Its not true for everyone.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 07:37 PM

Then by practicing it in forms, you are teaching yourself to be a worse fighter, rather than a better one.

DuH!!!!!!!!!!!! you realize you are (mis)quoting a fighting CMAer

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:40 PM

And you spontaneously learned everything you know about fighting in the first second you fought someone?
No... in alive styles, you are taught a technique and almost instantly perform it either with an opponent present or against some type of equipment. Very shortly thereafter, you practice this technique with progressively more and more resistance. You don't string together techniques until you have practiced the individual techniques many times against both opponents and equipment.

Most CMA is the opposite.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:42 PM

Teacher is there to teach and student is there to learn.Most learn by doing. If student is not practicing whatt hey are taught, they stagnate their own progress. Teacher can recognize this because it is obvious.
So, what is wrong with not wanting to waste time with those who refuse to practice on their own and instead use lesson time for reiterative practice?
Other than supplemental strength and conditioning, most good fighters in alive systems don’t train on their own. Effective time spent in the training facility is what makes them effective fighters.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:42 PM

Good martial arts are rare.
No they aren’t. There are tons of really good BJJ, MMA, Judo, boxing, Muay Thai and wrestling programs all over the place.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 07:42 PM

No... in alive styles, you are taught a technique and almost instantly perform it either with an opponent present or against some type of equipment. Very shortly thereafter, you practice this technique with progressively more and more resistance. You don't string together techniques until you have practiced the individual techniques many times against both opponents and equipment.

Most CMA is the opposite.

No, you've described technique drills. Something of which exists in EVERY school I have ever seen EVER. Again, its circular, self serving, in and out burger, logic. The myopia thing is getting old.

The Xia

12-03-2006, 07:43 PM

I doubt much real fighting occured "back in the day". If it really was that common, it would be ingrained into the system. Systems that really had fighting "back in the day" have all kept that key value alive by incorporating some kind of continunous live testing methods, such as competition- i.e. fencing, kendo, wrestling, BJJ, Judo, Sambo, Muay Thai, and boxing.

A system that is based on fighting will always find a way to keep the fighting as an integral part of that system. If your system doesn't have some kind of competitive "fighting" outlet, the chances are, it didn't have much fighting in the first place.
That's not true. Look into traditional lineages. TCMA history is filled with life and death combat. The fact that some today don't drill techniques and only practice forms without understanding the material within them doesn't discredit the style that those people claim to do.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 07:46 PM

The fact that some today don't drill techniques and only practice forms without understanding the material within them doesn't discredit the style that those people claim to do.

You sure about that? Lets have a poll. Maybe in a wushu school.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:46 PM

DuH!!!!!!!!!!!! you realize you are (mis)quoting a fighting CMAer
I have no idea who that is. If it is someone with fighting credentials, why be anonymous?

Until proven otherwise, I can only assume that it is someone who spends time analyzing forms instead of fighting... at least based on his posts.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:47 PM

The oulet doesn't supercede anything. To create global walls of separation is articifial and self serving. IE if you do forms , you don't fight. Its not true for everyone.
That's not my point at all. I don't claim that someone who does forms doesn't necessarily fight. My stance is that that person could spend their time more effectively.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 07:48 PM

That's not my point at all. I don't claim that someone who does forms doesn't necessarily fight. My stance is that that person could spend their time more effectively.

What? jumping rope? :rolleyes:

The Xia

12-03-2006, 07:50 PM

You sure about that? Lets have a poll. Maybe in a wushu school.
There are schools under Kung Fu (and other TMA) banners that do this. You have never seen one?

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 07:50 PM

I have no idea who that is. If it is someone with fighting credentials, why be anonymous?

Until proven otherwise, I can only assume that it is someone who spends time analyzing forms instead of fighting... at least based on his posts.

tsk tsk tsk, its all lost on you, isn't it. Read slower. read more. It seems you read the post as you quote them in your reply.

laterz

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:51 PM

No, you've described technique drills. Something of which exists in EVERY school I have ever seen EVER. Again, its circular, self serving, in and out burger, logic. The myopia thing is getting old.
How long before a beginning CMA student hits something with full force?
What percentage of each class time does he spend doing techniques in the air?
How long before he drills these technique against a live opponent?
How long before he takes these technique drills and spars with them?

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 07:52 PM

There are schools under Kung Fu (and other TMA) banners that do this. You have never seen one?

I'm not intersested in other TMA banners. Schools that don't go over the fundamentals of their technique? yeah wushu.

I guess I'm from a by gone age.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:55 PM

I'm not following you here. What exactly is the problem with multiple techniques strung together? Just because they're in a certain order in the forms does not mean they always have stay in that order or progression.
That’s not the way fighting happens. At the most you will manage to pull off five or six combinations at a time and the average is closer to two or three.

Again, I'm not following. Do you think newer forms would have more value? Newer forms coming from a constant testing environment would have more value. Paradoxically, if this were the case, forms would probably cease to exist in any meaningful way. Systems in which participants regularly test themselves against others have pretty much figured out that forms are inefficient and have pretty much done away with them.

The Xia

12-03-2006, 07:56 PM

I'm not intersested in other TMA banners. Schools that don't go over the fundamentals of their technique? yeah wushu.

I guess I'm from a by gone age.
I'm not saying that this practice is good martial arts. Read the first post of this thread.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:56 PM

Right, Like a musician that knows his instrument. One should be able to know what works in what range and what are the outcomes of their movement.
ALA youknowwho's side kick and elbow example. The elbow wouldn't work since you'd be out of range after the side kick. This is evident to anyone who is keen to all the mechanics of their techniques.
People who fight know that there are very few predictable outcomes from a specific movement. One might throw a side kick and knock his opponent down… or his opponent might catch the kick and throw on a heel hook… or his opponent might step back and counter with a kick of his own… or his opponent might jam the kick and follow with a punch or takedown… etc, etc, etc…

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 07:58 PM

onyomi

12-03-2006, 07:58 PM

Wrestling, BJJ, MMA, Sambo, Judo, boxing, and Muay Thai coaches don't expect their athletes to develop their skills on their own. That is what training is for.

Wrestling, BJJ, MMA, Sambo, Judo, boxing, and Muay Thai coaches are nicer than CMA teachers. ;)

Seriously, it wouldn't make sense for them not to have known how to fight "back in the day" because the usual occupation for a martial artist was bodyguard. Forms are just like very long shadow-boxing routines with various training goals in mind. They're only meant to take up like 20% of your time at most. The rest is for solo drills, pair drills, conditioning, bag work, etc. My Taiwanese teacher said that "back in the day" (when he was first training about 45 years ago) he and his classmates would spend at least half their time on jiaoshou (Praying Mantis version of push hands that doesn't require you maintain contact with the opponent). It's not a full-contact death match, but it is pressure testing.

People have gotten the mistaken impression that CMA training is all forms because they're easy to teach and look pretty. Modern people like to study forms because they're more fun and you don't have to touch people. This leads to a drastic drop in fighting ability over time as even people who could never fight but only do a good form will start teaching.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 07:59 PM

1.How long before a beginning CMA student hits something with full force?
2.What percentage of each class time does he spend doing techniques in the air?
3.How long before he drills these technique against a live opponent?
4.How long before he takes these technique drills and spars with them?

1. "something" I'm assuming is a pad , bag etc. , First week. maybe even first day depending on who it is and what they know.

2., 3. and 4. are relative questions. The 2. percentages drop dramatically toward 3 and 4 as the student progress' though the first few months. Again depending on who they are and what they are capable of.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 08:02 PM

Follow the lines, your opponent only has 4 limbs. Its not that hard.
If it were just a matter of understanding the movement and having only four limbs to work with, anyone with a background in another art could simply jump in and master a new system immediately.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 08:03 PM

People who fight know that there are very few predictable outcomes from a specific movement. One might throw a side kick and knock his opponent down… or his opponent might catch the kick and throw on a heel hook… or his opponent might step back and counter with a kick of his own… or his opponent might jam the kick and follow with a punch or takedown… etc, etc, etc…

And he'd still be out of range for that elbow, spin doctor in da house. Its just a combo, IF is the middle word in life. You play "what If" every day of the week, so what?

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 08:03 PM

It is on the student to dig deeper. Although , a break and throw would be much more involved than a simple block and punch.
If the student has to go searing for it, it is a heck of an inefficienct training method.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 08:03 PM

If it were just a matter of understanding the movement and having only four limbs to work with, anyone with a background in another art could simply jump in and master a new system immediately.

If zebras were black they'd have white stripes. :rolleyes:

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 08:05 PM

If the student has to go searing for it, it is a heck of an inefficienct training method.

True, that school isn't teaching the student that the fight is not a dream at the ends of his fingers.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 08:05 PM

1. "something" I'm assuming is a pad , bag etc. , First week. maybe even first day depending on who it is and what they know.

2., 3. and 4. are relative questions. The 2. percentages drop dramatically toward 3 and 4 as the student progress' though the first few months. Again depending on who they are and what they are capable of.
In live, competitive programs these things happen much faster and they are not relative.

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 08:06 PM

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 08:08 PM

OH LORD!! Do I have to do this again.

Relative does not mean relevant.

rel·a·tive /ˈrɛlətɪv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rel-uh-tiv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

2. something having, or standing in, some relation to something else.

5. considered in relation to something else; comparative: the relative merits of democracy and monarchy.
6. existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent: Happiness is relative.
7. having relation or connection.
8. having reference or regard; relevant; pertinent (usually fol. by to): to determine the facts relative to an accident.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 08:09 PM

In live, competitive programs these things happen much faster and they are not relative.

I suppose they hit something BEFORE they join the school? :rolleyes:

Knifefighter

12-03-2006, 08:10 PM

Seriously, it wouldn't make sense for them not to have known how to fight "back in the day" because the usual occupation for a martial artist was bodyguard.
Bodyguards more than likely had access to weapons and these are what they would have used. Additionally, they more than likely would have worked in conjunction with at least another person.

It's like modern police. They have access to weapons and they work with backup. Police may fight quite often as part of their jobs, but most police unarmed combat training is far from being an effective close quarter fighting sytstem outside of the constraints of their job.

SifuAbel

12-03-2006, 08:13 PM

Dude, give it up. As far as form work is concerned you are, pardon the pun, in a small minority here.

You want to go use your time effectively? Stop spinning your wheels here. You're not convincing anybody that has used form work to their betterment that its not effective conditioning. Experience it first then come back and comment.

Knifefighter

12-04-2006, 07:41 AM

You want to go use your time effectively? Stop spinning your wheels here. You're not convincing anybody that has used form work to their betterment that its not effective conditioning. Experience it first then come back and comment.
LOL... very true. Posting here is the equivalent of doing forms. At least I don't expect to get any results from my time wasting.

BruceSteveRoy

12-04-2006, 08:24 AM

i only read to about the 3rd page but i wanted to offer my opinion on what i had read there. sorry if this is way off topic by this point. Knifefighter makes a valid point. i don't agree with it but it is perfectly valid. some of the best fighters i know got that way by getting into a lot of fights. they don't know the 1st thing about MA. its like a musician who never takes lessons and learns to play by ear.
the way i look at forms though is that for the average person that comes into a school to learn to defend themselves they dont know what they are doing. if they knew what they were doing they wouldn't need classes. forms are merely a way of packing a lot of information into a pattern so that you can remember the most techniques. its like when kids learn the alphabet. if you try to teach the average child the alphabet without the alphabet song it is nearly impossible. however the song makes it a relatively easy task. the forms are like that. they teach basic concepts all strung together so that they can be remembered. are they intended to be used in a real fight exactly like they are in the form? of course not. thats unrealistic. but the benefit for the average person from doing forms can be tremendous. it helps with coordination, speed, endurance, and technique. it is up to a good instuctor to teach application since some may not naturally be intuitive to all people. i think eventually the goal is to think less about form and more about application but in the beginning i thnk form is important.

