OT:Chinese Thinking and Philosphy and effect on MA [Archive]

SPJ

12-11-2006, 08:52 PM

Realism is as much important in the evolution of CMA.

1. Song Dynasty, since the Song Tai Tzu arose from the civilian circles. MA practices were allowed in the civillians. There are also "styles" organized groups.

a. "the tale of watermargin" spoke of 108 styles.

b. due to strong Jing/Liao and western Xia, Song had to defend constantly along the borders. the famous general Yue Fei devised many sets or styles to train soldiers against invaders. General Yue was credited with many fighting sets.

2. Yuan or the mongols came. All MA practices were under secrecy. Yuan was overextended across the eurasia. Many cults or secret societies were formed. Including Ming cult/Jiao eventually rose up and established Ming.

3. Ming built the most extensive great walls or Ming walls. There were constant infightings between the east and the west factions of eunichs. They developed all kinds of cruel weapons. such as the arrows that are not removal with reverse hooks etc. Ming emperors were totally weakened. Again secret societies formed to fight against the eunichs. Ming also saw the sails of general Cheng He/ho to africa etc.

4. Qing from the north east came along. secret societies supporting Ming were formed. Ming was considered rule under Han majority and not outsiders. Shaolin and Hung gar were banned. only a few "styles" were allowed.

5. Kuo Shu guan were established to test and gather MA people to train military in the ROC era,

6. Cultural revolution in the 60's and early 70's banned MA practices in PRC.

7. Wushu arose after cultural revolution ended quietly with Mao's passing.

--

mantis108

12-12-2006, 02:33 PM

Realism is as much important in the evolution of CMA.

Traditionally, there are 5 (military, teaching, property security, body guard, and bandit) and a half (entertainer) vocations for martial disciplines in China. Each has its own set of circumstances. That's why there are so many styles around.

1. Song Dynasty, since the Song Tai Tzu arose from the civilian circles. MA practices were allowed in the civillians. There are also "styles" organized groups.

Song Taizu was not a civilian. He was not a member of the "noble" or aristocrates class for sure. He was a military commander equivalent of the rank of Colonel today. He and his brother masterminded a coup and took over the throne. Prior to his time, military structure was based on feudal loyality. Troops, who were mostly farmers, were drafted whenever there's a need for war. This means there was no such a thing as professional soldiers. You have warriors leading drafted troops, who would be returning to the fields when the war is over.

a. "the tale of watermargin" spoke of 108 styles.

that's just novel writing. It's not a proof of anything.

b. due to strong Jing/Liao and western Xia, Song had to defend constantly along the borders. the famous general Yue Fei devised many sets or styles to train soldiers against invaders. General Yue was credited with many fighting sets.

It was Song Taizu's policy to centralize control over the military institution in order to solve the feudal warlords problem. That helps to unify the country as well. By centralizing, all troops are now under the Emperor's direct control and are professional soldiers not draftees. This is reflected in the "watermargin" (ie Lin Chong" is the head instructor of 800, 000 troops). Professional soldiers means that they will be trained to do what the military job is required. Draftees are just ordered help. Big difference. So the notion that General Yue started training the troops isn't accurate.

2. Yuan or the mongols came. All MA practices were under secrecy. Yuan was overextended across the eurasia. Many cults or secret societies were formed. Including Ming cult/Jiao eventually rose up and established Ming.

Ming Jiao is more or less a fictionalized cult made popular by Jin Rong's (Louis Cha) Wuxia novel. It is based on legends and myths of Ming Taizu's rose to power. There was a grass root movement of blending different religions (Buddhism, Daoism, Muslim, Zoroastrianism, etc) in Southern China. The White Lotus cult became so strong in taking advantage of expanding its demographic by including almost all known religious powers in the south at the time. It is known that the head of White Lotus during the end of Yuan dynasty has the title of Ming Wang (King of Brightness) which is reminiscent of Zorostrianism's mian doctrine. It is also where the Ming Jiao legend came from.

3. Ming built the most extensive great walls or Ming walls. There were constant infightings between the east and the west factions of eunichs. They developed all kinds of cruel weapons. such as the arrows that are not removal with reverse hooks etc. Ming emperors were totally weakened. Again secret societies formed to fight against the eunichs. Ming also saw the sails of general Cheng He/ho to africa etc.

The eunichs were the ears and eyes of the Emperor. But the servants pretty much took over the reign by controlling the masters who relied on them. They spied on everything including the military. Cheng He was a eunich as well. He's charged to sought out the dethroned Emperor Wei Men (?) by the sea route.

4. Qing from the north east came along. secret societies supporting Ming were formed. Ming was considered rule under Han majority and not outsiders. Shaolin and Hung gar were banned. only a few "styles" were allowed.

Qing Emperors banned the cults and martial arts in the beginning but they saw that martial arts (militias) can help in fighting bandits and pirates. So eventually they let people to do martial arts. BTW, the schools and system loyalty thing was established during the Ming dynasty.

5. Kuo Shu guan were established to test and gather MA people to train military in the ROC era,

The ROC government saw that most Chinese are not physically fit and they also needed to boost morale and patriotism. So they came up with the Guo Shu ( National Art) idea.

6. Cultural revolution in the 60's and early 70's banned MA practices in PRC.

no comment

7. Wushu arose after cultural revolution ended quietly with Mao's passing.

Wushu was the brain child of Mao and San Shou (the sport) came along during the 90s (?). It is the communist party's way to control the populace through fragmentation of martial academia by sportification. Also, it brings in foreign currency and investments which were hard to come by during the early days of the PROC.