Yao Sing

12-04-2006, 09:45 AM

That’s not the way fighting happens. At the most you will manage to pull off five or six combinations at a time and the average is closer to two or three.

I'm not going to bother telling you that nobody thinks real fights happen exactly like a form becaue you know that. Why to you keep taking things to the extreme?

I really think you do this just to argue. I personally don't expect to pull off 5 or 6, I hope for 3 or 4 myself. But that doesn't invalidat forms. I could conceivably use every move or combo in a form in a fight but it wouldn't be in the order they are in the form. But I will use those combos and individual moves.

See, tell me again why putting them all together is bad? Why is practicing them in a sequence bad?

Is it better if I mix them up in a random string? Still doesn't mean they'll work that way in a fight. Since I don't know what sequence I'll use ahead of time how can I practice?

Newer forms coming from a constant testing environment would have more value.

I doubt that since there aren't a lot of peeps around these days that fight for real on a regular basis (not talking sport). Anything created nowadays would be based on sport experience or control with backup (police, military, bouncers).

I suppose they hit something BEFORE they join the school? :rolleyes:

Give it up. Can't you tell that no matter what you say his is bigger, longer, newer, better, faster, etc. You know, like trolls do.

Bodyguards more than likely had access to weapons and these are what they would have used. Additionally, they more than likely would have worked in conjunction with at least another person.

Weapons yes, but it's my understanding that quite a few worked alone. Just like the old west, hired guns tend to travel alone. Guess that's why weapons are so prevelant in CMA and start at an early stage.

Yao Sing

12-04-2006, 09:59 AM

I think I know why China closed it'self off to the rest of the world for so long. It's because they had the perfect society. No rape, no murder, no robberies. Everyone was kind to their neighbors and strangers.

There was no need to fight, ever. Kung Fu Masters never challenged each other because they would put on such a scary display of skill they were afraid.

So that's how Kung Fu dance was passed down to future generations who have the mistaken idea that it's about real fighting.

Boy are we ever stupid.

SPJ

12-04-2006, 10:24 AM

In another forum people argue whether Taiji has the same kind of "shoulder throw" as Judo does. Because Taiji is so abstract and can be intepreted in many different ways. To me, it's the transition that define Shenfa. It's the Shenfa thaining that make a move work and not the ending posture.

excellent point.

:)

SPJ

12-04-2006, 10:30 AM

The problem begins when the person practices forms before he learns how to fight

you start with stances or postures. (Xing)

then some movements/stepping methods. (Bu Fa)

some hand methods. (Shou Fa)

then drilling of them over and over.

short comb string together. practice over and over.

the apps are fully explored with a partner.

when do you learn forms? may be much and much later.

nobody learns to do forms on the day 1.

:)

SPJ

12-04-2006, 10:34 AM

forms are not 3 generations old.

forms are dynamically changed all the time. becoming shorter to focus on single theme. becoming longer to incorporate new stuffs.

even Wushu forms evolve, too.

Wushu Tai Chi.

Wushu Ba Gua.

Wushu Ba Ji. etc they all "morphs".

each posture/move, yes may be very old. there are new derivatives of the old, variants of the old, etc.

there can be new postures entirely, too.

--

:)

Knifefighter

12-04-2006, 11:00 AM

See, tell me again why putting them all together is bad? Why is practicing them in a sequence bad?
Because you are reinforcing motor patterns in an order that probably won't be done in a fight. During the adrenaline dump of the fight, it becomes confusing to separate those ingrained sequences and use ones that are more appropriate. When you have movements that are likely to be changed each time they happen, it is much better to learn and practice much shorter sequences.

Knifefighter

12-04-2006, 11:11 AM

you start with stances or postures. (Xing)

then some movements/stepping methods. (Bu Fa)

some hand methods. (Shou Fa)

then drilling of them over and over.

short comb string together. practice over and over.
Is this done in the air, with a partner, or with some type of equipment?

the apps are fully explored with a partner.
Is the partner providing resistance ?

BruceSteveRoy

12-04-2006, 11:54 AM

Yao Sing

12-04-2006, 12:59 PM

BruceSteveRoy
Good response, Pretty much what I was going to say.

One thing for me though is I have a tendancy the think different than most but it comes from my personal experiences so I prefer to stick with what I know rather than follow the flock.

One thing I don't agree with is the notion of being a slave to muscle memory. Back in my Karate days I heard people say if you hold back when you practice sparring you will automatically hold back in a real fight.

Personally this has never been a problem. I sparred light to medium contact in class yet swung for the fence in my real fights. I never had a problem going all out in a fight no matter what my training entailed. Apparently this is a problem for others.

That's why I don't like these generalizations. There's alway a few peeps that just don't fit the mold.

Another thing is KF keeps arguing as if nobody ever practices anything but forms even though he's been told over and over that's not true.

I've practiced form a lot and trained at a predominately forms school and I can still pull out moves and combos to work on independantly of the form. It's really not that hard and should be done (although it appears that most everyone is doing this).

So rather than rely on the argument that forms alone are insufficient (strawman) mayube you can explain more of the negative impact. Like I said, form work has not locked me into form sequence. Half the time I mix my forms up anyhow putting sequences together from multiple forms just because I feel like doing it that way.

If I was locked into a specific sequence it would take concentration to force myself change the sequence yet I do it mindlessly (in fact the more mindless the better it flows).

When personal experience conflicts with the advice of others most go with personal experince.

WinterPalm

12-04-2006, 04:40 PM

No... in alive styles, you are taught a technique and almost instantly perform it either with an opponent present or against some type of equipment. Very shortly thereafter, you practice this technique with progressively more and more resistance. You don't string together techniques until you have practiced the individual techniques many times against both opponents and equipment.

Sorry to interject...
The above quote is exactly how we train in my TCMA school. Sometimes we don't even do a technique in the air for awhile and just jump into training with partners increasing the speed and force of the technique. Sparring starts slow and more and more resistance is applied.

There, no more MMA vs CMA vs ...

SevenStar

12-04-2006, 04:51 PM

One thing I don't agree with is the notion of being a slave to muscle memory. Back in my Karate days I heard people say if you hold back when you practice sparring you will automatically hold back in a real fight.

Personally this has never been a problem. I sparred light to medium contact in class yet swung for the fence in my real fights. I never had a problem going all out in a fight no matter what my training entailed. Apparently this is a problem for others.

That's why I don't like these generalizations. There's alway a few peeps that just don't fit the mold.

I've seen it happen to people as well. A few people that break the mold doesn't render the majority moot. fact of the matter is that it happens.

Another thing is KF keeps arguing as if nobody ever practices anything but forms even though he's been told over and over that's not true.

by the admission of people on this forum and others, there are schools like that. perhaps it is those schools he has issue with. If yours isn't one of those schools, then perhaps he isn't addressing you?

YouKnowWho

12-04-2006, 04:54 PM

If you dig deep enough into forms then you may find some interest questions that you may not have answers for yourself. For example, Why

- WC forms did not include footwork?
- WC Pon Shou expose elbow?
- Taiji Pen, Lu, Gi, An did not include hooking leg and footwork?
- Bagua circle walking cross legs?
- XingYin 1/2 stepping move leading leg 1st?
- Baiji wraps your opponent's arm, strike his groin, knee his chest, and then throw him?
- LF kick right leg and punch left arm at the same time?
- LF uses back leg for side kick?
- SC form 1 - 4 has only arms movement and no legs movement, form 5 - 6 has only legs movement and no arms movement?

The answer for the last question is simple, "Since beginner may have difficulty to coordinate both arms and legs at the same time, the forms creator designed his forms to meet the beginners need". If you agree with me on this assumption then the conclusion that you may draw from this may be, "If you train your forms just the way as you have learned then you may just treat yourself as beginner for the rest of your life".

SevenStar

12-04-2006, 05:02 PM

I'm not going to bother telling you that nobody thinks real fights happen exactly like a form becaue you know that. Why to you keep taking things to the extreme?

Not true. I know a few who do really believe that. I knew a guy who used to always tell me he could hit me with the entire kenpo seven swords technique - it was like a seven technique drill / form they would do. He would try it in sparring all the time, but could never hit me with more than three strikes.

SevenStar

12-04-2006, 06:19 PM

SC form 1 - 4 has only arms movement and no legs movement, form 5 - 6 has only legs movement and no arms movement?

The answer for the last question is simple, "Since beginner may have difficulty to coordinate both arms and legs at the same time, the forms creator designed his forms to meet the beginners need". If you agree with me on this assumption then the conclusion that you may draw from this may be, "If you train your forms just the way as you have learned then you may just treat yourself as beginner for the rest of your life".

silat is like this also.

SevenStar

12-04-2006, 06:38 PM

What? jumping rope? :rolleyes:

that is just supplemental conditioning. In a muay thai class, you may spend 10 minutes per session jumping rope, 15 at the most. How much of a CMA's time is spent doing forms? And for what reasons? stance, footwork, drilling form into muscle memory, for some it's used as a cardio workout, dynamic tension for some, qigong develpment in certain instances, etc. - it seems that forms are a catch all for everything. you could probably teach pigs to fly using forms.

rogue

12-04-2006, 08:19 PM

Not true. I know a few who do really believe that. I knew a guy who used to always tell me he could hit me with the entire kenpo seven swords technique - it was like a seven technique drill / form they would do. He would try it in sparring all the time, but could never hit me with more than three strikes.

Hey, it's hard to hit someone with the 4th strike while they are running away and screaming like a little girl.:D

I love being a keyboard warrior. :D

SevenStar

12-04-2006, 09:01 PM

admission that you actually like being a keyboard warrior?

sorry bud.

-5 street cred

WinterPalm

12-04-2006, 09:47 PM

Because you are reinforcing motor patterns in an order that probably won't be done in a fight. During the adrenaline dump of the fight, it becomes confusing to separate those ingrained sequences and use ones that are more appropriate. When you have movements that are likely to be changed each time they happen, it is much better to learn and practice much shorter sequences.

The froms teach you how to flow into correct positions whether they be standing, crouching, on the ground, or moving through the air, off balance, decentered, destabilized, counter-movement, recounter movement, entry, exit, sideways, backwards, shuffling, one legged, hand techniques, feet techniques, elbows, palms, knees, shins, throws, fakes, feints, headmovement, ducking, stumbling, turning, flying, and shooting lasers out your nose...well not the last two but you get the point! I feel and experience when a sparring partner takes advantage of a weakness I have, I can readjust my posture and stance through training built in by the flow of forms.

I offer this argument just off the top of my head for longer sequences in forms: in a fight you may throw left hook, right cross, right roundhouse kick, jab... but there are so many other things you can do with even just striking that a form offers all the ins and outs of positioning yourself to best execute strikes. This takes a lot of work and effort and time to start to understand...personally I'm barely understanding these things but I see them and feel them for whatever worth I can do them.

Realisitically, we shouldn't skip rope because we might not have that rope with us when we get into a fight... or don't lift weights because we'll never have a perfectly centered weight above us as we bench press the bad guys...or how about no more long distance cardio (the bible of sport fighters...at least boxers) because a fight isn't going to last an hour? Forms are very sport specific and great for training.

Heck my Sifu won't take new students unless they have killed at least three terrorists, eaten nails for breakfast, and invaded China! Nevermind hitting pads...we hit souls.

onyomi

12-04-2006, 09:53 PM

Because you are reinforcing motor patterns in an order that probably won't be done in a fight. During the adrenaline dump of the fight, it becomes confusing to separate those ingrained sequences and use ones that are more appropriate. When you have movements that are likely to be changed each time they happen, it is much better to learn and practice much shorter sequences.

Even if you've practiced the form a gazillion times your body doesn't just go into auto-pilot as soon as you perform the first move. There may be combinations of 2 to 5 moves in a form that you can then do smoothly without thinking, but that's a good thing, because, especially in Praying Mantis, the combinations are designed with human psychology and physiology in mind. That is, not only do they flow naturally together for you, but they are designed to be very hard to fully defend against. Of course, you don't just do combos in the opponent's face all the time, but having an arsenal of well-designed 3 to 5 move combos you can pull off without thinking is a big advantage. Plus, it's not like they become so ingrained you can't switch them up in the middle if need be.

Someone was joking about a Kenpo friend only getting 3 hits in of a seven hit combo... 3 solid hits is pretty darn good, don't you think? Also, Praying Mantis forms can usually be broken down into smaller pieces. Often it's just like, "here's one potential combo... retreat/turn around... here's another." It's just like a data bank to record this stuff. You can and should break the forms into smaller pieces and drill them alone or with a partner as well.

Knifefighter

12-04-2006, 10:10 PM

Realisitically, we shouldn't skip rope because we might not have that rope with us when we get into a fight... or don't lift weights because we'll never have a perfectly centered weight above us as we bench press the bad guys...or how about no more long distance cardio (the bible of sport fighters...at least boxers) because a fight isn't going to last an hour?
Skipping rope, running, and weight lifting are done purely for supplemental training. Rope jumping and running develop endurance and cardio. Running allows for extra conditioning while keeping the chances for overtraining down to a minimum. Championship boxing bouts are 12 rounds = 36 minutes, so one would want to do supplemental roadwork that was about 45 minutes in length. Weight training has been shown to be the most effective method for maximizing strength and explosive power.

Forms are very sport specific and great for training.
Forms are far from sports specific. It is extremely rare for someone to fight with movements that are even close to the way they do forms.

Knifefighter

12-04-2006, 10:14 PM

That is, not only do they flow naturally together for you, but they are designed to be very hard to fully defend against.
LOL... all techniques are designed to be hard to defend. By the same token, any technique can be "fully defended against"

YouKnowWho

12-04-2006, 10:51 PM

It is extremely rare for someone to fight with movements that are even close to the way they do forms.
This is why one should train "drills" and not "forms". If one drills simple "nuts kick followed by head punch" combo 1000 times then the reward may be greater than training TCMA form 1000 times. Repeating your forms over and over "without modification" until the day you die is just "plain wrong".

Forms were designed for "teaching - pass down information" and "learning - receive information" only and not designed for "training - combat simulation".

Yum Cha

12-04-2006, 11:12 PM

I guess this just says it all....

Sifu Darkfist

12-05-2006, 07:05 AM

Their are alot of form hunters out there that really get nothing from any of them.
Its sad because each Shifu that writes a form (historically) has a purpose for the exertion of such labor in creativity. I have written 4 myself. However, to miss the purpose of the form, i.e. to teach power projection, entry, agression, endless sequential technique, or just to sharpn the bodies mobility is to collect all 4.

In other words, each person has an edge in movement or technique, such as looming power, speed, fearlessness, angle of attack, kicking, punching, elbowing wrestling, etc. that should be honed (trained really hard).

Each person can find a form (or write one as long as you are well into your styles training) that embodies their own personal abilities.

Thus your Shifu might teach 150 forms, but only 3 or 5 might fit you. This is what makes a great shifu, the ability to know the difference.

THe philosophy in a form might take a lifetime to perfect, the movement might spawn moutains of self discovery, Americans in general are too impatient to wait to get all there is to get out of an expression of an artists martial ability.

He that KNOWs 1 form is far better than he that has learned 10 but KNOWS NONE

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 08:41 AM

This is why one should train "drills" and not "forms".
Exactly... what a concept.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 08:47 AM

Each person can find a form (or write one as long as you are well into your styles training) that embodies their own personal abilities.
One is much more likely to find individual techniques that do this than an entire form.

THe philosophy in a form might take a lifetime to perfect, the movement might spawn moutains of self discovery, Americans in general are too impatient to wait to get all there is to get out of an expression of an artists martial ability.
Hmmm... wanting to see results from your training, rather than waiting your whole life to see if it might happen.
Some people might call that impatience. I think of it as being smart and not buying in to the Kool-Aid.

Royal Dragon

12-05-2006, 09:24 AM

Knifie said:
Forms are far from sports specific. It is extremely rare for someone to fight with movements that are even close to the way they do forms.

Reply]
What planet are YOU on? Forms are a collection of the techniques we fight with. Of course they are practeced how they are used! Even the deep stances are used *As Is* in fighting!

I have a wierd combo in my first form of my Tai Tzu. It's a low crouching posture (deep stance), followed by standing up and elbowing. It looks useless...untill someone is strangling you, and you realise the crouching while punching down is really hooking thier strangle from above, and useing your weight to drop down and break the hold, which leaves you perfectly aligned to elbow them in the throat from very close range, with everything you have.

Forms are collections of short combinations, that are just strung together in a library of good cominations. You can practice them for 45 minutes or so, for good Sport specific cardio work, instead of a NON sport specific cardio exercise like...oh lets say...running!

You can split it up into it's individual combo's, and drill just those.

Or you can hold each posture, and slowly work the transitions to really focus on your body mechanics.

You really use them as you need them. Origianlly, I think they were for teachers anyway, to put to memory, and standardise their curriculems. Many schools do not even show you the whole form strung together, untill you can fight with each of the combo's that it containes.

So Knife, as useual, you are dead wrong...

David Jamieson

12-05-2006, 09:34 AM

It is difficult to say what is and what is not correct when one has only scratched the surface of a thing.

No one of us can profess to know the inadequacies of anything without comprehending any of the depth of it.

To write off the value of something without experiencing it is myopic.

plenty of tma-ers are more than willing to try new methods.
scoffing at them doesn't benefit anything.

Training forms is augmentation it is supplementary on many levels. And despite everyone pointing at something that is really nott ere but rather is only in some experience and indicating that that is the whole of it is at best erroneous.

all martial arts build what is required to meet the zenith in that chosen field through progression.

a newb is a newb is a newb regardless of what they choose to pursue and to say one is better than another is not taking into consideration the goals of the individual.

excellent training is hard to find, crappy training is easy to find. even this statement is taking it to the extreme.

i am curious as to what sort of time in with understanding forms and the lessons within the detractors of them have. It is my experience that the scoffers of forms have little if any experience with them. Nothing is written in stone, there are as many reasons to not use weight training as there are to use it.

even old shaolin used weight training, old style tma use them in various ways. Because it is not a barbell doesn't mean it is inneffective. In fact, a lot of people are moving away from taht type of weight training to use more antiquated ways to develop functional strength. such as locks, kettlebells, clubs or even just plain old hard physical labour.

it's all good and yes, some of it is not effective.

Take what is usefull and that which will help you meet your objectives and can be shown to productively help you get there.

Not everyone is interested in competitive fighting, certainly not many are interested in street fighting and some are not interested in fighting at all and merely find martial training as an interesting way and compelling way to get into and maintain a state of fitness and thereby bring a better quality of living to themselves.

old style forms can keep you supple and limber into your old age. Quick check at youtube will show you many more long in the tooth tcma-ists than it can show you long in the tooth competitive fighters.

check for yourself, there's the results. I have no idea why this dead horse is beaten again and again here and usually by the same old same old crowd of dead horse beaters.

where is the deficiency then?

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 09:59 AM

What planet are YOU on? Forms are a collection of the techniques we fight with. Of course they are practeced how they are used! Even the deep stances are used *As Is* in fighting!
So Knife, as useual, you are dead wrong...
Well, of course you can always fight like you practice your forms and get your face smashed in in the process... kind of like the drunken boxing guys who went against the karate guys and got kicked to smithereeens.

But, hey... I'm always willing to be proven wrong.

Let's see if you can do it.

Point me to a clip of some people doing forms and then fighting.

Let's see if their fighting looks anything like their forms without completely getting their heads stomped.

David Jamieson

12-05-2006, 10:08 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rVln3QhYCUc

lol

swing hammer fist to the head, drops mouthpiece afetr a little straight from the forms posturing. hahahaha.

I have no idea why you keep asking for this stuff, what do you expect to gain from your arguments?

my kungfu works for me on more levels than mere physical conflict.

There is always someone out there who I can beat the living crap out of and there is equally always someone out there who can beat the crap outta me. so what?

my kungfu is still my kungfu.

didn't you show us a clip of how you were bested by a wing chun player even though you were only playing light?

I really don't understand why you are so angry at kungfu players knife. why are you angry at us for doing what we like to do? why are you trying to convince us that what we do is wrong when you obviously don't do what we do?

if you are happy with what you do, cool! all the best to you. It doesn't take one iota of value out of what we do though.

just sayin.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 10:21 AM

It is difficult to say what is and what is not correct when one has only scratched the surface of a thing.
No one of us can profess to know the inadequacies of anything without comprehending any of the depth of it.
It is my experience that the scoffers of forms have little if any experience with them.
I'm sure that's what the aikido "master" who had never been hit before and was completely embarassed by the karate/bjj guy in their challenge match told his students.
I'll bet they feel kind of stupid now.

Nothing is written in stone, there are as many reasons to not use weight training as there are to use it.
Really... I doubt it.. but like I said above, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

How about you list all the reasons against and then I'll list all the reasons for? We can see if there are the same for pro as for con.

lkfmdc

12-05-2006, 10:23 AM

I'm gonna agree with Yum Cha on this one guys :D

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 10:33 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rVln3QhYCUc
Yeah, those flailing, windmilling punches when he engaged looked just like those movements that he was doing in his forms before.... bwhahahahahaha!!!

my kungfu works for me on more levels than mere physical conflict.
As does yoga for many people. And yoga can be a great supplement to fight training. However, people don't expect their yoga postures to translate into fighting.

I really don't understand why you are so angry at kungfu players knife. why are you angry at us for doing what we like to do? why are you trying to convince us that what we do is wrong when you obviously don't do what we do?
There is no anger.
It's simple debate. Kind of like joining the debating team, only with fewer rules and lots of ridicule and sarcasm thrown in for good measure.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 10:35 AM

I'm gonna agree with Yum Cha on this one guys :D
You're right... let's start a new one then.

The pros and cons of weight training. That one hasn't been bashed around as much.

MasterKiller

12-05-2006, 10:57 AM

As does yoga for many people. And yoga can be a great supplement to fight training. However, people don't expect their yoga postures to translate into fighting.. Reasonable KF players don't expect the exercise postures in their forms to translate directly to fighting, either.

Ravenshaw

12-05-2006, 11:06 AM

You're right... let's start a new one then.

The pros and cons of weight training. That one hasn't been bashed around as much.

I, too, would like to hear what the reasons people have against weight training...

If anyone says it makes you inflexible and slow I'll headbutt my keyboard.

Sifu Darkfist

12-05-2006, 11:06 AM

Just because you continually learn something new about a form youve known forever does not mean it takes this long to learn to fight.
Typically our fighters do extremely well after 6 mos to one year.

We have the belts and medals and yes the video to prove it.

as far as forms, if it takes a form to teach complete power projection then so be it.
We train between 100-1000 punches a day before fights. Some in forms some in drills, some on heads and bodies some in the air.

you have failed to show me a reason not to train a form.