Mantis108

Shaolin Wookie

12-12-2006, 03:52 PM

I don't know if I'd call state-enforced loyalty and patriotism any kind of "old power" such as is now the norm under the PRC. The virtues of independence and interdependence really have nothing to do with China's last century. It's more like complete and utter dependence. I don't know if that's what you're talking about, but it should be a byline to your intro. Character development is limited. It's just prescribed...never really realized....

If you've ever read "Atlas Shrugged" or "We, the Living" by Ayn Rand, you'd see what I mean by the complete overhaul of any kind of system--and yes, Communism was a big overhaul of tradition on many levels in China--not just Russia.

One reason CMA manage to survive with such prominence is their close links to culture, history, and art. It's also the reason why CMA is so close minded. When generations pass and hand-off ritual, stressing the importance of regimentation, structure, form, and repitition, people take it as an insult when the system is challanged. You seem to be challanging an entire national/cultural identity, rather than something really small---and it's taken as a slap in the face to whatever master you're learning from. If you turn left at the wrong part of a form, people tend to say, you're doing it wrong. Oh, am I? Does it really matter if I turn left or right, or do a back handspring, or fall flat on my face? If you don't train enough, we tend to say: hey, you're a real slacker--even if that person works 2 blue collar jobs 80 hrs a week. Back in the day, hard work, a.k.a. "kung-fu", described the effort one put forth in everything. I don't think that definition carries much weight today. I'm no advocate of the: "hey, as long as you try hard" kind of approach. I think it was Confucius who said something like: "Why should I bow to an old fool? He has simply proven that he's never gone beyond his foolishness."

But maybe an American touch here or there is a good thing. After all, most CMA guys didn't stay in China during hte Cultural REvolution. They came here.....

Thank god...

SPJ

12-12-2006, 10:18 PM

Just how does the thinking play into the evolution of what we know as CMA.

1. There are many ideas of practicalism. The centerline, the nose, fist and lead foot aligned. Defense built in every posture. To shrink or contract is to protect. To extend/open is to attack. To yield, to lead, three levels, the front and back etc.

2. ideas of Yin/Yang or two sides of everything and change.

3. borrowing forms/xing from things and animals we observed.

etc.

How can we be called closed minded and have so many substyles?

substyles would be personal interpretations/expressions/modifications of the same main styles.

What is the role of Confucianism?

Kong Fu Zi is more about an ideal society where everything is in an order strung by mutual respect and benevolence or Li.

What about North thinking versus south?

Each has its own developments and evolutions. Some northern styles went south and received adaptations.

:)

Sifu Darkfist

12-12-2006, 10:22 PM

One reason CMA manage to survive with such prominence is their close links to culture, history, and art. It's also the reason why CMA is so close minded. When generations pass and hand-off ritual, stressing the importance of regimentation, structure, form, and repitition, people take it as an insult when the system is challanged. You seem to be challanging an entire national/cultural identity, rather than something really small---and it's taken as a slap in the face to whatever master you're learning from. If you turn left at the wrong part of a form, people tend to say, you're doing it wrong. Oh, am I? Does it really matter if I turn left or right, or do a back handspring, or fall flat on my face? If you don't train enough, we tend to say: hey, you're a real slacker--even if that person works 2 blue collar jobs 80 hrs a week. Back in the day, hard work, a.k.a. "kung-fu", described the effort one put forth in everything. I don't think that definition carries much weight today. I'm no advocate of the: "hey, as long as you try hard" kind of approach. I think it was Confucius who said something like: "Why should I bow to an old fool? He has simply proven that he's never gone beyond his foolishness."

But maybe an American touch here or there is a good thing. After all, most CMA guys didn't stay in China during hte Cultural REvolution. They came here.....

Thank god...

Actually i respect both of your perspectives and humbly disagree. With The Shoalin Wookie i would say replace the attribution to survival and the first place the masters fled to Taiwan and the words would have more accuracy. THe best combatants were involved with the government in some form due to the nationalist mentallity that was brought to a fervor during the communist awakening.

THose that were true hardcore Chinese and did not wish to leave but could not bow to marxism fled with Chaing to ROC or Taiwan. There you will find the greatest masters all the way up until the call of prosperity promised a new use for the masters who (reluctantley) moved to America. Even after there migration here it took them decades to trust American Students (some still do not) due to the tumultous past experienced by the CMA MASTERS.

Actually as fdar as conflict is concerned Communism has effectively slowed the once internal war and strife experienced by Zhong Guo.

As for the Esteemed Mantis 108 much of the refined arts that we use today were used more recent than the past you have declared in your post.
I understand the tendency of Most Zhong Guo Ren to avoid Attribution to the Manchu or even to those resisting the Manchu (thus acknowledging the foreign rule of China), however it was the Manchu Emperors (esp Kang Xi) that displayed a need for diversification in CMA or just Chinese Military Arts. In order to Unify the entire nation they were able to allow those with talent to use theirs in the arenas without a high level of supremacist attitudes.
Example, Kang Xi bows to Kung Fu tze's Grave sight. Also he uses the infantry Skills of the Ming the naval skills of Shanghai, the Calvary skills of loyal Mongols or decendants thereof. Later they Refined CMA for personal bodygaurds and would routinely hire Well Known Ruffians to teach the Guards( we all know the participation of outlaws into the innovation of madern mantis).

So i would say to leave out the Manchus no matter how they were hated would be a wrong regardless of how corrupt or hated they were.

However i still would like to know your views on the role of Confucius on CMA and its evolution or as the MMa guys would argue lack thereof.

mantis108

12-13-2006, 02:18 PM

As for the Esteemed Mantis 108 much of the refined arts that we use today were used more recent than the past you have declared in your post.
I understand the tendency of Most Zhong Guo Ren to avoid Attribution to the Manchu or even to those resisting the Manchu (thus acknowledging the foreign rule of China), however it was the Manchu Emperors (esp Kang Xi) that displayed a need for diversification in CMA or just Chinese Military Arts. In order to Unify the entire nation they were able to allow those with talent to use theirs in the arenas without a high level of supremacist attitudes.