My arguement is that you do not need hundredsof forms, and i do not sell hundreds of forms
i find desire and turn it into results.

I dont even charge my dedicated full contact team to train. so there is no buying into the whole kool aid, in fact there is no buying.

i like it that way, you see if they do not train hard i can just tell them to get lost

Subitai

12-05-2006, 11:09 AM

I don't post very often anymore, had some time to skip and read.

Well said David.

About fighting having to LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THEY DO IN FORMS. I think it's a combination of many persons beliefs as to what THEY THINK fighting with kung fu should look like.

1) I don't need to say that 1st of all it means hard work through time right?

2) Movies are Entertainment and should be considered such. Many people have Black Belts in Movie watching but have absolutely Zero Experience in an actual fighting, so they go the easy way and rely on what they know. It isn't fair to assume that fighting with any TMA should look like it does in a Choreographed movie.

For those who don't do forms i'll site an example of what to consider in forms.

There is a move in Hung Ga for ex. that is called "Bend the Cinnamon Tree". (No it's not hippie stuff) It's just simple poetry for memory of the move and to help discribe what kind of energy you should have to exert or put out in order to BEND a small tree. Ergo choke someones throat.

What is it? It's a simple throat choke, it can be done from multiple angles and depends on the depth of the practicioner to work it and make it stick.

Now the point....the form itself is just a few moves and then it goes on to another concept immediately. So it has to be said, form or not...when you put someone in a choke, THEY ARE GOING TO RESIST. The form is not addressing an entire roleplay or situation where you choke someone and finish them off.

The form is only the guide and the practioner HAS TO PRACTICE A THROAT CHOKE ON SOMEONE, not only the set up (which was the form for example) but also the final culmination of what happens when a person resists you.

So a standup choke by wrestler and/or a TMA guy, altough set up differently perhaps, should both expect to have the opponant resist and then they both have to do the work to stick the choke. I'm saying the latter of the encounter is the same. It has no reflection on the forms at that point. But it doesn't mean forms are bad either.

Does that make sense to those who don't understand forms?

3) MMA modern competition = a different objective.

I remember being in Moscow getting ready for the Russian Ultimate 2 back in 95' Renzo was chatting about some other fighter and he said..."He couldn't make me Tap". It was just innocent conversation that typically goes on. Competing in an event like that, you don't have time to take it all in immediately.

Of course experience is never gained instantaneously. Rather it's only after, when sitting under a tree perhaps and reviewing what you have learned that you actually gain experience.

Anyway, it struck me upon reflection. That my goals are different. I train for Self Defense. Not to persue some down and make them tap. I don't consider myself world class if I have to chase an unwilling opponant down in order to make him tap. But I do consider myself world class if all I have to do is defend myself from getting hurt.

I have had many street fights in dangerous situations (haha Tijuana for example) where I had to not only fight 3 on 1 but also avoid "La Policia". After I knocked out cold, 2 dudes who where gunning for me cleanly, fair and square. About 8 cops were chasing us through the crowds afterward. I can still hear them yelling..."No Dejan Pasar, No Dejan Pasar"

The forms themselves in the past have taught me methods and to help set people up (if you have the right kind of school) But since every human is different , size, weight and determination...In the end, HOW YOU LOOK APPLYING it towards these diferent opponants may look different or UGLY For that matter.

Hey the guy is not going to willingly let you stick it to him all pretty. People are confused in that regard when it comes to forms.

"O"

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 11:11 AM

Reasonable KF players don't expect the exercise postures in their forms to translate directly to fighting, either.

Forms are a collection of the techniques we fight with. Of course they are practeced how they are used! Even the deep stances are used *As Is* in fighting!

... or is "reasonable" the operant word here?

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 11:18 AM

Just because you continually learn something new about a form youve known forever does not mean it takes this long to learn to fight.
Typically our fighters do extremely well after 6 mos to one year.

We have the belts and medals and yes the video to prove it.
Like I said, I'm always willing to be proven wrong.

How about posting some videos of your fighters doing their forms and then showing the clips of their fights to show how the forms are being translated into fighting?

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 11:21 AM

Now the point....the form itself is just a few moves and then it goes on to another concept immediately. So it has to be said, form or not...when you put someone in a choke, THEY ARE GOING TO RESIST. The form is not addressing an entire roleplay or situation where you choke someone and finish them off.
And, therein lies one of the major problems with forms. There is no resistance. There is no opponent.

Trying to put grappling into forms is even more stupid than trying to do it with striking.

WinterPalm

12-05-2006, 11:26 AM

Skipping rope, running, and weight lifting are done purely for supplemental training. Rope jumping and running develop endurance and cardio. Running allows for extra conditioning while keeping the chances for overtraining down to a minimum. Championship boxing bouts are 12 rounds = 36 minutes, so one would want to do supplemental roadwork that was about 45 minutes in length. Weight training has been shown to be the most effective method for maximizing strength and explosive power.

Forms are far from sports specific. It is extremely rare for someone to fight with movements that are even close to the way they do forms.

Nope, wrong again. By your logic, I will assume that boxers only run and skip rope! Ha, they cannot fight with those skills. But those are not the only things they train in... just like Kung Fu. We do partner drills, grappling drills, body conditioning including hand conditioning that very few skill sets outside of Kung Fu provide.

If you are only doing forms without a background and extensive expereince in either training to fight or fighting in general, then you are cheating yourself. But the Kung Fu forms also offer a mulititude of health benefits. Is Kung Fu intrinsically better than boxing or muay thai? No, not at all. But as kung fu people we should train our systems hard, learn and apply the skills, and bring the pain!

Unless you are speaking of wushu forms, I have seen many people using the techniques in forms to fight. Forms are very great at training movement and development of strength through range of motion and power generation.

That said, Kung Fu forms are a piece of the kung fu pie. Just like hitting long distance cardio is a big deal for boxers...it fits their paradigm and goals as do forms for kung fu people.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 11:36 AM

Forms are very great at training movement and development of strength through range of motion and power generation.
There are much more effective methods to develop strength and power.

YouKnowWho

12-05-2006, 11:37 AM

Hmmm... wanting to see results from your training, rather than waiting your whole life to see if it might happen.
Some people might call that impatience. I think of it as being smart and not buying in to the Kool-Aid.
Many people may say if you use this approach then

- You my never be able to get the true secret of the CMA, and
- Your skill will never be "high level", and
- You are training water down CMA for the rest of your life.

But I'm with you on this. Anything that you can use in real fight is "high level". Any "high level" skill that won't work in real fight are "no level".

WinterPalm

12-05-2006, 11:48 AM

There are much more effective methods to develop strength and power.

Of course...it is stupid to train the mechanics of striking from every conceivable angle, train these again and again and again, and then some more. It makes even less sense to drill strength into these movements so they can be executed properly and without collapsing the structure. I must be missing something.
However, I'm not saying weight training is bad, just that there are other types of strength development one can do.

Heck, instead of punching, I should just do bench press and curls because those will make me stronger than iron palm, the heavy bag, and detailed focus on body mechanics and structure!

This is my new kung fu program:

2 Hrs LSD running
1 Hr Bench press and curls for punching strength.
2 scoops of nox cg3...the iceman sent me.
Put on sprawl shorts and mma gloves and gloat in front of the mirror.

Maybe I should take Sifu Abel's advice and inhale some helium before I get into these things.

Really. And there are also better things one could do instead of skipping rope like footwork and actually practicing your skill.

SevenStar

12-05-2006, 12:00 PM

What planet are YOU on? Forms are a collection of the techniques we fight with. Of course they are practeced how they are used! Even the deep stances are used *As Is* in fighting!

I have a wierd combo in my first form of my Tai Tzu. It's a low crouching posture (deep stance), followed by standing up and elbowing. It looks useless...untill someone is strangling you, and you realise the crouching while punching down is really hooking thier strangle from above, and useing your weight to drop down and break the hold, which leaves you perfectly aligned to elbow them in the throat from very close range, with everything you have.

an application for "shoot the bow" is a fireman's carry. But it will not work, performed the way it is in a form. with some of the movements, you must alter footwork, hand / arm position, etc. that is still a modification, regardless of scale.

[/quote]Forms are collections of short combinations, that are just strung together in a library of good cominations. You can practice them for 45 minutes or so, for good Sport specific cardio work, instead of a NON sport specific cardio exercise like...oh lets say...running![/quote]

or you can be even more specific and spar. As with jumping rope, running is a SMALL portion of a fighter's time, as compared to how much time a cma guy will spend on forms. In addition, not all guys run. That is supplemental training usually done outside of class.

SevenStar

12-05-2006, 12:02 PM

Really. And there are also better things one could do instead of skipping rope like footwork and actually practicing your skill.

skipping is actually great for your footwork. And an mma guy spends far less time skipping than you do doing forms...

WinterPalm

12-05-2006, 12:33 PM

skipping is actually great for your footwork. And an mma guy spends far less time skipping than you do doing forms...

I agree that skipping is good for footwork. I use a skipping rope to warm up most days.

That said, you are missing the point. It is not all I do, nor are forms. Just like it is stupid to say forms are worthless because you are just learning and doing the moves and developing structure, it is stupid to say that skipping rope is worthless because you are not beating someone up.

I a typical class I'll spar or work on applications and drills for usually half the class (30 to 40 min after warmup) and spend fifteen to twenty minutes doing forms. Or vice versa or only applications or only sparring, or only forms.

I respect other methods of training and approaches to fighting. I have to, anyone that trains is something to be concerned about. One thing I don't respect is people spouting nonsense about things they don't understand. And their goofy cyclical arguments.

Golden Arms

12-05-2006, 01:07 PM

I hate to break it to you guys, but MMA is falling into this just surely as any other method. I have met my share of total garbage MMA students as well. Wasnt it some of the same people here that were telling Ray that he needed to compete instead of doing throwdowns to get exposure to better fighters? How many of the people at those same throwdowns were BJJ, or non CMA people? A decent amount. So why are people implying that all the poor fighters are Traditionalists? Are you telling me the 46 year old businessman that has worked out at an mma gym for a year 1 day a week is somehow going to be a badass? There are lazy students everywhere. Not everyone that trains MMA is a 12-1 fighter in the cage.

I wanted to address the point however of "hidden applications". The hidden technique is often just a change in the focus of the move..for example...lets say you start with a movement from close up that sweeps a leg, and pulls the guy the other direction at the same time, and that is the application a person learns for that move. Later, certain people will be shown or if they work hard, figure out, that the hand that is pulling them the other direction while having their leg swept, can grab the thoat to injure or crush it...the throat grab is setup by misdirecting their attention with a sweep. Is this something you want to start drilling into a new students head before you know if they are a decent person? I guess its a moral thing. The movement remains the same, all you have to do is show them the subtleties and it changes the outcome quite a bit. Those subtleties wont be any good though if the delivery system is not there, so first they have to just do the general movement a lot, against increasing resistance, etc.

Kind of like owning a gun shop....would you feel bad if you sold a gun to someone that went home and shot their family with it? Some would and some wouldnt, but in the end, these ethics lead to some movements being veiled behind something less nasty for the masses.

Royal Dragon

12-05-2006, 02:05 PM

It's difficult to relly refine the body mechanics against a person, under pressure. You need time alone to work out the bugs. That is where your form comes in.

It's a back and forth processs of solo work, and partner work, and solo work and partner work.

So far, no one has ever been able to convince me Form work is bad in any way. Knifie cannot now, nor has he ever been able to convince me to give up the practice. He continues to try, with his baseless "Water is wet" claimes about other methods (That most Kung Fu guys already do anyway), but so far all he's done is prove himself ignorant.

Shaolin Wookie

12-05-2006, 02:08 PM

Every martial art has its own training regimen. Forms do more than convey fighting applications. Especially Kung fu...they teach a system and manner of movement.

Imagine throwing kicks without proper balance. Imagine lunging forward into off-center bow stances to get inside. Like the stances or not...like the applications or not...each style has its techniques, and positioning is as much a factor in execution as anything else. Flow is important. Body mechanics, too. When teachers teach beginning students and withhold (does that have 2 h's in it?) the technique, it's not without merit.

Imagine teaching difficult maneuvers, or those requiring flexibility, to a fresh-off-the street student... He'd founder even before he began. Forms teach basics, and often reinforce the basics. We all get big heads, but d a m n me if any of us should ever stop practicing a snap kick or a straight punch. Sooner or later, techniques will get taught (just as long as it's not too much later.) I help instruct plenty of new recruits....tubby guys with guts, short awkward chicks....and if they can't get into a decent horse stance, what's the point of teaching a maneuver out of a horse stance (especially in Chin-na)? If they muscle their way through a technique to mask their ignorance of finesse, what's the point? Progress is more like patience...especially when it comes to kung fu.

And before you ask, why even teach them a horse stance? I'll answer....

Because you're learning kung fu. If you don't want forms, horse stances, bow stances, or the infamous "hidden techniques", there's plenty of styles without them...

My philsophy, when faced with these kinds of questions, is to say: Just do it. I can beat you up (but only if I have, and can do it again), so obviously I've learned something.... Too many students want to learn too quickly. Forms keep 'em in check and give the illusion of self-mastery to begin with. But by practicing forms and mastering them, they gradually come to know how little they do know, and how poor they really are in the long run. Until then, I'll continue to beat them up with the techniques I've gleaned from forms.

But then again, I'm a bully by nature.

But not bully enough to say, "go get your butt handed to you by someone who might know how to fight on the street. Trial by ordeal is the only way to fight." That Bruce Lee philosophy is taken out of context. He learned how to fight in how many systems? Starting with the most conservative CMA of all! That's like Einstein telling me, "go learn quantum mechanics by meddling with some subatomic particles on the street." Okay, so he's a bad example. But the message is the same. Quality fighting requires drilling and form. One attack might be alright. Setting it up is necessary (of course). But what happens when you meet someone who sees it coming, and has seen it coming before. Then, you must adapt. Then, a little bit of technique drilled in by repitition isn't a bad thing to have in your back pocket, if for nothing more than a last ditch effort to get the hell out of a sticky situation.

And for those of you advocating the "trial by fire" approach to martial arts. How much do you pay per month at your school? Did your teacher teach you that bit of wisdom?

That's what I thought....peace from ATL

Royal Dragon

12-05-2006, 02:12 PM

As for weight lifting, Kung Fu is big on weight lifting. We generally use methods that are more common to the old school strong men, but modern barbell work is also acceptable. So, grab your Stone locks, Granite *Balls*, and Rock *Poles*, and get it in gear!

Subitai

12-05-2006, 03:18 PM

And, therein lies one of the major problems with forms. There is no resistance. There is no opponent.

Trying to put grappling into forms is even more stupid than trying to do it with striking.

Knife,

WHO said anything about doing forms only???????? At some time you have to try it out don't you?

It depends on what percentage of time you spend doing what. Like a boxer doesn't shadow box 100% of the time does he?

I never said anything about putting grappling into forms. I GAVE A CLEAR CUT EXAMPLE TO PROVE MY POINT and you skimmed past it.

At a certain level, a choke will be resisted by your opponent is all I said. Only difference being how it's set up and where you learned that choke. Just because it came from a form doesn't make it any less....UNLESS you never train it live. Which is more than obvious.

There is NO PT to disbute this.

Fencing is another clear example that parallels Modern Martial artists who fight like they train.

YET Fencing begins with proper form of parrys, learning the basic steps and progresses to full on fighting. Only in if the swords were real.....somebody would have a HOLE in themselves within a fraction of a second.

I can't wait for some smart a$$ to say that stabbing or slicing someone is not effective because we don't do it anymore in the modern day.

As far as i'm concerned, my original post more than answered the question of people trying to fight and LOOK like they do in the forms which is not the goal of them anyway. But seemed to be under debate although a deviation from the original topic.

"O"

Royal Dragon

12-05-2006, 03:37 PM

If you have mastered your form, you will fight with the techniques it contains, and thearfore when you fight, you will look like your forms...even if it's only 3 moves and ur done.

Your form is your fighting, and your fighting IS your form. I don't see how one can seperate them.

Minghequan

12-05-2006, 05:00 PM

I have to agree with Royal Dragon who put it so well when he wrote:

If you have mastered your form, you will fight with the techniques it contains, and thearfore when you fight, you will look like your forms...even if it's only 3 moves and ur done.

Your form is your fighting, and your fighting IS your form. I don't see how one can seperate them.

The forms (Taolu) are the embodiment of an arts fighting principles, and life-protection applications. One must look deeply into their principles and imbedded concepts in order to bring their applications to life in a practical way.

In Fuzhou crane, we are taught that techniques are just but a manifestation of our fighting principles. Forms are the ways and not the ends. Every drills / forms and 2 man sets are designed to teach the body to behave in a certain manner during a fight. Of course the whole idea is to mimic a crane.And really this is how we fight - touch and go with little pause in between. You see this concept in action in all my forms. We don’t just do forms. We also do application drills, sparring drills and conditioning drills within all the various systems.

In Fuzhou Crane these are transmitted in poems-like writing (KoonKor). If you don't have a teacher explaining - it is going to be tough.

Koonkor is in many ways treated as the soul the particular system in question. Different kung fu style has a different fashion Koonkor that the founder or others in the system used to convey the kung fu usually the very quintessence of the style. Or in the case of forms' Koonkor, the key principles that crafted the form.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 06:06 PM

IEvery drills / forms and 2 man sets are designed to teach the body to behave in a certain manner during a fight. Of course the whole idea is to mimic a crane..
Only in forms can you pretend to fight like a bird or a bug

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 06:13 PM

By your logic, I will assume that boxers only run and skip rope! Ha, they cannot fight with those skills.
Really. And there are also better things one could do instead of skipping rope like footwork and actually practicing your skill.
Actually, one could make a pretty strong argument for excluding rope jumpingfrom training, other than just as a warm up.

Running is done as additional training when no more boxing can be done without the risk of overtraining injuries. If the maximum amount of boxing training was not already being done, it wouldn’t make much sense to run instead of boxing.

This is my new kung fu program:
2 Hrs LSD running
1 Hr Bench press and curls for punching strength.
2 scoops of nox cg3...the iceman sent me.

Here would be a better program of supplemental training:

30-60 minutes of interval training on the track with work to rest ratios designed to maximize anaerobic power and endurance.

30-45 minutes of Olympic, power, and plyometric exercises integrated into a periodized progressive resistance program. 30 minutes of core and injury prevention exercises.

Forget the supplements and concentrate on a healthy diet that includes a significant ratio of whole grains, fruits, & veggies and include recovery drinks with a 5 to 1 ratio of sugars to proteins.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 06:15 PM

It's difficult to relly refine the body mechanics against a person, under pressure. You need time alone to work out the bugs. That is where your form comes in.
Seems to work great in BJJ, Judo, and Sambo.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 06:19 PM

And for those of you advocating the "trial by fire" approach to martial arts. How much do you pay per month at your school? Did your teacher teach you that bit of wisdom?
Instructors at most boxing, Muay Thai, BJJ, judo, MMA and sambo gyms advocate this. That's why all of those approaches have competitions.

Forms keep 'em in check and give the illusion of self-mastery to begin with.
Illusion… a perfect word where forms are concerned.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 06:21 PM

Kind of like owning a gun shop....would you feel bad if you sold a gun to someone that went home and shot their family with it? Some would and some wouldnt, but in the end, these ethics lead to some movements being veiled behind something less nasty for the masses.
Finally, a good argument for doing forms… teaching ineffective techniques to keep dangerous stuff from beginners so they don't go out and kill someone. Good point... I guess one thing you don’t have to worry about if you teach forms to beginners is having them pull of techniques and hurting someone else.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 06:24 PM

I never said anything about putting grappling into forms.
What is a choke, if not grappling?

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 06:27 PM

If you have mastered your form, you will fight with the techniques it contains, and thearfore when you fight, you will look like your forms...even if it's only 3 moves and ur done.
Your form is your fighting, and your fighting IS your form. I don't see how one can seperate them.
Are there any clips that would demonstrate this?

Royal Dragon

12-05-2006, 06:27 PM

Seems to work great in BJJ, Judo, and Sambo.

Those arts rely on muscular strength more. The core body supprts thier actions, it does not add power to them as the Chinese arts do. At least, I have never seen it in the UFC.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 06:30 PM

Those arts rely on muscular strength more. The core body supprts thier actions, it does not add power to them as the Chinese arts do.
Bwhahahahaha!!!!

Complete and utter ignorance from someone who has obviously never had contact with someone who does those systems.

Royal Dragon

12-05-2006, 06:48 PM

Actually, I have, they don't have the mechanics. Some of the better ones round the shoulders, and tuck the tail bone, but that is about where it stops.

Everytime I watch the striking in MMA, the arms move independantly of the legs, there is little to no action in the core body. They are very stiff, and basically *Slug* it out. The stand up is horrible. Every single one of them needs to spend considerable time learning, and working solo on thier mechanics.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 06:54 PM

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 06:56 PM

Those arts rely on muscular strength more. The core body supprts thier actions, it does not add power to them as the Chinese arts do. At least, I have never seen it in the UFC.
Can you say 170 lb Royce gracie against 230 lb. Keith Hanknney, 260 lb Kimo Leopoldo, or 250 lb Dan Severn or 480 lb Akebono ?

Or 180 lb. Rickson Gracie vs. 280 lb David Leviki or 230 lb. Zulu

Or 135 lb. Yuki Nakia vs. 185 lb Gerard Gudeau?

Do you have a single example of a kung fu guy with his "power added" CMA defeating someone 50 or more pounds heavier?

The Xia

12-05-2006, 07:11 PM

Actually, I have, they don't have the mechanics. Some of the better ones round the shoulders, and tuck the tail bone, but that is about where it stops.
Relying on pure brute strength would make for a lousy grappler. Effective grapplers do use body mechanics. Balance, leverage, timing, and technique are all ingredients for good grappling.

Everytime I watch the striking in MMA, the arms move independantly of the legs, there is little to no action in the core body. They are very stiff, and basically *Slug* it out. The stand up is horrible. Every single one of them needs to spend considerable time learning, and working solo on thier mechanics.
I have observed this as well. The hands of many MMA guys look like bad boxing to me.

Royal Dragon

12-05-2006, 07:12 PM

Do you have any examples of ANY MMA guy useing good Chinese mechanics?

These guys are all over pumped, horrible strikers, and have lackluster footwork. They are basically super conditioned, and Good on the ground.

Pure Boxers have much better mechanics. OH, and BOXERS do A LOT of solo work BTW!!

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 07:54 PM

Do you have any examples of ANY MMA guy useing good Chinese mechanics?
Of course not. Generally, "CMA mechanics" from forms won't work with that caliber of fighter- even against the guys who are "horrible" strikers.

These guys are all over pumped, horrible strikers, and have lackluster footwork. They are basically super conditioned, and Good on the ground.
Can you say Fedor Imeleanchenko, Cro-Cop, Vanerlei Silva, or Georges St. Pierre?