Well, my friend, it is a good point that you brought up. :) Great thread by the way.

Personally, history is history and we can't change what happened. It is however about what we can get out of the "lesson". In our generation, we only have impressions of Qing dynasty rulers namely the Manchurians. So, I don't have feeling towards them one way or the other. Like everyone, I have impressions of how they come to be rulers, their governing and downfall.

Now that's out of the way, I believe the Manchurians weren't the bad guys that some would believe. They were like many other ethnic groups in China (Mongolians, Muslims, Tibetants, Miao, etc) mostly suppressed by the Han group. They weren't happy with the perceived unfairness that the Ming dynasty dealt to them. Their "reason" to invade China was the so called "7 great grudges". Kind of like the Confederacy in America during the Civil War, they originally wanted a peace treaty other than taking over China. But as the political and military blunders that Ming imperal court made, the Manchurians were able to swallow up China. Winning the war is one thing, governing a country with a populace like China is absolutely another thing.

Example, Kang Xi bows to Kung Fu tze's Grave sight. Also he uses the infantry Skills of the Ming the naval skills of Shanghai, the Calvary skills of loyal Mongols or decendants thereof. Later they Refined CMA for personal bodygaurds and would routinely hire Well Known Ruffians to teach the Guards( we all know the participation of outlaws into the innovation of madern mantis).

Well, there's a lot of romancing "Kang Xi Da Di" ;) But it is probably true that he's the first amongst the Qing Emperors to adopt Chinese culture and education. Through out Qing dynasty there is a continuous effort to create a canon of scholaristic studies (mainly Confucian). That's why we have the Kang Xi dictionary and the Si Hu Quan Shun (4 vaults of complete books). In the early years of Qing dynasty, the Manchurian's military structure was the 8 flags troops (all Manchurians). As they have to deal with insurgence and later conquests, they look to the Han groups and established the Green Company for auxilary forces but eventually the Green Company (all Han group) became the regular fighting force as well.

So i would say to leave out the Manchus no matter how they were hated would be a wrong regardless of how corrupt or hated they were.

My not mentioning much about them is that I find their period for TCMA is more or less a summary of previous dynasty. The main contribution if at all is the trend for TCMA to integrate into entertainment business and pop culture(Chinese opera, circus, street performing, Wuxia novels, etc). It is far less exciting then Song and Ming dynasty IMHO.

However i still would like to know your views on the role of Confucius on CMA and its evolution or as the MMa guys would argue lack thereof.

Confucius was also a fan of sports (archery mainly). He's also spotted with a sword in his attire. No record of him actually fancing exsits but it's not far fetch to believe that he knew something about it. In Chinese "ru" is scholarly studies in civil disciplines but it has become synomonous with Kong Fu Zi (Confucius). Ru actually includes many other forms and factions (ie Mu Zi - militant Ru). Technically, Daoism (philosophical branch) is a form of Ru, which in ancient time studies the 6 classics (poetry, rites, history, etc) that includes the Classic of Change (Yijing). Many don't realize there are much consistency between Lao Zi's Dao De Jing and the 6 Classics. This is why during Song dynasty, there is Neo Confuciusim that seems to have elements of Daoism in this form of Confuciusim when in fact they are related once upon a time IMHO. The Diagrams and scrolls study (Tu Shu Xue) of the Neo Confuciusim namely - He Tu (river diagram), Xian Tian Tu (Primodial diagram), and the Taiji Tu (Taiji Diagram), are the foundation of classical Kung Fu theories. We can safely say that without the Neo Confuciusim movement, there may be Wushu but there will not be Kung Fu. The modern Wushu farce could have happened much earlier on perhaps as early as Ming dynasty! :eek: For Kung Fu to be the zenith of CMA, the martial academia of Chinese study, the influence of Confuciusim and in particular Neo Confuciusim is most crucial IMHO.

Warm regards

Mantis108

Sifu Darkfist

12-13-2006, 07:51 PM

SPJ

12-13-2006, 08:45 PM

1. Kong Fu Zi is really about an ideal society. Every one has his or her place in that society. Jun Jun Cheng Cheng Fu Fu Zi Zi. A ruler is like a ruler. A minister is like a minister. A father is like a father. A son is like a son. Each has his own responsibility for people above him and under him.

Kong Fu Zi called this pattern/rule Li. There is a chapter about the society. It is called Li Yun Da Tong. the exercise of Li to reach greatest harmony in the society/world.

This belief is also called ideology of Ru Jia. During his life time, most kings employed some other disciplines. There is a rule of law or Fa Jia. Fa Jia made Qin strong and eliminate 6 other kingdoms/states. There is another school called the naming or Ming Jia. They like to define everything, why and how or labelling.

--

2. Chinese society is founded on the family and extended family. The structure of the family started from tribes or villages. During the weak Zhou Wang/king or spring and autumn and warring periods. the emperor is weakened. the little kings owned states/lands and army. the family of the ministers and the family of generals played very important roles during that 1000 years.
even after the establishment of the first truely emporer, Qin Shi Huang Di, everything is under one man rule and not the little kings, family system is still very important. in effect, the imperial court is formed by the imperial FAMILY.

--

the trades including business, military etc are passed along within the family in each generation. with this structure, it is extended to disciples which are not related in blood but "related" in trades.

so the fighting skills or trading secrets remained in the family or "extended" family.

so if you Bai Shi Xue Yi or bow to the teacher and learn his or her trade, you are family. the most important ones would be the first Tu Zi or big brother and the last or closed door disciple.

yes, only one or the best or worthy will continue the trade as the name bearer of the tradition. others will be fellow practitioners and not responsible for the passing down or carrying the name of the trade. if oldest brother passed away or incapable, he or she get to choose the next name bearer.

for outsider, the name of the school/trade is enough. for insider, the generation status or Bei Fen is very important.