Pure Boxers have much better mechanics. OH, and BOXERS do A LOT of solo work BTW!!
Any solo work done by boxers couldn't be further than that which is done by CMA forms dancers. Boxers are good precisely because they don't do forms work.

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 07:57 PM

I have observed this as well. The hands of many MMA guys look like bad boxing to me.
More typical kung fu armchair BS.

If that were true, there should be any number of CMA stepping up to get their paydays.

Royal Dragon

12-05-2006, 08:05 PM

Any solo work done by boxers couldn't be further than that which is done by CMA forms dancers. Boxers are good precisely because they don't do forms work.

Reply]
No, Boxers, and TCMA's have superior stand up, BECAUSE they do solo work in the air.

MMA guys have CRAPPY stand up, because like you, they Poo Poo it.....

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 08:27 PM

Reply]
No, Boxers, and TCMA's have superior stand up, BECAUSE they do solo work in the air.
MMA guys have CRAPPY stand up, because like you, they Poo Poo it.....

Since you have never come across a MMA fighter in person, I'll fill you in on something. Most MMA fighters train either boxing or Muay Thai.

SPJ

12-05-2006, 08:30 PM

In response to the first post:

Tao Lu is too big to collect. Tao Lu means a set of road/route, meaning you go as you move and then back to where you start. Tao Lu may be designed in many ways.

IF it is too long, Tao Lu is broken down to segments/Jie or trip/Tang.

for our purpose for the most part, we are practicing Tao Zhao or a set/comb of moves.

Tao also means connecting like a ring or string.

Zhao is more difficult to explain. they are actually principles with moves and countermoves and counter counter moves.

Shi or postures are more visible. usually consisting of several moves and named after the final move or Ding Shi.

one Zhao and one Shi are not the same.

In short, we are practicing Shi, and we have to study and practice Zhao.

there is an old saying, "you may not defeat an opponent with Shi, but you may make serious troubles with him with Zhao,"

--

:)

Royal Dragon

12-05-2006, 08:52 PM

Since you have never come across a MMA fighter in person, I'll fill you in on something. Most MMA fighters train either boxing or Muay Thai.

Reply]
Well, they obviously don't take it seriously, 'cause thier stand up almost universally sux!

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 08:59 PM

Well, they obviously don't take it seriously, 'cause thier stand up almost universally sux!
So the field should be wide open for you to step in there, open up a can of whopa$$ and start bringing in some big paydays- right?

SifuAbel

12-05-2006, 09:34 PM

Are you getting the big payday? Are we going to see YOU at UFC 66?

Probably not and probably not 99% of the people in MMA.

This subject is a spin job the president can model his exit strategy after. :rolleyes:

Knifefighter

12-05-2006, 09:40 PM

Are you getting the big payday? Are we going to see YOU at UFC 66? Probably not and probably not 99% of the people in MMA.
Of course not... unlike the forms Kool-Aid drinkers, we know these guys are elite athletes... top of the chain in overall fighting ability.

Because we actually fight, we know how good the guys at that level are.

And since I've trained with some of these fighters, I also know how good they are good from actual firsthand experience, instead of forming uneducated opinions like the CMA forms dancers from what they've seen in the comfort of their cozy couches watching their pay-per-view UFC matches.

sunfist

12-05-2006, 10:13 PM

I have observed this as well. The hands of many MMA guys look like bad boxing to me.

Thats what happens when you observe things from a distance, you tend to not see them too well.

Since you have never come across a MMA fighter in person, I'll fill you in on something. Most MMA fighters train either boxing or Muay Thai.

BJJ guys, however... Does anyone remember De Pano in the UFC? :D

SifuAbel

12-05-2006, 10:53 PM

Because we actually fight, we know how good the guys at that level are.

LOL @ "we" .

You''re not part of that collective "we". Bwahahahaha. Its a casual connection at best. Don't make me laugh, oops you just did. Unless you get in that ring at ufc 66 you don't get to use that collective "we" any more than I do.

For someone who says its not about "forms people don't fight" you sure do allude to it every chance you get.

jon

12-06-2006, 12:02 AM

Well, they obviously don't take it seriously, 'cause thier stand up almost universally sux!

Comments like that are part of the reason why many people find many tma stylists so deluded. Honestly RD what kind of statement is that to make? What is the difference in your comment to a MMA practioner claiming that no tma stylists can fight? Stand up in an environment in which your constantly at risk of being ktfo or taken down for a GnP is not going to look like a shaw brothers film. Its also really silly to try and claim that MMA guys 'poo poo' stand up, there are few pure grapplers in modern MMA, nearly all train in multiple disciplines to remain competitive. Then to claim that practicing movements in the air is somehow responsible for higher level technique.:mad:
Why not just admit that MMA guys are often pretty darn good, heck you might even learn something from them.

Royal Dragon

12-06-2006, 01:08 AM

Jon,
Ur joking right?

Stand up in an environment in which your constantly at risk of being ktfo or taken down for a GnP is not going to look like a shaw brothers film. Its also really silly to try and claim that MMA guys 'poo poo' stand up, there are few pure grapplers in modern MMA, nearly all train in multiple disciplines to remain competitive. Then to claim that practicing movements in the air is somehow responsible for higher level technique

Reply]
Look, go to K1, San Shou, or even Boxing, and you also have guys who are at risk, and THIER stand up is a world of difference from the crap you see in MMA.

Why is that then?

Shadow boxing, Forms work helps the athlete in a variety of ways, like perfecting mechanics, and allowing a mental edge to develop that just can't be done under the pressure of a two man engagement. Boxers are said to have the Best hands of any game, they do plenty of solo work. Infact "Shadow Boxing" is something they are well known for, just as well known as we are for doing forms solo, in the air.

Knifie comes on here, and acts like the rep for all MMA. He Poo PPoos solo work, so clearly all MMA does this as well, and that must be why MMA stannd up is the worst there is of any discapline.

jon

12-06-2006, 02:04 AM

Look, go to K1, San Shou, or even Boxing, and you also have guys who are at risk, and THIER stand up is a world of difference from the crap you see in MMA.

None of the formats you listed include a ground game. They are all based around purely stand up fighting, so the fighters have no need to train for a ground game. They are all specialised in stand up so naturaly their stand up will be better, however, this does not mean that MMA fighters are useless in stand up. Different format, different training methodology and different risks.

Shadow boxing, Forms work helps the athlete in a variety of ways, like perfecting mechanics, and allowing a mental edge to develop that just can't be done under the pressure of a two man engagement. Boxers are said to have the Best hands of any game, they do plenty of solo work. Infact "Shadow Boxing" is something they are well known for, just as well known as we are for doing forms solo, in the air.

I wont try to argue that shadow boxing is not a good training method, I think it is. I will, however, state that this alone does not amount to the skill that they exibit. Boxers also do a lot of sparring, this cannot always be said of the forms practioner.

Knifie comes on here, and acts like the rep for all MMA. He Poo PPoos solo work, so clearly all MMA does this as well, and that must be why MMA stannd up is the worst there is of any discapline.
So just because Knifefighter says things you disagree with that must mean all MMA practioners exibit the same opinions. Strange logic, he is just one person, you are deciding for yourself that he represents the MMA crowd when infact he only represents his own opinions. By your logic i could say that as I (as a TMA practioner) like Bagua, then all TMA practioners like bagua.

All im trying to point out here is that it is wrong to state that all MMA fighters have bad stand up based purely on a knee jerk reaction to comments made by someone you disagree with. I also think its about time people stopped drawing such a huge divide between MMA and TMA, there is much to be learnt by all. If we could all stop trying to define our differences and instead work on showing each other what we had to offer then I personaly feel we would all find we have a lot that we can learn from each other.

Royal Dragon

12-06-2006, 07:35 AM

So just because Knifefighter says things you disagree with that must mean all MMA practioners exibit the same opinions. Strange logic, he is just one person,

Reply]
He sure *Acts* like he represents the MMA crowd though, and his constant trashing solo work, when it is a tried and true method is getting pretty dammed annoyning...especially when his heros all have crappy stand up work. He could not even handle a Wing Chun guy in *Play*

you are deciding for yourself that he represents the MMA crowd when infact he only represents his own opinions. By your logic i could say that as I (as a TMA practioner) like Bagua, then all TMA practioners like bagua.

Reply]
I like Bagua too, to that must be right! :D

No, I am not decidig myself, I am reflecting that HE seems to have self appointed himself to be the MMA spokesman, and TCMA basher of all time. I think we finnally know Raleks true identity....

All im trying to point out here is that it is wrong to state that all MMA fighters have bad stand up based purely on a knee jerk reaction to comments made by someone you disagree with.

Reply]
Actually, I haven't seen good standup in the UFC yet, not compared to Shanshou, K1 and Boxing...Yet Knifie holds these guys up as the God's of the God's when it comes to training mehtodology...when in truth, Stand up wise, they are at the bottom rung. The rest of the stand up world uses methods that are pretty much the same as ours, and they all excell in stand up fighting.

I also think its about time people stopped drawing such a huge divide between MMA and TMA, there is much to be learnt by all. If we could all stop trying to define our differences and instead work on showing each other what we had to offer then I personaly feel we would all find we have a lot that we can learn from each other.

Reply]
Aggreeed.

Knifefighter

12-06-2006, 07:44 AM

Reply]
Look, go to K1, San Shou, or even Boxing, and you also have guys who are at risk, and THIER stand up is a world of difference from the crap you see in MMA.
Why is that then?
K1 and Boxing only have to worry about standup.
San Shou is absoulutely not better in the standup department than MMA.

Shadow boxing, Forms work helps the athlete in a variety of ways,
There is a world of difference between shadow boxing and forms work.

Shadow boxing is completely freestyle and is made up on the spot. Unlike forms work, shadow boxing is a series of only one technnque at a time that are put together at the time by the person. There is never a set order that must be done by any two techniques in a row.

Boxers fight with movements that closely mimic those done in their shadow boxing, while forms dancers' fighting rarely is anything like their form work.

Boxers are said to have the Best hands of any game,
Of course they do... all they do is hands. They don't have to worry about takedowns or a ground game. Even their clinches are broken up by the the ref after a short period of time.

Knifefighter

12-06-2006, 07:46 AM

. You''re not part of that collective "we". Bwahahahaha. Its a casual connection at best. Don't make me laugh, oops you just did. Unless you get in that ring at ufc 66 you don't get to use that collective "we" any more than I do.
For someone who says its not about "forms people don't fight" you sure do allude to it every chance you get.
Considering the fact that I still fight MMA style stick fighting and regularly compete in BJJ and grappling tourneys, I'd say I can make the claim to still fight.

Considering the fact that I have fought MMA a number of times, I'd say I have a pretty good idea of what it is like to fight in that environment.

Considering the fact that you have never competed in a single full contact fighting match and any competition you have ever done was forms, I'd say I have way more of a valid claim to the "we" than you do.

Knifefighter

12-06-2006, 07:57 AM

[He could not even handle a Wing Chun guy in *Play*
Let's see... we were only working clinch/takedown in our session. My goal was clinch/takedown. His goal was "antigrappling" and preventing clinching and takedowns. During our session I landed three takedowns, the clinch/double leg that he showed on his clip and two low single leg takedowns, which he did not show. Who "handled" whom?

The rest of the stand up world uses methods that are pretty much the same as ours, and they all excell in stand up fighting.
Your's and their's are very far apart.

Royal Dragon

12-06-2006, 09:04 AM

I think you are biased, and delusional, and are only intrested in promoting your agenda. Your heros aren't any better than anyone else, and in many instances are worse (Stand up fighting).

You have been told time, and time again what forms are for, and how they are properly used, and you still don't get it. You act like you just don't hear, and refuse to accept anything that does not fit your FALSE preconcived notions.

You keep making the same stupid remarkes that are far form the truth, like the moves in the forms ar not the same as you would fight with them. That is certianly not true.

Seriously, I think you are that little rat looking guy in the bar that likes to **** everyone off, and gets off by doing so, then snickers to himself.

As for your Wing Chun fight, that guy owned you, and you were powerless to stop him from hitting you, even on the ground. Your methods suck, and I see no reason to listen to you when I already know what I am doing.

lkfmdc

12-06-2006, 09:50 AM

This thread is So beating a dead horse and I really didn't want to comment any more, spinning wheels in mud really

But here is a clear example of what KF said earlier about people who do MMA may not be UFC champions but have a clearer view of thier own relative skills

I do BJJ under my instructor (now he is a BLACK BELT and we are very happy). There is no question that I can not beat him rolling. He's been teaching a while, not only in NY San Da, and so he has guys who are brown, purple and blue. I can hang with the blue and purple. Sometimes they tap me, sometimes I tap them. The newbies, the guys who have been studying a few months, I tap, usually without much effort unless they are huge or have wrestling back grounds.

That doesn't make me a great fighter. Most UFC guys are black belt level rolling, some would definitely beat my teacher (who beats me). I'm not signing up for the UFC thinking I'm gonna win. But I also know that a lot of guys I"d take in grappling, especially the ones who aren't doing it!

Striking wise, that's my thing. I am the coach. Most of my students I can easily handle in sparring. My fighters, they are a different story. They are young, in good condition and trained. Sparring with them isn't easy. IF I don't pay attention, I"m gonna get whacked in teh head.... so you won't see me signing up for K-1 either. But as oppposed to a lot of people who do point sparring (or less) but think they can fight.....

Royal Dragon

12-06-2006, 10:04 AM

You are clearly a good coach.

My daughter came up under an old school, hard core Romanian gymnastics coach. She couldn't do anything at all herself, but somehow produced a never ending chain of Medal winners, at all levels.

lkfmdc

12-06-2006, 10:16 AM

Was that intended as an insult? :confused:

I simply stated a fact, that there are varying levels of skill, and testing your skill "alive" keeps you aware of that fact. A lot of TMA guys do NOT test their skills this way, and that always has the danger of having you lose touch with your relative abilities

Royal Dragon

12-06-2006, 10:30 AM

No, you made the comment that your top guys are really tough, and you have to really pay attention to keep up with them. It was a compement to your coaching ability.

I went off on a tangent with the gymnastics coach thing, basically trying to say that a coaches skill is not really connected with thier teaching ability.

I have noticed that the best coaches seem to have the least skill, and the guys wiht the most skill, seem to be lackluster coaches. You seem to have both.

Knifefighter

12-06-2006, 10:44 AM

You keep making the same stupid remarkes that are far form the truth, like the moves in the forms ar not the same as you would fight with them. That is certianly not true.
Funny how many CMA people have stated on here that forms and fighting are different and that one wouldn't fight like he does his forms.

Your methods suck, and I see no reason to listen to you when I already know what I am doing.
Got any clips that might back up your point?

I went off on a tangent with the gymnastics coach thing, basically trying to say that a coaches skill is not really connected with thier teaching ability.
Speaking of coaches, who were your teachers?

Shaolin Wookie

12-06-2006, 12:49 PM

Not to say MMA is not effective--we all know it is on some level. Bruisers tend to win tournament fights, and grapplers can pretty much lock down anyone without extensive grappling experience. Plus, they tend to be some big swoll' dudes, and little CMA or karate guys can't really take 'em down with punches and kicks, because that's like trying to stop a Mack truck by running into it head-on with Yugo. Physics just don't add up....

But really, how many fifty to sixty year-old men have you ever seen, despite their experience, MMA included, relish the idea of jumping onto the ground with a 250 lb. ripped BA with a blackbelt in BJJ. The body, at a certain age, won't respond well to certain physical scenarios, and physical grappling is one of them. Unless you're working out everyday like a gymrat, at fifty and sixty, your body declines. You won't be as fast as you used to be. Plus, with the poor body mechanics they display (MMA'ers), they'll all be like old boxers when they retire....joint problems, chronic muscle pain, headaches from the KO's, pain-killer addictions....

No thanks, dude. Go on, be a complete BA while you're young bashing out the brains of a no-brained MMA automaton....wrestle him to the ground and choke his life out for competition....but leave the rest of the MA world out of it.

Why don't you see CMA guys succeed in the UFC? Well, there's never really been very many credible CMA practitioners competing in the UFC. Yes, there have been a few, but none very credible. Why? It's the martial morality of CMA. YEah, I know, it's kind of cheesy.

But to be honest...I weigh 170 lbs at 5'11'', and I'm 100% muscle. I can throw around little guys, but big guys can toss me around. If a beefed up MMA dude attacked me in the street, or any bigazzed steroid mofo, I'd kick out his knee and take it from there, or simply run away (speed is one of the benefits of being small....). If I hit the ground, I'd bite, spit, scratch, claw, poke eyes, whatever it takes to get an advantage. Is it cowardly? Nope. Whatever wins a fight wins a fight. Nuff said. Technique? Nature's techniques...I'm not about to take a skullbashing for something like European honor. If an attacker had any honor, he wouldn't be attacking. 'Nuff said....again....

But you watch and see if any of the Gracies competes at his level at fifty, sixty, and seventy. Sure, CMA guys won't either. But look and see who's in better health and could win in a fight, then. I'll always put money on a CMA guy. He's not relying on pure strength. And strength doesn't remain pure. Sure, the Gracies win on technique, but technique only does so much against power (hence, the get teh **** out of here running like a madman defense). And then the only defense is "dirty" fighting. And "dirty" fighting has a tendency to work. Lots of BJJ guys leave themselves wide open for eye pokes and groin pulls--yes, even the pros....

It's why MMA guys won't win life or death fights...and it's why CMA guys get their butts handed to em in the iron cage.

Two different worlds......I never know why they're compared.

Knifefighter

12-06-2006, 01:11 PM

But really, how many fifty to sixty year-old men have you ever seen, despite their experience, MMA included, relish the idea of jumping onto the ground with a 250 lb. ripped BA with a blackbelt in BJJ.
There are many, many BJJ guys doing this every day.

Technique? Nature's techniques...
If that was the case, there would be no reason to train, at least for fighting and or self defense. Just rely on natural reaction... yeah, that's the ticket. Who needs to spend years learning techniques and applying them when they are already there and will just come out naturally?

But you watch and see if any of the Gracies competes at his level at fifty, sixty, and seventy. But look and see who's in better health and could win in a fight, then. I'll always put money on a CMA guy.
Rickson is 50. He'd probably beat any CMA guy, regadless of age. Same with his brother Relson who is middle 50's. Most MMA, Judo, BJJ, Sambo, Muay Thai, or boxers 50 or over would beat just about any other CMA guy of the same age.

He's not relying on pure strength.
Ah the old, uninformed CMA strength BS.

And strength doesn't remain pure.
Surely you've heard of "old man strength."

And "dirty" fighting has a tendency to work. Lots of BJJ guys leave themselves wide open for eye pokes and groin pulls--yes, even the pros....
And then there's always the old poke em in the eyes and hit em in the nuts.

It's why MMA guys won't win life or death fights...and it's why CMA guys get their butts handed to em in the iron cage.
Oh, it gets even better here. CMA can only fighti in life or death challlenges... bwhwhaahahaha!!!!

This was a troll post, right?
Nobody is this stupid in this day and age are they?

Golden Arms

12-06-2006, 01:16 PM

Wookie, good points on the being able to practice when you are older, not so good points on the other stuff. I guess most CMA guys on here dont seem to realize that grappling is about "listening skill" just as much as tai chi or wing chun at the higher levels. No a first year guy is not going to train for that, but good grapplers are like trying to fight psychic muscular water, once you are on the ground, just like a wing chun guy would be if you tried to trap and push him. Due to that simple fact, I will go out on a limb and say that many of them are NOT open to eye pokes and groin hits, more than they would be to any other shot, since they can feel through contact what the rest of your body is doing unless you are similar level in this skill.

That being said, grappling is just grappling, just like striking is just striking, etc...the person has to make you play their game to win, and you will lose if you force them to play yours as well. Man this thread is painful to read.

Golden Arms

12-06-2006, 01:19 PM

Royal Dragon

12-06-2006, 01:27 PM

He is proving the existance of Shortman's syndrom....

Knifefighter

12-06-2006, 01:34 PM

OH and Knife, I dont know if you are joking or if you are an idiot, but you didnt address 9/10 of my post earlier, and basically just like beating a dead horse. I know very few fighters in real life that dont respect both sides of the pond. Grapplers tend to be cool guys just as often as boxers, or serious martial artsist fighters as well. Dont know why you are such a d!ck to people, but I guess that is just your thing.
What was the 9/10 I didn't address? The part about the throwdowns? I haven't been to any of these, but my understanding is that 90% of the people who go there are TMA and very few people who actively train MMA fight there. Ray would be a better person to give you input on this.

If you want input about the 46 year-old guy who trains MMA once a week for a year, I think he will be much better than the majority of CMA people who have trained three days a week for a year.

As far as addressing your point about meeting your share of "garbage" MMA guys, I guess the only thing that I could do along those lines would be to ask you which fighters those were and at which facilities did they train.

Was there anything else that I missed?

Knifefighter

12-06-2006, 01:50 PM

Wookie, good points on the being able to practice when you are older,
MMA guys will just switch to CMA when they are too old to practice MMA anymore. Then they will get the benefits of both without having wasted their time when they were younger.

TAO YIN

12-06-2006, 04:07 PM

Knife,

You missed the part about why you're such a diick to people...:confused:

lkfmdc

12-06-2006, 04:12 PM

Knife,

You missed the part about why you're such a diick to people...:confused:

Just because KF challenges people to examine what they are doing and doesn't buy into the "package" he's being a part of human anatomy? :confused:

Maybe it's me, maybe it's today, but wow, people are way too sensitive I think

Pork Chop

12-06-2006, 04:50 PM

yeah, i used to hate KF, ST00, and lkfmdc because i thought they were overly harsh & close-minded; but they caused me to take a second to think about what i was doing and address my frustrations with my studies.

I used to get so frustrated being told that I'd have to wait 5 to 10 years if i ever wanted to fight.

I think fight sports are more of what i was looking for the entire time; however I would still love to have a traditional art to practise on my own time- to maybe give me a little flavor and a methodology for use outside of the ring as well.

If those 3 hadn't challenged me so much 5+ years ago, I might still be banging my head against the wall doing stuff I just wasn't cut out to do. I'll always appreciate them for that.

As far as discussion styles go though, i think i'm more in-line with sevenstar and even MP, keeping discussions rational and friendly.

street_fighter

12-06-2006, 05:16 PM

Man, you people are too sensative. I'm willing to bet that the only reason everyone says KF is "being a **** to people" is because they know deep down that he is right, and are in denial. If you really didn't see some truth in what he was saying, you wouldn't get so offended. And I guarantee that you wouldn't keep reffering to his "play" video or height...

I don't have enough sparring/fighting experience to get involved in this conversation any further (and if I did, I probably wouldn't want to:rolleyes:), but KF's points seem to be much more on the money than what most of the CMA guys are posting on here. Personally, I am not returning to a TMA school until I join an MMA one. I have to get some sound practical experience so I won't be fooled by BBS as I have before. This is in part because of what I have read KF post, so thank you.