--

not to bore everyone with all the finess or "niceties"

simply said if you are disciples, you are family. The teacher will pass something to you. It is an honor and also big responsiblities. Some students would shun this at all costs. some would be more than eager to assume.

--

:)

SPJ

12-13-2006, 08:57 PM

other than the responsibilites with your generation status or Bei Fen within your school,

you pretty much do whatever you wish.

and yes, sometimes it is difficult to fulfill your responsibilities within family/school and try to accomplish something by yourself all alone at the same time.

there is upside and downside of everything. I guess.

but it is nice to be able to belong to a big family.

these ideas took root in Korea and Japan as well.

Japanese corporations, societies and governments still run like a family.

--

:)

Ray Pina

12-14-2006, 09:06 AM

Not to generalize, but from my experience (8 years playing in Chinatown, 6 under the direct teaching of Master David Bond Chan and his mostly Chinese student base at the time) I would say the Chinese aproach is detrimental.

Three hundred years ago, when people may have actually needed and used these skills more practically, the idea of hierarchy and seniors may have played an important role, much like captains, sergeants, etc, in the military today. Because of that, title or position would more likely be based on realistic ability.

In my experience, you have Chinese seniors who may have paid good money to become disciples and have followed the master "faithfully." But part of following "faithfully" is not questioning anything and truly believing that the skills you are training are superior to all others in every way.

This then bleeds into the school atmosphere. Seniors, though they've never risen their fists in anger or defense, are somehow too dangerous to compare against. And newbies, well, they still have two years minimum of structure-building drills before they could be allowed to test.

The result: no body is using their stuff.

Then competition comes around:

The Chinese stuff is too political, or too many rules, not realistic enough, too much form.

San Da: too many rules, can't elbow, boxing gloves.

MMA: too many rules, no elbows (amatuer), favor the grappler, etc.

Again, the result: no body is using their stuff.

Honestly, and I love CMA, Kung Fu has become ****. I haven't met one pure CMA man anywhere that I wouldn't jump on the opportunity to fight and film... because you just know they will be overwhelmbed, crumble, take a very short beating and then tappity, tap, tap.

It is dispicable and the blame falls 100% on practioners who suffer from Americanitis... they want the flash and glamor and all the props without getting dirty, working hard, suffering a little, experience defeat and hardships, etc., etc. The CMA media, aware of this, is obviously going to downplay the effectiveness of CMA in relation to effective fighting arts and play up the history, the Chi-side of things and those that are more than happy to drink the Kool-Aid willingly go along for the ride.

That's the short and long of it.

SevenStar

12-14-2006, 09:50 AM

As far as confucian effects on martial arts, i was asking more about how you feel the doctrine of filial piety might have helped or hindered the growth of the arts (regarding the absolute obediance of the student to the master.
It seems the MMA guys argue that the Chinese Ideologies would not allow for rapid evolution. I disagree strongly, I feel that Filial piety might have tempered and moderated foolhardy ideas that would have otherwise been rushed into in almost all aspects of life. I think that Confucuis firmly established that when you are the eldest it is your job to take the helm and to continue the growth of your family or in this case the combat art.

Where is the rapid evolution that you are expecting to see? We still have people who argue over which styles training and forms are closest and unmodified from the original system. CMA tend to take pride in the fact that their traditional style is unchanged from the old ways. As long as CMA pride themselves on adhering to the old ways, there will never be an evolution, which is likely part of the reason why the evolution is so slow. MMA has changed more since 1995 than hung gar has in over 100 years.

you are correct - the eldest SHOULD take the helm and continue growth of the combat art. However, when you have no requirement for combat, you end up with seniors who have never participated in combat. They are therefore teaching second hand someone else's combat experience. This only begets the brining up of more seniors with no direct combat experience. In the end, you have people acknowledged as masters, who have in fact never even had so much as a schoolyard fight. Over time, this will dilute the combat effectiveness of what you are teaching.

Ray Pina

12-14-2006, 11:21 AM

onyomi

12-14-2006, 11:33 AM

Fu(k Confuscious:) ... I only say that half jonkingly too.

Benevolence is for dogs!

I'm a students so I'm supposed to behave this way...

I am an eployee, so I'm supposed to behave this way...

I am a husband, a neighbor, a citizen....

Fu(k that!

I am an individual comprised of multifaceted angles and relationships, and what I do (forget supposed to) depends on the situation.... which has never existed before in reality. Who's to say what's right or wrong.

Confucious was trying to get a job and get people in line.

Poor Confucius--everyone bashes on him nowadays without even understanding him. He didn't say you have to pigeonhole yourself to one role, just that you should play your roles well... If you have a son, you should be a good father to him. If you have a brother you should be a good brother to him. If you're a minister you should be honest and good to the people. If everyone fulfills their responsibilities in this way society will be peaceful. What's wrong with that?

TenTigers

12-14-2006, 11:40 AM

"I'm a students so I'm supposed to behave this way..."

-that's why I have my own school

"I am an eployee, so I'm supposed to behave this way..."

-that's why I'm self-employed

"I am a husband, a neighbor, a citizen...."

-that's why I'm single,a hermit,and a "known associate"

"Fu(k that!"

-works for me!

Ray Pina

12-14-2006, 12:15 PM

If you have a son, you should be a good father to him. If you have a brother you should be a good brother to him. If you're a minister you should be honest and good to the people. If everyone fulfills their responsibilities in this way society will be peaceful. What's wrong with that?

Does a "good father" hit his kid when he acts up, disrecpects him... or does he never, ever, under any circumstances, no matter how bad the child is, hit his child?

A "good" teacher: Is he strict and demand students perform certain functions perfectly, exactly the same way he did, or does he allow them freedowm to learn and grow on their own under his guidance?

Can a minister be "honest" and "good" to the people and yet in his own private life fail to follow the tenants that he himself sets for others as a "good" minister.

Perhaps some don't understand poor Confucious. Maybe some read his stuff, read what others write about him and, not unlike listening to what their "good" parents, "good" teachers, "good" bosses, "good" politicians have said, just follow along and do what they're "supposed to do" because it's the "right" thing.

Some kids need a beating, many more don't. Some students need strict discipline, others will be turned off by it.

No man should tell another how he should live.... that's my thoughts on the ministry.... and Confucious.

The Xia

12-14-2006, 12:51 PM

Confucian influence can be seen in TCMA in the form of filial piety and other things but those that practiced martial arts were often people considered unsavory by the Confucian aristocracy.

Sifu Darkfist

12-14-2006, 02:58 PM

the shift to admiring the intellectual happened during the hundred schools of thought period. The rulers abandoned their worship of warrior skills and opted for the intelligentsia or literati. THe Martial artists became servants, however, Kang xi and several other Qing were known to train rigorously and held the deepest regard for their bodyguards (an area of personal interest to my heart due to my Lineage). So what exactly causes the lose of respect for those that protect your ability to breathe.

on an unrelated note,,,,,I am at the point that i ready to completely ignore all those that come to a Chinese Martial Arts forum just to bash the oldest Surviving country that is flourishing in the world. What is the motivation for such hatred?

Cma can be called whatever they like but i will say it is more likely to survive the long term than any other art simply due to its track record. it has been here the longest for some reason and it has the most detractors that is usually a sign that it is percevied as the most able adversary to the ones that wish to be recognized as legitimate.

mantis108

12-14-2006, 04:07 PM

Wow, lots of good food for thoughts.

First off, thank you Sifu Darkfist for the kind words and support. I am gald you enjoy my posts. :)

Filial Piety in TCMA is often of practical and economic reasons. A lot of the masters were single and no one to take care of their retirements or funeral arrangements in the old days. It's up to the disciple(s) to take care of all that. In a society where there's no Church or State to turn to, people often have to fall back on their own net work of support - extended family.

I believe that it would be counterproductive to confuse skill development (ability to fight) with personal growth (morality and ethics) although they are directly related and should be directly porportional from a Chinese perspective IMHO. Personally, personal growth overrides skill development ( I am sure that other would disagree). The beauty of Kung Fu is that it actually harmonizes the two with a pragmatic approach. Many believe that Kung Fu is a close end system and it won't change. This is far from the truth IMHO. I believe Bruce Lee was on the mark when he built his system with the individual in mind. In fact, Kung Fu is about the individual not conformity. Style is only a templet where nothing is set in stone. The most important thing is to be honest to oneself (know thyself).

Warm regards

Mantis108

SevenStar

12-14-2006, 04:25 PM

on an unrelated note,,,,,I am at the point that i ready to completely ignore all those that come to a Chinese Martial Arts forum just to bash the oldest Surviving country that is flourishing in the world. What is the motivation for such hatred?

Many of us don't hate cma. heck, a few of us used to train it. But you made a point which I addressed. Welcome to discussion. As for being the oldest survivng country, I'm pretty sure that would be anywhere in africa...

Cma can be called whatever they like but i will say it is more likely to survive the long term than any other art simply due to its track record. it has been here the longest for some reason and it has the most detractors that is usually a sign that it is percevied as the most able adversary to the ones that wish to be recognized as legitimate.

folk wrestling predates cma. every civilization since the beginning of recorded time has had it. And it is still around today. anything that anyone sees some need for stand the potential to stand the test of time.

SevenStar

12-14-2006, 04:41 PM

Many believe that Kung Fu is a close end system and it won't change. This is far from the truth IMHO.

What changes have you seen over the years? are you happy with them? In your own teachings, do you typically embrace change?

Style is only a templet where nothing is set in stone. The most important thing is to be honest to oneself (know thyself).

Agreed.

SPJ

12-14-2006, 08:57 PM

On Kong Fu Zi;

actually, his ideas work the best. The kings would not listen. At the time, the ministers or generals wanted to divide the kingdoms, such as 3 families of ministers divided Jin Guo. everyone was trumping for his interests. Shang Xia Jiao Xiang Li. everyone is to his own interests. there were never ending wars or wars upon wars among kingdoms and then among ministers within each kingdom.

in a society, we have different roles at different times. It is all relative. if we may reach a reciprocating point where every one would benefit the most. It is really simple.

for example. Fu Ci Zi Xiao. If you are a father, you are forgiving. If you are a son, you would respect and listen to your old man. guess what we are all sons or daughters at one point and then we will be parents, too.

Xiong You Di Gong. The big brother will be friendly. The little brother will be respectful to the elders. etc etc.

The ways to do things are called Dao or Do.

--

so if you respect and listen to your teacher, your students would do the same to you. That is it.

--

:)

SPJ

12-14-2006, 09:05 PM

evolution in MA is really a group effort overtime.

In the 1930's and early 40's, in the Kuo Shu Guan era, for example the Tong Bei people met with Pi Gua people and worked together. Pi Gua was greatly advanced with stepping methods from Tong Bei.

forces of evolution:

1. convergence, some repetitive/overlapping/similar functional moves may be simplified or unified by incorporating good ideas from several school/styles.

2. divergence. the root functional move/posture to derive/change into more moves.

3. central theme. focusing one theme and summarize all the available moves with the style or among several styles.

---

etc etc.

:)

The Xia

12-14-2006, 09:13 PM

Kung Fu is about the individual not conformity.
Very true. You make the style your own and from a historical perspective this is also accurate. Individualism is a key trait of the xia.

mantis108

12-14-2006, 09:48 PM

What changes have you seen over the years? are you happy with them? In your own teachings, do you typically embrace change?

I am sorry to said that TCMA in general are fast becoming the lost ark. Unfortunately, most if not all of the changes are about commercializing and westernizing (modernizing) TCMA. Very few people stop and ask themselves what their arts are really about. Systems and styles are gearing towards easy approaches and fast results. Cutting corners really doesn't make a system stronger.

I embrace changes. I believe my training methodology and program reflect that. I even have ex-students coming back to visit and admired how much we (the class) have evolved. Embracing change doesn't mean that one should chase after new paradigm and take the leap of faith. Rather it is about looking deeper into the system and adjust according. One must understand what his/her art is about. I don't think most TCMA people realize and understand the commonality that their arts have with all the rest of the arts (Chinese or otherwise) out there and how many lays of their arts really have to offer. Kung Fu is the original NHB but now in general it's the symbol of extreme FUBAR because most Kung Fu people become lethurgic and unimaginative. The most important thing is that one can not take Kung Fu out of its own context. It would be compare to taking a fish out of the water. You will only get a dead fish instead of a beautiful creature of the water. So...

Warm regards

Mantis108

Shaolinlueb

12-14-2006, 10:12 PM

ever hear the saying

1 kung fu master can beat 10 karate masters. but 10 kung fu masters cant beat 1 karate master? why? they are too busy argueing which technique to use. :p

SPJ

12-14-2006, 10:20 PM

ever hear the saying

1 kung fu master can beat 10 karate masters. but 10 kung fu masters cant beat 1 karate master? why? they are too busy argueing which technique to use. :p

LOL. good one.

this is actually from Shaolin temple. "one monk has water to drink. two monks carry the bucket of the water from the river together. 3 monks. there are no water to drink!". why?

:D

3 brains/ideas together is better than one. "three stinky leather pockets/people are better than minister Zhu Ge Liang".

in the old time, good ideas/notes are written and placed into a leather bag, you read them as needed as a reminder system.

--

:)

SPJ

12-14-2006, 10:31 PM

in case you are wondering why 3 "common" ideas from 3 people will always be better than one idea from the minister wise man.

there are always more than one way to look at things and more than one solution to a problem at hand.

sometimes it is about what you don't know or don't think and not so much about what you already know or think.

if an apple hit my head, I eat the apple and collect more of them from the tree, b/c they are ripe for picking.

--

why it felt downward---oh gravity by Mr. Newton.

--

:)

Ray Pina

12-15-2006, 09:39 AM

Cma can be called whatever they like but i will say it is more likely to survive the long term than any other art

CMA, as a FUNCTIONAL MARTIAL art is already long gone. It's weapons can not compete with today's weaponry. It's hand to hand methods are extinct, no different than bones you see in the museum. They're there, you see them, you get the idea, but it is dead. As you'll never see a brontasorous walk this earth (only on TV) you never, ever, see a pure CMA comparing in full fighting with others.

I honestly believe I was one of the few who openly and publicly tried it. I never lost a no-rules challenge match but could not win against competitve fighters and am honest enough to admit that my losses were not due to rules. So I've evoloved what I've trained, and expanded my skills to now where I have to say I am not CMA. I'm not BJJ either. Nor am I "MMA" as viewed today though I am a mix.

it has been here the longest for some reason and it has the most detractors that is usually a sign that it is percevied as the most able adversary to the ones that wish to be recognized as legitimate.
TKD may have been publicly available longer in the US. and would certainly have more practioners than CMA. I wouldn't judge a fighting methods quality on that. Actually, the hard hitting, no bones about it banging attracts very few.

Even at Master Renzo Gracies, a gym with hundreds if not thousands of people training, only a handful go out to fight.

Shaolinlueb

12-15-2006, 10:34 AM

It's hand to hand methods are extinct, no different than bones you see in the museum. They're there, you see them, you get the idea, but it is dead. As you'll never see a brontasorous walk this earth (only on TV) you never, ever, see a pure CMA comparing in full fighting with others.

wow dude, those are harsh words. i have to disagree.

Knifefighter

12-15-2006, 11:40 AM

Embracing change doesn't mean that one should chase after new paradigm and take the leap of faith. Rather it is about looking deeper into the system and adjust according. One must understand what his/her art is about.
That's exactly what is wrong with so much TMA... the looking deeper inside the system B.S.

Advantageous change most often comes from the outside.

SifuAbel

12-15-2006, 12:26 PM

MMA has changed more since 1995 than hung gar has in over 100 years.

Oh Please!!! MMA evolved from very poor token striking to get to the grappling, to actually knocking out your opponent and controlling his entry. What has changed? The fact that people are wise to the game and don't get taken down so easily? That they are actually hiting each other with better skill? Come on.......... The only real evolution is in the better mixing of the mix in mixed martial arts. What has MMA really invented that is so great? The punch? The kick? The lock? It all existed before. There is no evolution without innovation. And even if MMA's only innovation was to bring free fighting back en vogue, it didn't invent anything.

Granted, one can't take a kwon do into a war zone now. The weaponry won't be seen in battle anymore. So what, Those are external objects. As far as man himself, Unless man has grown significantly faster or stronger in general (and not by mear minute increments of the record holders), or has grow an extra limb or two, or horns, or some real change in our physiology, you can't say we as a species have significantly evolved physically in the last 2000 years.

Except of course for a few of you here that are superhuman, lift entire bulidings, stop time, can never be hurt, and one that can apparently breath helium.

mantis108

12-15-2006, 12:55 PM

That's exactly what is wrong with so much TMA... the looking deeper inside the system B.S.

Advantageous change most often comes from the outside.

That's exactly the B.S attitude that's wrong with so much MMA. ;)

First of all, a system is like a person, if he's not able to stand on it's own two feet, he will have to use crutches. This is what I meant by looking deeper into the system. It is for the babe to learn how to stand on it's own two feet first without external help and then you give them the wheels. Many in TMA/TCMA never learn or work with this simple concept. How could a system that's stand up striking oriented can't even excel in that paradigm and we expect it to go handle grappling as well? This is what I meant - clean your house. Get rid of the excess amount of forms and extremely attribute reliance techniques and focus on a delivery system preferrably non attribute base that works. I know for a fact this exist in Kung Fu (CLF is a good example) but people don't recognize it for whatever reason. Keeping the seed or core forms for they are there in the system for a reason. Then we can start looking into or even adopting ground fighting (ie BJJ style). Most people don't work throught that process and try adding in BJJ or whatever other styles into their main style. The result is just disaterous.

In many traditional Chinese styles using the waist/hip grid to generate power and maneouvering is essential. This is taught on day one. So is the Ebi (shrimping) in BJJ, pretty much mother of all techniques. There's lots of commonalities like that. Argueably the drills are totally different and they have different functions. But my point is that we can narrow everything down and work with it other than throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I do understand that lots of people lost faith in and still other fantasize what TCMA is or is not. I am not here to convince others of what they do right or wrong. I am here to provide information and sharing my opinions. I am not good that I know for I have grappled with my student who's a police officier and we play a senario that he's wearing full gear (without the guns of course). He weights 260 lbs in that case. I can't get out when he has side control (I am 120 lbs). I can evade and counter his stand up pretty easily (with our TCMA stuff) but once I am cornered and we get to the ground I am pretty much toasted. I can escape relatively easily with 185 lbs (165 lbs is pretty much non issue). So I am working constantly with stuff like that. I don't come from an angle of denial or romantizing. Not all Kung Fu guys are airheads or lethurgic, my friend.

People want to jump ship, be my guest. I have known people who have learn 3 or more so called realistic styles but they aren't particularly more empowered then they used to. So...

You've got to be able to stand on your own two feet first.

Regards

Mantis108

Ray Pina

12-15-2006, 01:14 PM

I actually feel that way.

Muay Thai, Gracie Jiu-Jitsu, Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu, Grecco Roman Wrestling, boxing... all these arts presently have a healthy population of fighters.

If CMA has any fighters competing openly in a format that allows full punching, kicking, clinching, throws and ground and pound it is very few.... enough to be on the endangered species list.... if not gone already.

Is this news?

Knifefighter

12-15-2006, 05:54 PM

Oh Please!!! MMA evolved from very poor token striking to get to the grappling, to actually knocking out your opponent and controlling his entry. What has changed? The fact that people are wise to the game and don't get taken down so easily? That they are actually hiting each other with better skill? Come on.......... The only real evolution is in the better mixing of the mix in mixed martial arts. What has MMA really invented that is so great? The punch? The kick? The lock? It all existed before. There is no evolution without innovation. And even if MMA's only innovation was to bring free fighting back en vogue, it didn't invent anything.
While MMA didn't "invent" anything in specific, it was very innovative in severall different ways.

One was to open many people's eyes to the realities of grappling and groundfighting. Before MMA was popularized, most martial artists thought that grappling and groundfighting was a non-issue in fighting.

Another was to show the importance of learning to be proficient at each range- outside for punching and kicking, clinch for infighting and takedowns, and ground for finishes.

MMA also introduced the concept of sparring at all of these ranges.

Additionally, most MA people had never seen the guard before MMA. Most had no idea how to use it or how to defend against it.

The innovations from MMA have been incorporated into everything from TMA's, to weapons training, to law enforcement training.

Knifefighter

12-15-2006, 05:59 PM

Most people don't work throught that process and try adding in BJJ or whatever other styles into their main style. The result is just disaterous.
LOL!! That's exactly the attitude that keeps so many TMA people in the dark ages. How can adding BJJ or any other grappling style into one's training be disasterous? It can do nothing but improve one's overall game at any time in one's training development.

mantis108

12-15-2006, 07:09 PM

LOL!! That's exactly the attitude that keeps so many TMA people in the dark ages. How can adding BJJ or any other grappling style into one's training be disasterous? It can do nothing but improve one's overall game at any time in one's training development.

Laugh if you will, please don't forget that many of the TCMA systems were what the Chinese military throughout the ages relied on to train the troops in "Dark Ages" (pun intended) and beyond. Where were BJJ then?

I am speaking in terms of the system or style's perspective. An individual might feel that adding BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, Judo or whatever empowers enough to say who needs TMA or TCMA. I can't say that I blame them. But from a style's perspect especially one that has hundreds of years of tradition, this just won't do. I have seen people who took JJ, Judo, or BJJ (mainly submission holds on the ground but not the training approach or methodology) and simply "rename" them, giving them some new names and claim that they are the secrets in their style. If they attempt to use that against someone who's well trained in the grappling arts, I can guarantee that they will fail misserably. This is what I meat by disasterous because it's not a health attitude and it is counter productive. If a style (not an individual) really wants to add in BJJ or something , it should go through a vigorous process making sure that the unique and distinct charateristics of the style will not be thrown in to the back seat when adding in new element such as ground grappling (ie BJJ). There is nothing more horrible than a real life Wushu-Frankenstein IMHO.

Regards,

Mantis108

SPJ

12-15-2006, 08:52 PM

TAO YIN

12-15-2006, 08:58 PM

Perhaps Kung Fu "Should" be about the individual; However, in the fashion that it is taught by most teachers now and was before, It is in no way about the individual...In fact, it seems to be more about the teacher first and family second. With its coming from a culture that is still strongly based on aspects of filial piety, working in teams, following others without questioning, and importantly remembering to save face, no matter the cost, how is that going to bring forth much individuality? Or maybe not, we can more or less argue this forever...and at the end we'll simply refer to it as "cultural differences." Which means, I am sick of arguing about it.

The teacher student relationship in Kung Fu is the first thing that is detrimental to students wishing to gain a higher understanding of combat. Why? Because the teacher is leading the student down the same road that his teacher lead him down and saying to the student "jump over this brook in the same way that I jump over it just like my teachers before me jumped over it." The student might ask the teacher about going around the brook, but that will go against tradition, so it will have no bearing on the conversation. Unfortunately, when it comes to combat, humans are not the same as animals. It's a good idea, but it doesn't work the same for humans.

My teacher is 5 ft 7, weighs 200 pnds, and has a short arm reach. I am 6 ft 1, weigh 165 pnds, and have a long arm reach. My body WILL NOT react to things in the same way my teacher's does. It ain't going to happen. But many Kung Fu schools train in this fashion. They stand in line and do forms while trying to keep the same "pose" as their teacher in the front of the class... Even if I were to be brought up from birth by my teacher and taught to fight through mimicry, that is in the same fashion an animal raises its children, I would still never react to things in the same way my teacher does. Although this is true, Kung Fu is set up to make everyone do everything the same as their grandmasters and teachers and their brothers and sisters, all before them. This is good for military training, not for individual combat. This is good for keeping schools together, not for knowing the hands of many pai. I would love to hear the reaction to the following question from a serious student...

"Hey, Master Chi, do you know master Qi? He teaches Wing Chun, and I want to go learn it because I think it will help my hand speed even more and give me a different perspective on sticky hands. I would like to learn it and our Bak Mei at the same time. Is that okay? I also want to practice some Taekwondo to help me with my kicks, and some Jiujitsu to help me with my grappling. I hope you won't mind and will still teach me your style as well. Happens all the time in Chinatown, right?

Be back later, going to go try to get my students to critically think on their own and stop writing We, our, and you, in their formal writing assignments.

SPJ

12-15-2006, 09:46 PM

There is an old saying that the teacher only guides you to the door, how you practice the art is entirely up to you.

I am not defending any school. I am just talking from my own experiences. We are not supposed to talk too much about ourself on the net. but anyway.

Take Ba Ji for example, I was taught the Xiao Ba which is the basic frames/jia. If we did them well, that means we have a good basic structure. I may develop more from practicing them daily. This is the same set done 3 generations back (this is still verifiable).

How do I apply them or use them to fight or whatever, it is entirely up to me.

--

I may modify some moves or drop some moves or just drill some my fav moves and "fight" away with them.

I had some lessons from Chen Tai Chi, Tong Bei, Cheng Ba Gua. again I may be good at some of the moves and suck big time in most of them.

--

However, even my styles are all influencing one another. Ba Ji is too Tai Chi/soft like. Tai Chi is too hard etc.

--

For the most part, I am still doing pretty much the same in the said styles. Then I may not call stuffs I do is a new Pai. My Chen Tai Chi is still Chen Tai Chi.

--

if one day the stuffs are really variant enough, then a new substyle/pai appears.

--

my point is that in the beginning, everyone may do the same stuff, after a while, it is entirely up to you.

--

:)

Shaolinlueb

12-15-2006, 10:44 PM

wait didnt akido, kjarate, jujitus and styuff all branch off from kung fu or chinese combat systems? so what does this mean?

SPJ

12-15-2006, 11:17 PM

let me turn the discussions around or back to the first post.

thinking leads to ideas about life or philosophy. life experiences lead to thinking.

MA is about fighting. how and why we fight 1000 years before Christ and now 2000 years after Christ.

why we fight?

how we fight?

limiting to hand to hand combat or weaponless?

--

:)

every one is entitled to his or her oppinions. dun want to lecture everyone to think like me.

--

the answer to the previous post is that THE SAME.

to say people somehow knows how to fight better since 1990's or people from several thousands years back dunno how to fight?

--

if somebody punches your heart, the heart stopped beating.

if somebody punches your kidney or spleen, they ruptures and you internally bleed to death.

if somebody punches your abdomen, you have wrying pains.

if somebody kicks your knees, they break.

--

to give up stand up striking, and some how tumble on the ground 10 thousands ways are really fighting,.

--

ok.

--

:eek: :D

SevenStar

12-16-2006, 07:20 PM

wait didnt akido, kjarate, jujitus and styuff all branch off from kung fu or chinese combat systems? so what does this mean?

that would imply localization not evolution. they took what was available to them at the time and made it their own. and jujutsu cannot verifiably linked to china. I would type more, but i'm on my smartphone and this small keypad is a pain

Sifu Darkfist

12-18-2006, 12:13 AM

Many of us don't hate cma. heck, a few of us used to train it. But you made a point which I addressed. Welcome to discussion. As for being the oldest survivng country, I'm pretty sure that would be anywhere in africa...

folk wrestling predates cma. every civilization since the beginning of recorded time has had it. And it is still around today. anything that anyone sees some need for stand the potential to stand the test of time.

Read the Original quote , the quote is any surviving country that is flourishing in the world. Number One Africa had no Countries that predate China as soverign powers, and even if they did none is in the top ten in growth thus flourish (although i would not doubt that in the next several decades i am completely wrong) that is because of the cycle of Capitalism. It will wear itself out in the place that it stole human lives to kick it off (i.e. the western African countries where slaves built its foundation) one thing we know as historians is that things tend to come full circle. However i still doubt the Africa Comment due to the fact that no one has any definitive dates and China is as good as anyones guess for first civilization still in tact today.

Good cause for research though i would imagine.