TAO YIN

12-06-2006, 05:57 PM

lkfmdc,

:) I was totally and completely joking. I was surely a long way away from sensitive. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that Knifefighter isn't a diick. He talks like a hard on to almost everyone, and it's tirelessly boring to read. Instead of him using his years of knowledge to find out anything good about forms, even just one thing, he sits here and just shiits on them to pass the time and joke, ALL while talking like he knows every form and system there is.

I'll be sensitive though. I dont like forms either. I'm all about practical. I hate how idiotically ridiculous the Gung Fu world of forms and teacher-student relationship is set up. I wish that SPM teachers would teach the 108 on the first day, full on applications, full contact. It ain't gonna happen though. It's sad that it's not gonna happen too. It's sad that Pak Mei, Dragon, SPM, Wing Chun, hell...and any other system or systems you want to throw in there, don't just take all of their best two man stuff, most practical conditioning, sensitivity drills, and methods... put them all together, throw western boxing to the mix too, and make for the "UNSTOPPABLE HAND SYSTEM!" Won't happen, ever. Too many people losing too much money first and too much face second.

Then again, I'm not going to be as ignorant as to say that forms are nothing though. "Thrust Fingers, Straight Punch"=Lead Left, Right Cross. If Mike Tyson can use a tennis ball to practice his "Thrust Fingers, Straight Punch," why can't the rest of the world?

No matter, eventually it all goes back to getting into the ring, as the ring is the be all end all... Go get big paychecks, and dah, dah... Its as if until some CMAst does a "No Touch Knock Out" on Fedor or Crocop, then all CMA is shiit. Lest we forget the complete and utter disregarding of the fact that the majority of the guys competing, in whatever form of competition they are in (EVEN SAN DA), are world class athletes and the best at what they do. But somehow, somehow, some Joe Doe who goes to Mo Mow's Gwoon on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or some Joe Doe who was an "INNER GATE" disciple 15 years ago, is supposed to go and rock all these guys' worlds? 99% of the competitors who compete NOW can't do it, no matter the format...

Anyways, I apologize. I just get sick of reading the blatantly obvious, the "negative aspects of everything," if you will, post, after post, after post.

onyomi

12-06-2006, 06:02 PM

The problem with KF trying to compare the effectiveness of Kung Fu training to MMA training is that there's nothing close to a standard for what Kung Fu training conists of. There are literally hundreds of styles, many with multiple lineages, each doing things their own way. Even with the same style and lineage, two different teachers may run the class in a very different way.

The moves in the forms are pretty much just like they are used in a fight? In Mantis, yes. In Longfist, they are shrunk down somewhat. In Taiji they are sped way up, etc. Forms are a very important part of Kung Fu training? Some schools may spend all their time on forms, some may spend very little. Some styles have hundreds of forms like Praying Mantis, others, like Shuaijiao and Ziranmen have very few, focusing more on "drills." CMA schools don't do hard sparring? Some do, but many don't. Traditionally they all did, generally without any protective equipment. CMA discourages weightlifting? Though some modern teachers decry the practice for some reason, most traditional arts have a variety of equipment exercises designed to build the type of strength important for that style.... and so on and so on...

Knifefighter

12-06-2006, 06:48 PM

Knife,

You missed the part about why you're such a diick to people...:confused:
Just a little psychology experiment.

Kind of interesting being the guy everyone loves to hate. Sort of like being the bad guy in professional wrestling.

Also interesting that so many people say they get sick of reading what I am posting, but so many respond to my posts. I'm quite surprised people don't just put me on 'ignore'.

The Xia

12-06-2006, 08:37 PM

More typical kung fu armchair BS.

If that were true, there should be any number of CMA stepping up to get their paydays.

Thats what happens when you observe things from a distance, you tend to not see them too well.
I didn't say every MMA fighter, I said many. The boxing done by many MMA guys does not look nearly as good as pure boxers. This is a simple observation, that's all. Many MMA guys have excellent groundwork, superb conditioning, and phenomenal tenacity but I see a general lack of striking skills in many of them. I think Royal Dragon put it aptly when he used the words "slug it out". You don’t see good boxers doing that sort of thing. One example of a person who has competed in the UFC that has great striking ability is Cung Le.

Pork Chop

12-06-2006, 10:25 PM

I didn't say every MMA fighter, I said many. The boxing done by many MMA guys does not look nearly as good as pure boxers. This is a simple observation, that's all. Many MMA guys have excellent groundwork, superb conditioning, and phenomenal tenacity but I see a general lack of striking skills in many of them. I think Royal Dragon put it aptly when he used the words "slug it out". You don’t see good boxers doing that sort of thing. One example of a person who has competed in the UFC that has great striking ability is Cung Le.

yeah, well said....
my boxing coach can't sit through mma...
i could probably get him to watch ramon dekker and K1-max, i'm pretty sure; but he sees the striking of most mma guys and from a technical standpoint, a lot of the punching is horrendous....

i was reading champioship fighting by jack dempsey again today...
see, i was told at my gym that i don't have much power and i wanted to go back to the guy who has more 1st round KOs than anyone else (including Tyson)...
as an aside, i spent the evening working on the drop step and i think i got it...

I think you guys would be suprised at some of the stuff in his book...
He's REAL big on boxing for self defense, outside of the ring...
He talks about the type of boxing you'd need for "no rules, free for all fighting", when you have to worry about takedowns and techniques like kicking...
Dempsey taught grappling to the military, so he had a pretty extensive background...

he liked punches at range- exclusively straight punches he hates loping overhands. he recommends using footwork to stay away from the clinch, but to throw tight hooks & uppercuts if you get there...

he may not have had much experience with leg kicks, i'm pretty sure he was only 50 years removed from a type of wrestling that was popular back in the day that involved putting on steel toed shoes & kicking each other in the shin til the legs were hamburger; so he might have more exposure than you'd think...

FatherDog

12-06-2006, 10:42 PM

I didn't say every MMA fighter, I said many. The boxing done by many MMA guys does not look nearly as good as pure boxers.

Boxers and kickboxers train nothing but boxing and kickboxing six or seven days a week.

MMA fighters have the same number of days in a week, but in that week they have to train kickboxing, takedowns, and groundwork with punches.

Obviously, someone who spends a third of the time training kickboxing is not going to look nearly as good as someone who spends 100% of the time training kickboxing.

Someone who trained kickboxing 100% of the time and entered an MMA fight would look just as good as a pure boxer or kickboxer - right until he got taken down and choked out.

Conversely, someone who trained ground grappling 100% of the time would look just as good as a pure jiujitsu guy... assuming he ever got the fight to the ground.

Because MMA encompasses every mode of combat, an MMA fighter will not look as good as a specialist in that mode of combat, but they will be able to engage competently in all of them.

Pork Chop

12-06-2006, 11:57 PM

FatherDog

I understand what you're saying and in MMA i understand that ultimately it's the guy who puts it all together the best, not the one who's the best in each discipline.

On the other hand, there is a chance i could get that coach to sit through a Pride instead of a UFC. Pride guys come off a lot more polished.

Royal Dragon

12-07-2006, 04:56 AM

You know, I'd almost buy the "training time" line, if amature hobbiest boxers looked that bad too, but when a guy who only boxes 3 X a week for an hour looks better.......

Knifefighter

12-07-2006, 08:52 AM

You know, I'd almost buy the "training time" line, if amature hobbiest boxers looked that bad too, but when a guy who only boxes 3 X a week for an hour looks better.......
LOL @ 3x/week boxers being better at standup... in what fantasy world do you live? Oh, I forgot... the CMA forms dancing fantasy world.

And when are we going to see your clips?

And when are you going to answer the question of who taught you?

Oh, that's right... you are self-taught, train by yourself, and the closest you come to actually fighting is dancing around doing your forms.

Gotta love the CMA forms ballerinas who have never fought in their lives who put down the abilities of pro fighters.

Royal Dragon

12-07-2006, 09:42 AM

Oh, that's right... you are self-taught, train by yourself, and the closest you come to actually fighting is dancing around doing your forms.

Reply]
I just learn from videos ;)

FatherDog

12-07-2006, 10:31 AM

You know, I'd almost buy the "training time" line, if amature hobbiest boxers looked that bad too, but when a guy who only boxes 3 X a week for an hour looks better.......

I've never seen or heard anything out of you that suggests you'd have the slightest idea what good standup looks or feels like.

As far as I'm aware, your sole foray into training in person with anyone worth **** was with WaterDragon's group, and ended with you whining about them playing too rough.

After all the ridiculous things you've said about fighting on this board, I don't really think your opinions on anyone's standup are worth arguing about.

Knifefighter

12-07-2006, 10:46 AM

As far as I'm aware, your sole foray into training in person with anyone worth **** was with WaterDragon's group, and ended with you whining about them playing too rough..
You mean he actually went and sparred with someone... can't be.

WD is this true?

Royal Dragon

12-07-2006, 11:12 AM

No, we never sparred. I was still injured, and should have been on my own at the time.

I used to spar with a Kempo friend of mine through most of the mid to late 90's though.

Knifefighter

12-07-2006, 11:32 AM

No, we never sparred. I was still injured, and should have been on my own at the time.

I used to spar with a Kempo friend of mine through most of the mid to late 90's though.

That's it???
That's the extent of your sparring experience???
With a kempo friend for a few years back in the 90's????

Royal Dragon

12-07-2006, 11:34 AM

Umm Yeah, with that one guy only...never met anyone else since I started MA in 1989....:rolleyes:

TAO YIN

12-07-2006, 12:03 PM

Knifefighter

12-07-2006, 12:22 PM

Knife,

Fair enough about the psychological experiment.

I would like to ask you a serious question. I thought to make a new thread about it, but maybe I will later. Which is scientifically more beneficial for the "true fighter" to condition on when he doesn't have any other partners around to beat the snot out of? Working all kinds of combos and attacks on a "traditional" heavy bag, a thick piece of iron hanging from a rope, or a tree log hanging from a rope? Why?

From a scientific view, the most important principle is known as the SAAD principle (specific adapatations to applied demands- aka specificity of training).

This would indicate that the heavy bag would be the most beneficial of the three choices if there were no partners to work with. The reason for this is that this is the closest to the three options in terms of what it would be like against a live opponent and you would be able to work the techniques and combos that would more approximate what you would do against an opponent (specificity of training) .

Additionally, the heavy bag would allow you to work longer and harder (increased demand = increased conditioning) without incurring the injuries that you might when striking the harder objects, although the harder objects could also be used as supplemental training for conditioning to strike against harder, bony areas.

lkfmdc

12-07-2006, 12:28 PM

I wish that SPM teachers would teach the 108 on the first day, full on applications, full contact.

Other than the full contact part, why not address the actual essentials of a system from day one, with drilling and applications? That's sort of the point here. Why has CMA developed a culture where the fighting is almost LAST in sequence?

It's sad that Pak Mei, Dragon, SPM, Wing Chun, hell...and any other system or systems you want to throw in there, don't just take all of their best two man stuff, most practical conditioning, sensitivity drills, and methods... put them all together, throw western boxing to the mix too, and make for the "UNSTOPPABLE HAND SYSTEM!"

This is essentially how we got San Da you know! OF course, WHY did it happen? It took China being invaded, the entire government falling down, China becoming the sick man of Asia and hundreds of thousands of people dying just so the old stubborn, close minded Sifu would sit down and exchange knowledge and see what was actually practical... sort of sad really :eek: