My take on the state of Kung Fu [Archive]

Royal Dragon

03-13-2007, 09:01 PM

Below is my reply to an e-mail I got from a freind of mine. I thought I'd copy it here to see what type of discussion ensued from it.

Jason,
Very interesting perspective.

I have to say i somewhat disagree on a point. It's not that the traditional arts are misunderstood, it's that they are taught WRONG!.

Through years of research into the Chinese arts, i have learned that originally they were taught very differently than today. Training consisted of basics, basics, basics. Students where not taught forms, but two man applications to the techniques, which were drilled to the point of absolute mastery in small groups as small as 3, but rarely larger than 9.

My system originally consisted of 32 loose techniques that were used in any order, or combination the fighter saw fit at the moment. when it was developed in 960 AD, it had no forms at all. You just learned a few techniques, and mastered the strategies, and tactics of fighting with them, then learned a few more till you eventually learned and mastered all 32 of them. The rest of the training was hard conditioning, and Qi Gong. the Qi gong was really the essence of the style as it in reality was all the fundamental body mechanics used in the techniques isolated into 8 core drills. The phenomenal health benefits were purely a side effect, and never the original goal.

If you fast forward to 1279 AD, when the Sung dynasty fell, you will find that forms had begun to take shape and the practice spread widely...but not to students. Forms practice was for TEACHERS to record their curriculum's in a nice orderly, and progressive manor.

Though it is believed to have originally been an invention of the temples, the practice of forms development for recording a systems core curriculum was most likely spread by military trainers to make it easier for them to remember their curriculum's, and *Maintain* much of their conditioning. The soldiers going though the training never learned the form, they still got Basics, conditioning and endless two man drills combined with strategy and even free fighting. They ONLY learned the form *IF* their military career brought them to the point of being trainers...even then, the form was of their own creation based on their battle field experience.

I don't think forms started to be preserved generation after generation until those military personnel retired, and went home to their various villiages and began teaching the civilians. It was their Civilian students that rose to the level of teachers that preserved the forms taught to them by the former military trainers. Even then, the TEACHING of them was still only to those who were at a level that they began teaching themselves. the students still got Basics, conditioning strategy and endless two-man fighting practice.

Now, in the Temples things were different because they were testing the integrity of their students, so many would put them through grueling conditioning, and extended practice of basics, but once martial lessons were taught, it was still not forms. Those were basically for the teachers.

Fast forward to the Qing dynasty and the advent of commercial schools. THIS is when forms first came into being. It's a relatively modern thing. The masters all started doing this because they began teaching large numbers of people, and really didn't want to teach their secrets to just anyone...but of course wanted money. It was also a way of really dragging out the curriculum so what used to be taught in months, now took years. This is also when alot of the practice of drilling techniques in the air for extended periods of time came into being. Only a Master's inner door disciples were taught correctly. What used to be correct teachings, were now billed as "Higher form", or Higher levels of the arts.

At first one learned a form, and then applications, and then strategy and how to fight with them. But as time rolled on, it got to be more and more and more form oriented, and further, and further away from the original teachings. You eventually go to today where the masters are nothing compared to their forefathers because of generation after generation of degradation.

It's gotten to a point now where only the very few learn the applications, and HOW to fight with their style. Many of them are still secretive, and only teach their closest Friends and family the real goods. Most fighting to day is simplistic San Shou, and not the depth of the original systems. That is really lost, except to the few...when it used to be wide spread to anyone who had gone through the military, or their students after they retired.

Now you have styles that originally had 1 long form, or many 3 AT BEST that was practiced only by the Master, and the teachers under him, to systems haveing a hundred or more forms to learn and hardly any application taught being practiced by everyone to the excusion of actually learing the style. It used to be learning a form meant being a competant fighter with the techniques...now it's just means memorising the choreography....actually understanding is optional if it's even avalaible.

Anyway, it's not about martial arts vs martial way, or Fight vs health, its about teaching right, VS teaching wrong, at least with the Chinese arts.

Today, if you want to recover the skills of the past, you really have to reverse engineer your style, and study it's principals (If you Can even figure that out anymore), and then when you teach, teach the old way.

What is Billed as *Traditional Kung Fu* in most schools today is actually a very modern system. To get real skills, you need to go back to the roots.

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 09:28 PM

To get real skills, you need to go back to the roots.

Sheeet! I wish I had learned that Thong The Caveman style!

:D

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 09:31 PM

Sorry dude, didn't read much of your post... but I would have to disagree on that last statement...

Juan

Royal Dragon

03-13-2007, 09:36 PM

Why? Do you really think going back to the basics, and drilling tones of twoman skills combined with conditioning and heavy study of fighting strategy won't produce top skilled martial artists? That is how they did it back when they had to count on thier skills to survive...why wouldn't training like that be just as effective today, as it was then?

It seems to me the MMA guys train this way, and they would mop the floor with ANY modern (cliaming to be traditional when they are not) forms guy.....

Royal Dragon

03-13-2007, 09:38 PM

Sorry dude, didn't read much of your post... but I would have to disagree on that last statement...

Juan

Reply]
I just checked ur profile, ur a Hsing I guy, and you don't agree with me? Dude, Hsing I is ALL About basics, basics, basics, and it RIGHT inline with what I am talking about when I say going back to the roots!

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 09:42 PM

Oh... On this we agree!

Skills doesn't come from what century your stile is. It comes from HOW you train the style you train! I just don't like people who say "my style is older than your style so you get more skillz with it". Thant's all... Maybe I should have paid more attention on what you were saying.

I'm with you that whatever you train in it should be trained with full pressure, under all circumstances. It doesn't matter what style, what technique, if you can pull it off, the more for you.

;)

J

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 09:43 PM

Sorry dude!

Working on my third Cosmopolitan after workout... hard to keep focused...

Carry on with the normal program.

J

Royal Dragon

03-13-2007, 09:52 PM

It's not how old a style is that matters. Back when they were developed, and had to actually function, ALL styles were heavy on basics, conditioning and twoman fighting skill work.

When I say go back to the roots, I mean go back to when they were actually performing the tasks of fighting for real in an honest to God savage eniroment. Go back to the way they were taught THEN.

In every style's beginning, they were simple, direct and not weighted down with 100 forms + They were a handfull of techniques applied with STRATEGY that was unique to thier style. Back then a style maybe had 100 techniques, and you were fighting well after learning only the first 8-9

Now you have 100 forms, each 10's, or even hundreds of moves long. You spend years memorising them, and barely understanding the "Way" your style fights, or even what makes your style a style seperate from the next one with 100+ forms.

Royal Dragon

03-13-2007, 09:52 PM

Oops, sorry i was writing and didn't see your responses.

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 10:00 PM

Going back on basics, I wonder how may schools out there take their form apart to practise the basics and their possibilities? I have a short experience in Martial arts, only seven years and two schools, but I feel I'm blessed for the fact that I saw a bad example and a very good example. (Here is my present teacher... well teaching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiVHkKV-Zrk). All the applications you see here are part of a form or drill that we usualy practise over and over. The outcomings are different from what we practised originally, but the application is still valid. To me, this means that every technique, every form should be practised in a way that permits the openess to apply each one of them in different circumstances. As you said, this is the bread and butter of Xing-yi... Shouldn't it be like that for every style/family/school?

Just asking,
Juan

neilhytholt

03-13-2007, 10:05 PM

I've been through this argument 100 times.

NOBODY seems to care about the fact that requiring a ton of forms and the mechanics of particular moves be done a particular way (their way) in their school is a waste of time. In fact, they REQUIRE it to the exclusion of everything else. They don't want to change, they don't want you to do your stuff, they don't want to waver in their approach.

So while you could easily train MMA with, say, Chuck Liddell and then go and train with Randy Couture or Tito Ortiz, try to do something like Hung Gar at 10 different schools. You'll likely find 10 different approaches and ways of doing forms unless it's in the exact same lineage. And they usually won't let you work with their people unless you join up and have some class time and do their forms. A lot of them require 6 months or more.

IMHO the state of 'kung fu' is that teachers just want MONEY. If they don't want money, they want respect, meaning you do what they do, to the exclusion of what you want to do. Or in other words, it's their way or the highway.

Which usually means forms, forms and a few drills and some sparring with kickboxing with the occasional hammer fist or something.

Which is just stupid since the current 'state of the art' of martial arts (BJJ) is raking in more than most traditional schools.

It's a waste of breath to talk about it.

The only people in CMA who are changing their approach at all is sanshou/sanda which is watered down anyways.

The real applications of CMA are muscle ripping, tendon tearing, bone breaking, skull crushing, eye gouging, throat crushing, and these cannot be practiced safely in a sport environment.

Royal Dragon

03-13-2007, 10:06 PM

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 10:11 PM

Ok...

So where did we loose track?

J

neilhytholt

03-13-2007, 10:12 PM

Shouldn't it be like that for every style/family/school?

Reply]
Yes. Infact ALL styles were like this originally. It didn't take years of forms before one learned to fight. You learned to fight rigth away useing the essence of the style, same as your Hsing I teaher does.

Well alls I can say is don't expect anybody to change. If you want to teach that's your perogative but after having the door slammed on me at 100+ schools, I can tell you that nobody wants to change what they're doing, unless it's to add a fitness aerobics class or watered down sanda or something to get the weight loss crowd or UFC crowd.

neilhytholt

03-13-2007, 10:14 PM

Ok...

So where did we loose track?

J

It's all about the money. If you teach a lot of forms you can make a lot of money off people, per month, for years.

If you teach people how to really fight and quickly, then you have to worry about them getting injured and quitting class and the potential liability, and quitting because there's nothing more for them to learn. They could start their own backyard school at that point.

Commercial CMA schools want to make money. They want you to do THEIR forms for years so they can rake in the bucks. That's all they want.

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 10:15 PM

There are people out there that really want to teach...

J

neilhytholt

03-13-2007, 10:18 PM

There are people out there that really want to teach...

J

I've met some people who claim to want to teach, but they still require their stuff done their way, and in CMA it usually requires a ton of useless forms to get to partner drills and sparring with them.

Obviously there are probably going to be some exceptions. Everybody says, "We're the exception." And then you get there and they require everything done their way and a bunch of forms.

If they don't get payment out of you in $, they get payment out of you in forcing you to do what they want you to do to the exclusion of what you want to work on and having to put up with overbearing attitudes and their huge egos.

Sorry if this sounds a bit jaded, but it's just what I've run into.

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 10:26 PM

It's all about the money.

While I agree that there is ALOT of people out there that go for the big buck, I don't see why people that have the goods shouldn't charge for it. I know that the fees that my present teacher demands are a joke compared to what my old teacher asked for, but I wouldn't hesitate one second if he asked for more. Compared to the quality of my old teacher, my new teacher is worth every penny. What is more important, is that my present teacher doesn't mind his fees, as long as they pay for what he needs. The most imortant for him is the quality of what he teaches and the mark he will leave as a teacher. If you can find people willing to share like that, then you have it made... What more can I say, I'm a lucky *******! ;)

Juan

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 10:27 PM

Sheet! They censure b-a-s-t-a-r-d ?

:D

neilhytholt

03-13-2007, 10:35 PM

While I agree that there is ALOT of people out there that go for the big buck, I don't see why people that have the goods shouldn't charge for it. I know that the fees that my present teacher demands are a joke compared to what my old teacher asked for, but I wouldn't hesitate one second if he asked for more. Compared to the quality of my old teacher, my new teacher is worth every penny. What is more important, is that my present teacher doesn't mind his fees, as long as they pay for what he needs. The most imortant for him is the quality of what he teaches and the mark he will leave as a teacher. If you can find people willing to share like that, then you have it made... What more can I say, I'm a lucky *******! ;)

Juan

Yeah, I don't know what to say about that. I never used to think it was a big deal paying teachers until I tried to move from one Shotokan school to another and found out the forms in the first Shotokan school weren't exactly the same, and the new teacher wanted me to re-learn all the forms.

At that point, it became a bit obnoxious because I didn't want to have to re-learn all the forms just to do sparring and applications.

Then when it comes to CMA, it's the same, no 2 mantis systems are the same, no 2 hung gar systems are exactly the same unless it's with the same teacher or grand-teacher or a close lineage, so you have to re-do everything, which is a total waste of time.

Of course, all the teachers will say I'm just a troll and their way is better, or just stay in the same system, etc., but try to find teachers who do exactly the same thing if you have to move to a different town.

They're mostly just in it for the $. If it's not for the $ then they want free training partners in their system done their way.

But most people, I guess, don't mind paying the $ and re-learning a bunch of new forms at every new school and never getting very good fighting.

You'll find out if you ever change towns or move away from your teacher. At that point you'll have a decision: a) try to find a close system or b) retire or c) teach and become part of the problem or d) take something else.

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 10:48 PM

Yeah, I don't know what to say about that. I never used to think it was a big deal paying teachers until I tried to move from one Shotokan school to another and found out the forms in the first Shotokan school weren't exactly the same, and the new teacher wanted me to re-learn all the forms.

At that point, it became a bit obnoxious because I didn't want to have to re-learn all the forms just to do sparring and applications.

Then when it comes to CMA, it's the same, no 2 mantis systems are the same, no 2 hung gar systems are exactly the same unless it's with the same teacher or grand-teacher or a close lineage, so you have to re-do everything, which is a total waste of time.

Of course, all the teachers will say I'm just a troll and their way is better, or just stay in the same system, etc., but try to find teachers who do exactly the same thing if you have to move to a different town.

They're mostly just in it for the $. If it's not for the $ then they want free training partners in their system done their way.

But most people, I guess, don't mind paying the $ and re-learning a bunch of new forms at every new school and never getting very good fighting.

You'll find out if you ever change towns or move away from your teacher.

Wow, bad experiences BIG TIME! All I can say is you have to go with your better judgment! IF you have enough experience to know what's worth it or not. I was just lucky. I was from a vietnamese Wing Chun (of all things) going to a Xing-Yi school, so I didn't have much of a background there. But what I knew of kung-fu and teaching helped me understand what I was seeing with this new Xing-yi teacher. I didn't hesitate much. I would say, in the end, it's not the system that is being teached but the understanding of the teacher of that system that matters most. If he can't show you the basics without loosing ground, or balance as my old teacher did, he's not worth didley-squat...

J (am I making sense at all?)

msg

03-13-2007, 10:51 PM

neilhytholt

03-13-2007, 10:56 PM

forms are very inportant they teach you the correct form that you need so every thing is alined right ...proper form is a very means the engery flows right and the body moves right in the right way ...

especialy in hsing.i

I can show you several of the same apps in Shotokan same in Hsing-I as Hung Gar as Mantis as Wing Chun with a completely different form that looks like it is nothing related whatsoever. The entire argument that form is necessary for apps is utter B.S., and the argument that you need to study a particular systems forms to do apps is also complete rubbish.

It's just a way for teachers to get money off you and make you study nonsense for years and waste your time.

If somebody can practice MMA with punching and kicking and submission wrestling without doing any forms at all do you really think forms are necessary for application? Obviously not.

Anyway, end rant and sorry for getting involved in this thread.

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 11:09 PM

Back to basics!

Sparring isn't the "Be all , End all" of a system. It's the workings that matters. Sparring is a tool to TEST your knowledge of the "workings" under pressure. If you can't get around the "workings" of your system then how can you get to spar productively? In Xing-yi, we train every form (technique) individually, trying to gasp every possible application, one form (technique) at a time. If your style doesn't permit you to do this, ask yourself what is the purpose of your system or teaching! Training every aspect of each form (in Xing-yi there aren't that many) permits us to push the enveloppe in sparring. Sparring, on the other hand, will show exacly what we should focus in our form training, bringing (hopefully) new perspective in our form practise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the same principle in MMA! Practise it, try it, correct it if it's wrong and practise it again!

J

Juan Alvarez

03-13-2007, 11:25 PM

TenTigers

03-13-2007, 11:30 PM

Sometimes no matter how many times youchange schools, it's the same circus.
-just different clowns.:rolleyes:

neilhytholt

03-13-2007, 11:32 PM

To end my coments on this thread (for tonight, 2h15 AM here in Montreal, Canada) I will say that the state of Kung-Fu today is what YOU make of it. It is up to YOU to bring it to a higher level. Don't blame your teachers, don't blame your school's philosophy, don't blame the current commercial issues. YOU have the possibilty of bringing what YOU know to a competitive level. YOU, and only YOU have the responsability of bringing what YOU know to that level. If you can't do it, or don't have the ambition to do it, just find something else, or just be a hobbyist... but STFU!!!! :p :D ;)

Juan

Yep, don't blame the system, don't blame the teachers, only blame the individual and STFU.

That's the typical responses. And then the CMA guys get beaten up by average street thugs or MMA people in MMA fights.

But STFU, it must be your fault. :rolleyes:

Let's guess what the next responses will be. Accusations of trolling, then saying that Sanda or sanshou actually fight, then a lot of other angry responses and finally it will get swept away.

Ironpig

03-14-2007, 12:58 AM

The most expensive lessons, school or clinics I have ever heard of are entirely in the "MMA" variety.

Most of the 'Traditional' instructors I have known, are poor and often hold a full time job to support running their school.

When I was teaching full time, I charged nothing to my students. (Traditional Japanese system)

Poor experiences abound for students in the 'carnie' atmosphere of martial arts the world over. Everyone is selling something it seems, and nothing is quite what is advertised.

If you have found some happiness Nelly, keep doing what you are doing and just try to let the past go. You will be better off for it.

msg

03-14-2007, 02:09 AM

I can show you several of the same apps in Shotokan same in Hsing-I as Hung Gar as Mantis as Wing Chun with a completely different form that looks like it is nothing related whatsoever. The entire argument that form is necessary for apps is utter B.S., and the argument that you need to study a particular systems forms to do apps is also complete rubbish.

It's just a way for teachers to get money off you and make you study nonsense for years and waste your time.

If somebody can practice MMA with punching and kicking and submission wrestling without doing any forms at all do you really think forms are necessary for application? Obviously not.

Anyway, end rant and sorry for getting involved in this thread.

thats why mma is slopy i have sparred with mma guys one of my friends is a cage fighter .because of me practiceing my forms over and over again .wich makes my structure right and when he comes in and i can do a simple thing like the fighting **** form or horse ..its like hes hitting a brick wall my structure in alined and my chi is able to flow right because of forms so you can't say that forms are just a way for a teacher to make money thats bull**** on your part

Royal Dragon

03-14-2007, 06:49 AM

forms are very inportant they teach you the correct form that you need so every thing is alined right ...proper form is a very means the engery flows right and the body moves right in the right way ...

especialy in hsing.

Reply]
If you are talking about individual technique practice in the air, yes that *Is* important for refining your mechanics, BUT in the old days it was not nessasarily focuses on as much as conditioning is and two man work.

Also, the martial Qi Gongs are the essence of your body mechainics. It's important to work them first. Later you can put the lessons learned in the Qi Gong into your techniques in a solo fashion...but you STILL are not doing long drawn out formal routines...not in 1644 AD anyway...not back in the days when this stuff had to function quickly and you didn't have TIME to drill endless routines for years before developing any reasonable amount of skill.

Do you really think a ming Dynasty Military unit worked on formal routines? No, they didn't, they conditioned like crazy, and drilled apps with partners so they KNEW how to fight right away!

I Look at what we were doing at Steven Abbate's classes...and it was condition, basics, and fighting application with partners. I don't remember ever hearing about learning forms there, let alone seeing one. All his guys could fight, and they could fight way sooner than most CMA schools. Abbate himself was formally trained, and knew the forms our techniques came from, but he produced sucessful, competent fighters without ever teaching us a single formal routine.

Royal Dragon

03-14-2007, 06:55 AM

thats why mma is slopy i have sparred with mma guys one of my friends is a cage fighter .because of me practiceing my forms over and over again .wich makes my structure right and when he comes in and i can do a simple thing like the fighting **** form or horse ..its like hes hitting a brick wall my structure in alined and my chi is able to flow right because of forms

Reply]
You would get that from Qi Gong too, and probably more efficiently because you are working on a smaller amount of material compared to a 100+ move long form. Either that, or when you are *Alone* and have no one ot practice with, drill the individual techniques that you are actually sparring with in high reps to refine them. Drilling a whole form where 80-90% of the techniques are ones you aren't even working two man apps is pointless.

By the time you are ready to teach, and can really fight well, you can work on precision through forms practice, (so long as you really can fight with *All* the techniques* in said form) but to a beginner, or lower to mid level student, it's pointless, too much and really drags out the amount of time it takes to become a proficient fighter.

The way it was done in the Sung, or Ming dynasty's military is what you need to do to develop skills quickly, or efficiently...just ask the MMA guys, they follow the same model.

Iron_Eagle_76

03-14-2007, 08:46 AM

thats why mma is slopy i have sparred with mma guys one of my friends is a cage fighter .because of me practiceing my forms over and over again .wich makes my structure right and when he comes in and i can do a simple thing like the fighting **** form or horse ..its like hes hitting a brick wall my structure in alined and my chi is able to flow right because of forms so you can't say that forms are just a way for a teacher to make money thats bull**** on your part

The individual's training methods are what produces results. As an instructor I can say we practice forms for stance training, set ups, and fluidity. I prefer basics, two man alive drills, sparring, and rolling any day over forms because they produce results, period. I have met practioners, one of my Sifus as a matter of fact, who could train forms, break down their techniques, and use them in sparring and real situations. From my experience most martial arts students learn better through alive typed drills with some kind of resistance. This is not to say forms are useless, far from it, but they should not take the place of what true CMA is and what has been battle tested. For the above poster, while I agree that there are MMA guys that are sloppy, I have met many more sloppy Kung Fu Stylists who claim to be able to use what they know but cannot. If you think training your forms over sparring will make you a good fighter or will enable you to defeat your average MMA or CMA fighter, you are in for a rude awakening.

Royal Dragon

03-14-2007, 09:07 AM

Agreed.

I feel forms are for *Refining* and maintiaing the skills of mechanics and such after said skills have been developed,and are useable in actuall fighting.

They are not for developing the skills in the first place.

Fu-Pow

03-14-2007, 01:23 PM

Interesting perspective Royal Dragon and I agree. You can't learn a fighting art practicing forms by yourself in the woods (contrary to what the legends would have you believe). You need a live partner in front of you and lots of training of basics with a live partner and under various levels of pressure and choreography (ie from some to none.)

I proclaim the day of the "form factory" dead. Forms are pretty worthless unless you tear them apart into their more simple and direct applications. Some people want to live in fantasy world that if they just do the form more that magically they will become better fighters. Not true. They may get better conditioning but experience and refinement based on that experience counts more than just doing long forms repetitively.

I think that form is important only as long as it is teaching structure that can be applied across a lot of situations. The mindset of "you do this" and then "you do this" that is inherent in long forms is retarded and what I believe Bruce Lee referred to as the "classical mess." Qi gong is important because it is teaching internal body structure but remembering the certain sequence in a form is pretty useless.

And this is coming from someone who learned close to 40 hand and weapon forms.

FP

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 05:32 AM

Eric, if I may kindly say so, learning forms don't prohibit your fighting abilities at all however. In fact I've been practicing my forms quite a bit lately, because I feel that CLF needs its core forms in order to be complete, and that my CLF has become messy because of the lack of forms thereof.

Regards,

Miluo

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 05:34 AM

Eric, are you feeling allright? You seem like you're having CLF withdrawal . . . . if you need help with anything or discuss anything shoot me an email.

miluohsu@gmail.com

I will most likely be going back to Sifu to train this summer as well as continue going to AMC Kickboxing & Pankration. If you wanna do real MMA you should come check it out as well. :)

Regards,

Miluo

Eddie

03-15-2007, 06:01 AM

Fu pow,
From your posts it seems to me that you have a few issues with your CLF training. I don’t know much about your school, and I’m not commenting on anything other than a few things I picked up from your posts. If I am wrong, then I apologise if this post offends you. Either way, I hope you see this in the light it is intended, and not just jump on me for simply posting my opinion.

I enjoy fighting, even more than I do forms, but I see value in both parts of the martial arts. Forms has its purpose (classical and modern) and its unfair to dismiss that merely because of how you fared in one fight. However, I agree with you that if you want to learn how to fight, you should fight. Difference is, Im sure that in 13 years of training, you would have had some opportunities to try your CLF techniques against a live, resisting, partner. Your sifu can teach you forms and a few applications, but you should have developed the skill over time in order to realise the fighting value from that? I mean, forms are simply techniques and applications that are grouped together, aren’t they? I practice Gwa, sow, charp, etc on punching bags, on the dummy, and in forms, and then try it against a partner. Cool thing about that, I don’t need a sifu to help me with that, if you try it out, you will get to the same conclusions (provided you have an understanding of what you are doing – and Im sure you do). To get better at fighting, and to get a better understanding of that, all you need to do is fight. And fight often. Simple as that. The more you train and try out, the better you get at it. You know that.

I also think its highly unfair of you to simply dismiss CLF, because you weren’t successful in your fight. I can assure you that there are many fighters out there who can use their CLF in a fight in the way it was intended, and there are more than enough techniques within the style to add to a good fighting arsenal. We use plenty of CLF moves in San Shou with GREAT success. As Sifu Ross said, if you didn’t do something you should have done, it means you cant pull it off.

Form factories may be just that. I see what you mean there, but I think that after so many years, we would have had at least a few opportunities to try our stuff out.

I spend this morning with taishingpekgar master Chow Keung, and we spoke about the same topic. A good fighter is someone who understands the importance of training. Training forms may be part of what you consider ‘classical’, but in no way does it mean that its not valuable. Same as bag work. All has its place.

Go get a partner, put on whatever gear you want to put on, and go try out your clf techniques. Just last night one of the guys at our gym accidentally used to much power and speed on his sow choy, and knocked his partner out (here im talking two skilled and experienced fighters).

Point is, perhaps who are all to quick to blame our sifus, our styles, and our circumstances, where in fact, we should actually blame ourselves for the lack of skill.

;)

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 06:06 AM

Look Eric, I'm sure Havick01 will be more than happy to train against you if you called him up.

Also if you come to my MMA school you will find people to spar with everyday!!!

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 06:42 AM

Point is, perhaps who are all to quick to blame our sifus, our styles, and our circumstances, where in fact, we should actually blame ourselves for the lack of skill.

Reply]
You never hear an MMA guy say something like this. You wanna know why? Becasue they are TAUGHT how to use thier techniques from day one, and they learn them in small groups at a time untill they are good with them.

The very fact that you have to even make a comment like this is a huge testement to the inadiquate and low quality of the training you recieved.

Skill comes from practicing skill with your partners, not doing forms in the empty air. Maybe later down the road when you HAVE skill already forms will be a great too, to refine and perfect your body mechancis, or a good way for a teacher to remember his curriculem and such, but prior to that they really pretty much get in the way of learning and developing useable skills.

In the beginning especially, it's better to focus on drilling basics (especially for structure and mechanics), conditioning, and lots of 2man work.

Ben Gash

03-15-2007, 06:52 AM

I think it's all about balance. Forms are fairly important for the transmission of the style, but on their own they're not much good. In a 90 minute class I do 30 minutes warm up and basics, 30 minutes form and 30 minutes of partner work. I also have a San Shou class and a sparring only session, so my students get pretty good at hands on pretty quickly. This isn't a hard and fast structure, sometimes if the feel of the class is going that way then we do a bit more form or a bit more application, indeed I have done classes that were all sticky hands.
It must also be remembered that different people do kung fu for different reasons, and while there's always a self defence element it may not be their primary motive. Seriously, if you're over 24 in England, you are highly unlikely to ever be the victim of violence. This would suggest that intensive, expensive training for the sole purpose of self defence is a poor investment both in time and money. Give the guy your wallet, it'll cost you less than a month's training. Indeed, one teacher I spoke to tried teaching heavy application all the time, he said that when people put in all this effort and realised they hadn't needed the skills they got bored and left.
So while it's important to me that my students can all hold their own, I accept that not all of them are going to be world class fighters, and I think it would be wrong of me to neglect them, and forms gives another aspect of training that they can do well in.

Eddie

03-15-2007, 07:00 AM

Rd,
I dont think you understood my post.

If we suck at certain skills, its only because we didnt work at it. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with the 'inadiquate and low quality of the training you recieved'. That comment was really unfair.

We get a allot of flack (is that a right word) from MMA people, and rightfully so. I also think that there are way to many kung fu kids out there who has false egos who think they can do somehting, but are not prepared to actualyl put the work in it.

My argument is simply, that to me, it seemed that fu pow is blaming his school (and he even refered to form factories), where in reality, he should have had the skills (after 13 years) to know better. Sure, forms dont make a good fighter, but neither does bit ching about it.

my other gripe is, if you want to learn real fighting, medium or light contact sparring wont get you anywhere.

Nothing in my post was personal against fu pow or anyone. I dont think you are being nice in your responce RD ;)

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 07:56 AM

Maybe I didn't present myself well (I am good at that!)

I just never heard an MMA guy say somthing like that.

If we suck at certain skills, its only because we didnt work at it. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with the 'inadiquate and low quality of the training you recieved'. That comment was really unfair.

Reply]
Sure it does. If you are in aschool that pushes forms every class, and *Claims* that is the key to fighting ability, then they are a low quallity and inadiquate fight school. It's not nice, but honesty does not take feelings into account.

Also, you blame him for *Not working at it*, but what is he suppsoed to do, promote himself to Sifu and start changing the lessons when he is just a student and does not know any better than the guy running the school?

We ARE a pproduct of our educations. if he's only been taught forms, that is all he has to work with. You can't blame HIM for not working the skills. What's he suppoosed to do, spar with the air on his own while the rest of the class follows the teacher in a form session? Come on man, get real!

We get a allot of flack (is that a right word) from MMA people, and rightfully so. I also think that there are way to many kung fu kids out there who has false egos who think they can do somehting, but are not prepared to actualyl put the work in it.

Reply]
Agreed.

My argument is simply, that to me, it seemed that fu pow is blaming his school (and he even refered to form factories), where in reality, he should have had the skills (after 13 years) to know better. Sure, forms dont make a good fighter, but neither does bit ching about it.

Reply]

How? His school taught FORMS as the key to fighting. we ONLY have our education to work with. Maybe he never got into a random situation that enlightened him? If he's been at the top of his local food chain, hows he gonna KNOW different unless some sort of random exposure happenes by chance?

my other gripe is, if you want to learn real fighting, medium or light contact sparring wont get you anywhere.

Nothing in my post was personal against fu pow or anyone. I dont think you are being nice in your responce RD

Reply]
I amnot being nice. I am not a nice person. I am a stark realist. Reality has no room for "Nice", or any other prsentation. The reality is that if you are making comments like you did, then you most llikely are form a bad school or the person you are commenting about is, as that comment is an EXCUSE to let some no nothing teacher off the hook for his failures, and wrongly blames the student.

A student can only work with what he is presented with. If he's presented with false knowledge, then that is all he has to work with. Blaming the STUDENT for the TEACHER'S failures is just a weak copout.

Maybe he hasn't had the oppertunity to really test because his school is crap?

Eddie

03-15-2007, 08:05 AM

.. or you are not reading what I am saying.

your very first post states exactly what I was trying to say. Its all about basics, and then you work at it. Simple.

I very much doubt that Fu Pows school did not teach fighting. I mean.... 10 years and no fighting skill???!!! I dont think so. 'cides, his CLF sifu is well known as a fighter, isnt he?

as for the rest of the stuff you are on about, Im not sure I understand it all.

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 08:13 AM

Royal Dragon, I have the same CLF Sifu as Fu-Pow.

Never once in my time of training did he make any statement saying forms are the key to fighting.

He explicitly stated to me that forms will not make you a good fighter.

I too had my share of issues with my Sifu, but I have always been able to work them out. I also attended a world-class MMA gym to further my training.

I don't think you should make statements like how my school is crap based on your mere observations?

Regards,

Miluo

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 08:18 AM

Royal Dragon, through my observations at my MMA school, there are people that royally suck ass at fighting there as well.

And oh guess what, my coach trains professional UFC and Pride FC fighters.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 08:21 AM

Just becasue a teacher is a good fighter, does not mean he can TEACH those skills.

As for basics, yes, basics are the key,BUT if his school is not teaching the BASICS of fighting, like foot work, extensive two man work, enter strategy, defense, and how to think on the fly, he's not getting the basics.

Basics are more than just standing in horse stance and drilling punches. There are basics of structure, basics of physical movement, but there are also basics of USE, and that USE must also be drilled consistantly and regualrly...which just isn't going to happen in a forms school.

You must drill your techniques agains your partners both in compliance while you are learning them, and against resisting opponents when you are learning to USE them.

The basics of Movement, and the basics of FIGHTING strategy are different. if you only do basics of movement, and not the fighting basics, yoou are only doing half your basics....and that is the fault of the person designing the lesson plan.

Now, who is making the lesson plan? is it the student? or the teacher? If the student can't fight, it' more ooften than not the fault ofthe person who is teaching for his failur to convey the knowledge, and the skill, not the student.

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 08:25 AM

So you are saying that my Coach (multiple coaches), who train profession to amateur level fighters, are doing a bad job at conveying information?

I think you need to just shut your mouth and stop calling everyone bull****.

Maybe sometimes it's the student's fault? Both my Sifu and MMA coach are exceptional martial artists and fighters, and I respect both of them. And if you aren't absorbing certain information and understanding it, then it's the teacher's problem?

My MMA Coach will explain things over and over again to you. If the student doesn't ask, should he feed the info to them on a ****ing silver spoon?

Do you want information in the form of some glorious light from Heaven given to you by Mother Mary, naked, with big boobs, ready to **** you in the process?

Congrats, you're the first one to take her virginity.

My Sifu teaches in a manner that if you want to learn, he will show you some skills. But you also have to work on it. It's a different atmosphere from my MMA gym to be sure.

But you seem to be implying EVERYONE sucks at teaching now? That's a rather interesting theory you have. I guess whenever a teacher has a ****ty student, it's completely the teacher's fault. :rolleyes:

SevenStar

03-15-2007, 08:26 AM

Eddie

03-15-2007, 08:26 AM

yeah, I see your point. But, my comments was directed at someone who has a good MA back ground from a few good schools.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 08:28 AM

Is yoou school crap, or not? well, lets let logic decide this.

Does your school teach you to FIGHT with the style, or not?

Does your school teach you to FIGHT with the style, or do you just do a lot of forms?

Do you have to go to an MMA school to get skills? or does your teacher actually impart them to you himself?

My opinion of your school is going to be based on how the above questions are answered. If you guys spend coonsiderable amunts of time working actuall fight skills, then Fu Pow sucks....but some how, after his comment on knowing *40* FORMS and weapon sets, I don't think he the one who's wrong here.

Eddie

03-15-2007, 08:31 AM

Anyway, forms are unnecessary. Boxers and wrestlers have gone centuries without them. thai boxers don't use them either, and you can't question how dominant they are. Why? Heck, even in the cma world - Ross for example doesn't teach forms in his san da classes...

yeah i aggree. neither do we (teach forms for san da). But if it took you so long to realise you cant use your forms in fighting, you obviously werent doing much in class were you?

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 08:31 AM

Yes, my school and Sifu taught me how to fight with my style.

My Sifu teaches me to fight because I ask him to. He has students that WANT to only learn forms, and he is fine with that.

And he used to be much more hardcore than he is now, he is more laxed with the training.

Regarding why I went to the MMA gym, well, because I wanted more exposure and to spar with other people? People with different games? I also wanted to learn Muay Thai specifically, that was the primary reason.

SevenStar

03-15-2007, 08:31 AM

Eric, if I may kindly say so, learning forms don't prohibit your fighting abilities at all however.

It can if the time you spend doing forms is greater than the amount of time you spend drilling and sparring.

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 08:32 AM

Since you're such an expert on MMA, who have you trained with? Anyone credible? Let's see your MMA gym and coach?

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 08:33 AM

It can if the time you spend doing forms is greater than the amount of time you spend drilling and sparring.

Yes, but it wasn't my idea, or my Sifu's, or anyone else's for him TO BE doing forms most of the time? I sure as hell wasn't. I've even went through "form withdrawals" where I refused to do forms at all . . . . then I realized that my CLF was incomplete and was falling apart without the forms, so I'm back to practicing them.

I don't see anything wrong with my approach? It works for me. However said that anyone FORCED Fu-Pow to do forms 90% of the time?

SevenStar

03-15-2007, 08:36 AM

Since you're such an expert on MMA, who have you trained with? Anyone credible? Let's see your MMA gym and coach?

Me?

my gym has judo classes taught by people who compete on international and world levels in judo and sambo.

we have bjj instructors who have placed in the top three at every national level tournament they have entered over the past several years.

our head bjj coach is a black belt and member of the brazilian top team

the school's owner has fought a few pro mma fights - his FIRST fight was against dan severn...

Eddie

03-15-2007, 08:40 AM

nevermind. my post was aimed at a specific situation and person. I never dissagreed with RD, actually suported him. Just think its funny that after all this time, fu pow seem to be blaming losses on one particular school (style or sifu).

If we have the tools, and we didnt use them, its our own fault. Dont blame the style/ sifu.

SevenStar

03-15-2007, 08:40 AM

Since you're such an expert on MMA, who have you trained with? Anyone credible? Let's see your MMA gym and coach?

I see the post you were replying to now. I think what he may be getting at is how do you know your clf teacher is teaching you to fight with the style? he's saying that you felt the need to go to mma for more exposure and greater opportunity to spar. that beoing the case, it would seem that something is missing combat wise from the clf...

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 08:43 AM

So you are saying that my Coach (multiple coaches), who train profession to amateur level fighters, are doing a bad job at conveying information?

Reply]
Are thier students succsessfully learning the skills, or aren't they? If yes, then he's a good teacher, if not, he sux.

SevenStar

03-15-2007, 08:44 AM

Yes, but it wasn't my idea, or my Sifu's, or anyone else's for him TO BE doing forms most of the time? I sure as hell wasn't. I've even went through "form withdrawals" where I refused to do forms at all . . . . then I realized that my CLF was incomplete and was falling apart without the forms, so I'm back to practicing them.

I don't see anything wrong with my approach? It works for me. However said that anyone FORCED Fu-Pow to do forms 90% of the time?

interesting... out of curiosity, how do you feel about your muay thai, seeing that it has no forms?

Eddie

03-15-2007, 08:48 AM

ai yai yai, this topic seems to have gone the full circle. We back on arguing forms...

:eek:

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 08:51 AM

If we have the tools, and we didnt use them, its our own fault. Dont blame the style/ sifu.

Reply]
I can agree on this. For example, if the Sifu offered seperate forms, and sparring classes, and he had the option to choose, and only went to the forms classes. In THAT case, it's HIS fault he can't fight, not the Sifu.

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 08:52 AM

interesting... out of curiosity, how do you feel about your muay thai, seeing that it has no forms?

I really enjoy it, however the fundamentals if Muay Thai are different than most of the stuff I learned in CLF. Because I was taught initially without forms, there has never been a need to learn forms of any kind.

However, practicing forms with CLF helps me with my overall structure. I believe that if I learned Muay Boran, I would be more than happy to practice the forms. Once again, comparing a pure ring sport to a CMA is like apples to oranges.

SevenStar, I never directed any negative posts towards you. I'm sorry if it came out that way. :)

CLF is missing several things which I was interested in, and I am more than happy to point out.

1. Ring Fighting Strategies. My Sifu never really did extensive ring fighting. Therefore, we didn't train for the ring most of the time. Sparring ranged from medium to heavy contact usually.

2. Sifu didn't have that much students. I only had a few regular partners to spar against, therefore I wanted to go and spar MORE people. Nothing wrong with that I think.

3. I wanted to learn Muay Thai, because I thought it was cool. I am still enjoying it very much; if I was gonna learn a ring art and that's it it would be this.

4. I am always open minded, and I do not think CLF is the be-all end-all of fighting whatsoever. I know MMA guys dominate the current MA world, and I wanted to experience first hand why and feel their level of training, and work it into my CLF and vice-versa.

Regards,

Miluo

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 08:57 AM

I see the post you were replying to now. I think what he may be getting at is how do you know your clf teacher is teaching you to fight with the style? he's saying that you felt the need to go to mma for more exposure and greater opportunity to spar. that beoing the case, it would seem that something is missing combat wise from the clf...

Reply]
That was my impression.

Eddie

03-15-2007, 08:58 AM

........CLF is missing several things which I was interested in, and I am more than happy to point out.....

aaaahhh now I get what Royal Dragon was on about.

Miluo, the problems you raised was school issues and not style issues. Is it fair to say 'CLF is missing several things', where in reality it was the training?
There are many skilled CLF (and other traditonal arts) fighters out there.

Hishaam

03-15-2007, 09:36 AM

RoyalDragon, If i understand correctly what you say is that "CMA training" lost the urgency that it had in the old chinese military environment to produce effective fighters?

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 09:45 AM

I think that would be a good way to some up my view.

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 10:04 AM

If we suck at certain skills, its only because we didnt work at it. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with the 'inadiquate and low quality of the training you recieved'.

Not necessarily. If you are training the wrong things with the wrong methods, it has nothing to do with how hard you work. You can train your @$$ off in becoming a ballroom dancer, but no matter how hard you work, it won’t make you a good surfer.

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 10:05 AM

There are many skilled CLF (and other traditonal arts) fighters out there.

Any video around to substantiate that claim?

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 10:06 AM

I think that would be a good way to some up my view.

Is this the same RD who previously was espousing the benefits of forms?

What happened?

Global warming?

Hishaam

03-15-2007, 10:06 AM

I think that would be a good way to some up my view.

Thank you for sharing. Very interesting subject and posts.

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 10:09 AM

aaaahhh now I get what Royal Dragon was on about.

Miluo, the problems you raised was school issues and not style issues. Is it fair to say 'CLF is missing several things', where in reality it was the training?
There are many skilled CLF (and other traditonal arts) fighters out there.

My CLF training specifically. Not CLF as a whole. My school and my personal training at my Kwoon.

You misinterpret. :)

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 10:10 AM

Here’s a way you can use a scientific approach to determining how effective your forms training is towards being able to apply it in a fighting environment.

Video yourself and/or your students going through forms. Next record yourself and/or them while doing full-contact sparring/fighting, without stopping and starting over if the encounter goes to the clinch or to the ground.

After you have done this, analyze the movements from both types of sessions and break them down into percentages in which the sparring/fighting looks like the forms movements. This will give you an effective measure of the percentage of effectiveness of your forms training.

I’m betting your full-contact fighting will have very little resemblance to your forms.

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 10:13 AM

Is this the same RD who previously was espousing the benefits of forms?

What happened?

Global warming?

No, remember the Virgin Mary came and offered herself to him.

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 10:15 AM

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 10:17 AM

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 10:18 AM

I understand the very nature of forms isn't to help improve your fighting directly.

Then what are they designed to do?

Black Jack II

03-15-2007, 10:20 AM

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 10:21 AM

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 10:25 AM

Of course my fighting doesn't look remotely like my forms. I understand the very nature of forms isn't to help improve your fighting directly. And your point is?

Reply]
Your fighting SHOULD lookk like your forms!!! if it doesn't, there is something very wrong!!

When you fight, the techniques in your forms should show though very clearly. You may only use short combo's from the over all form, but they SHOULD be pretty much as they are in the form. If not, then your school sux.

What I mean is, they don't look like the entire sequence.

You know, my poon kiu sau choy looks just like that, in a form or in sparring. Although in sparring I'm met with great resistance.

The internet really fcuking sucks at conveying trains of thoughts . . . . . and arguing here is kinda pointless. I should have just stayed out of this to begin with. The only person that can judge how effective my own training is and decide what I'm going to include in my repertoire is me.

Infrazael

03-15-2007, 10:26 AM

Then what are they designed to do?

Only you can prevent forest fires. ;)

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 10:31 AM

You know, my poon kiu sau choy looks just like that, in a form or in sparring. Although in sparring I'm met with great resistance.

Reply]
That is how it should be!

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 10:33 AM

You know, my poon kiu sau choy looks just like that, in a form or in sparring. Although in sparring I'm met with great resistance.

Having bits and pieces resemble your forms here and there means that the transfer of training from forms to fighting is very low.

lkfmdc

03-15-2007, 10:40 AM

Having bits and pieces resemble your forms here and there means that the transfer of training from forms to fighting is very low.

the more "flower" the less function....

My original TMA was called the ugliest form of kung fu known to man, because it's just punch, kick low, grab, hit, throw, repeat

Pretty much what our fighting looks like

But forms are an outdated and misinformed method of training... we've had tons of those in the history of man kind, and most had at least a few people who hung on to them far past their expiration date

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 10:42 AM

CLF is perhaps the worst example of forms heavy styles. It originally was 3 different styles. Each of those 3 different styles was compiled from other styles.

So CLF is a ton of different styles.

If you were to just drill 1 or 2 forms and work on the apps, that would take up most of your class time.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 10:48 AM

Knife Fighter
Not really. It means his training is effective for mastering skills.

You don't think real fights are 350 moves long do you?

They are ended often in a quick series of small combo's that can be found in the forms.

Learning a form means learning a few techniques from it, drilling them with a partner, and then sparing and fighting with them untill you are good, followed by learning the next hand full of techniques in the form and repeteing the process untill you have learned how to fight with all the techniques in the form. Only THEN can you say you know it. This is the Old way to learn.

The term "Learning forms" has has several meanings. You can learn the choreography only (Form factories) of a form, or many forms, or you can learn the form RIGHT like I described above.

The form factory method is just the choreography of the routine. You can learn a form 350 moves long in less than a month like that. To learn it right, where you earn only a few moves at a time and no more till you can fight with what was already taught to you, could take many years to learn a 50 move form.

The practice of your form solo, broke down into drills (outside and in additon to sparring) is also very important for refining body mechancis. Practicing the WHOLE form is more for retaining body mechanics and conditioning after thay have been fully developed. It's something for the teachers or those who are already fully trained (although it could be argued they can also be used as a sport specific cardio exerise for the students).

Ben Gash

03-15-2007, 10:50 AM

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 10:52 AM

Learning a form means learning a few techniques from it, drilling them with a partner, and then sparing and fighting with them untill you are good, followed by learning the next hand full of techniques in the form and repeteing the process untill you have learned how to fight with all the techniques in the form. Only THEN can you say you know it. This is the Old way to learn.

The term "Learning forms" has has several meanings. You can learn the choreography only (Form factories) of a form, or many forms, or you can learn the form RIGHT like I described above.

Now you have teachers claiming they know 20 different styles because they can do a form from each of these. But it's a waste of time arguing about it. Few of these 'traditional' teachers are going to change what they're doing.

If anything schools will start to break down into their competition arena. Forms, MMA, sanshou/sanda, etc. It's already pretty much happening that way.

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 10:54 AM

They are ended often in a quick series of small combo's that can be found in the forms..

The problem is that with any full contact fight (that can actually be observed by others) the majority of these small combos look nothing like the movements seen in the forms.

Watch a boxer shadow box and then watch him fight. The movements will be very similar to ALL of his shadowboxing movements.

Watch a wrestler move though solo double leg takedown drills and then watch a match where he does takedowns. The movements will also be very similar.

Not so with most TMA forms movements.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 10:57 AM

But forms are an outdated and misinformed method of training...

Reply]
That is because they were never MEANT for training in the first place, they were to recored a masters curriculem, as well as maintain and refine *HIS* body mechanics during his solo practice.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 10:59 AM

The problem is that with any full contact fight (that can actually be observed by others) the majority of these small combos look nothing like the movements seen in the forms.

Watch a boxer shadow box and then watch him fight. The movements will be very similar to ALL of his shadowboxing movements.

Watch a wrestler move though solo double leg takedown drills and then watch a match where he does takedowns. The movements will also be very similar.

Not so with most TMA forms movements.

Most people don't know the apps of their forms, so when they fight they just do kickboxing. So of course it doesn't necessarily look like the form.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 11:01 AM

A)Not really an accurate picture of Choy Li Fut
B)Of all styles, Choy Li Fut's forms are the most complimentary to each other
C)All Choy Li Fut forms work your basics very hard
D)Choy Li Fut probably has the most obvious application of any longarm style

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. While the body method of CLF has been spread throughout the forms, do you think that other styles are any different in this respect?

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 11:03 AM

Infrazael-
How long have you trained CLF?
How long MMA?

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 11:06 AM

The problem is that with any full contact fight (that can actually be observed by others) the majority of these small combos look nothing like the movements seen in the forms.

Reply]
Wrong, they look exactly like they do in the form. The form is there to record the curriculem of techiques. When you fight, the moves you use will be vertually identical to the moves in the fight...NO DIFFERENT than a boxer, or wrestler is compared to their drills. If this is NOT the case, then the teacher is not qualified to teach, or the form being presented is not a martial set, but a theatrical choreogrphy and has nothig to do with this discussion as it is not applicable to *Martial* arts. It's just a theater perfromance for the Chinese Opera house, and not designed to be anything else but an entertaining stage show.

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 11:11 AM

Wrong, they look exactly like they do in the form. The form is there to record the curriculem of techiques. When you fight, the moves you use will be vertually identical to the moves in the fight...NO DIFFERENT than a boxer, or wrestler is compared to their drills.

Out of the hundreds of thousands of clips on the internet, I doubt you could point to one clip that shows someone fighting where more than just a very small minority of his movements look anything like his forms movements.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 11:16 AM

That is because I would need to know his forms, as well as see him fight, and you never see clips of the forms side by side with the fight.

I have seen plently of San shou, and Kuo show clips that have bits and peice of MY forms done in fighting competitions though.

I have also done a lot of my form's techniques in sparring myself.

You fight like you train, if you are training the techniques of your system, you are going to fight with them.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 11:16 AM

Out of the hundreds of thousands of clips on the internet, I doubt you could point to one clip that shows someone fighting where more than just a very small minority of his movements look anything like his forms movements.

This is because most everybody does not know the apps to the forms. When they fight, they fight with kickboxing. If you were to go around and collect the apps, then you would have nobody to practice them with anyway.

So how to solve this problem beyond just taking MMA?

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 11:22 AM

That is because I would need to know his forms, as well as see him fight, and you never see clips of the forms side by side with the fight.

If someone does forms and fights, it's not hard to find examples of both. The problem is, they always look completely different.

I have seen plently of San shou, and Kuo show clips that have bits and peice of MY forms done in fighting competitions though.

Bits and pieces here and there only points to the inefficiencies of forms training.

I have also done a lot of my form's techniques in sparring myself..
Without viewable evidence, this is only heresay.

You fight like you train, if you are training the techniques of your system, you are going to fight with them.
Not if you are only training them in the air. Sparring and fighting will necessitate leaving out a large portion of the more unworkable forms movements.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 11:26 AM

The thing is, how do you solve this problem?

If you were to start a MA class that broke down a form, taught the form and the apps, and drilled the apps for about an hour or so, and then had sparring practice after.

How many people do you think would really come to it and study it? Study one form's apps for like a year or so?

SevenStar

03-15-2007, 11:27 AM

SevenStar

03-15-2007, 11:30 AM

This is because most everybody does not know the apps to the forms. When they fight, they fight with kickboxing. If you were to go around and collect the apps, then you would have nobody to practice them with anyway.

So how to solve this problem beyond just taking MMA?

you can't fight using something you've never trained. They aren't kickboxing, they are using what's ingrained in them - their basic punches and kicks. The theoretical way to fix it is to have the apps drilled to the point where they are second nature, but that is something I've never seen done. In all out sparring, it's all always looked pretty much the same.

Black Jack II

03-15-2007, 11:31 AM

So how to solve this problem beyond just taking MMA

First of all you would have to say that this is a actual problem. I don't believe it is, like knife already stated, when it gets down to it, with few exceptions a lot of what we do in certain contexts can look the same.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 11:34 AM

so when you see ross or his students spar / fight, you see exact lama form applications?

Reply]
If he taught them Lama, then yes.

I don't know Lama, nor do i know thier forms. I have seen certian concepts of llama, but not even remotely close to the whole system, but that does not meant the moves they use are not from parts of his forms, it means I would know if they are or not.

Also, how much of the lama does Ross actually teach his san Shou guys?

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 11:35 AM

First of all you would have to say that this is a actual problem. I don't believe it is, like knife already stated, when it gets down to it, with few exceptions a lot of what we do in certain contexts can look the same.

Let's take karate. The forms have specific sequences of movements in them, like grab, then strike. For example the famous 'chambered punch' isn't chambered at all, it's a grab and hold along with a strike.

But nobody fights that way. When they fight, they fight with kickboxing and some throws.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 11:40 AM

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 11:45 AM

I think a crude "Kick boxing" type of fighting is present in ANYONE who has taken some sort of martial art where they learned how to kick and punch. It's included in the basic operateing system and is powered on Boot.

Anyways, whatever. If you want to learn kickboxing/MMA then go to a kickboxing/MMA school. If you want to learn 40 useless forms, take CLF. Teachers aren't going to change their programs.

Ben Gash

03-15-2007, 11:48 AM

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree. While the body method of CLF has been spread throughout the forms, do you think that other styles are any different in this respect?

Many styles I've seen and done have had forms that are wildly different to one another, and have very heavily obscured applications, whereas in CLF there are certain techniques and combinations that are present in every form.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 11:50 AM

Many styles I've seen and done have had forms that are wildly different to one another, and have very heavily obscured applications, whereas in CLF there are certain techniques and combinations that are present in every form.

A lot of systems have the same intro moves in their forms, but I doubt you could say that CLF 'Plum Flower Fist' is the same as CLF 'Buddha Palm'.

Anyways, I don't know all of CLF's 150+ forms or whatever they have, so I guess I can't say for sure.

The Xia

03-15-2007, 11:56 AM

If you think that Choy Lay Fut is a "forms dancer" style then you are mistaken. Good Choy Lay Fut schools spend a lot of time on basics and drilling applications. Choy Lay Fut is a style that has proved itself both the streets and the ring. I think that should speak for itself.
And if you don't want to practice many forms but still want to do Choy Lay Fut, I'd suggest you practice Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut. They stick to four forms.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 11:59 AM

If you think that Choy Lay Fut is a forms dancer style then you are mistaken. Good Choy Lay Fut schools spend a lot of time on basics and drilling applications. Choy Lay Fut is a style that has proved itself both the streets and the ring. I think that should speak for itself.
And if you don't want to practice many forms but still want to do Choy Lay Fut, I'd suggest you practice Buk Sing Choy Lay Fut. They stick to four forms.

One of my teachers took CLF. To get to black sash you need 40 forms at least in the schools around here.

There's no way you could memorize apps for 40 forms, let alone drill them every day. You probably couldn't even make it through all the apps for one form in an hour.

Anyways, like Blackjack said, is there even a problem? I guess if we can't even agree there is a problem, we're sure not going to agree on a solution.

Just take McDojo MMA ... LOL

MasterKiller

03-15-2007, 12:24 PM

I thought Lunghushan was leaving?

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 12:26 PM

I thought Lunghushan was leaving?

I was waiting for the derogatory comments to start. Next will be the accusations of trolling, accusations of being a bad student, accusations of whatever.

RD, people aren't going to change what they're doing except to move to MMA. You might as well get ahead of the curve and just start teaching MMA now.

SevenStar

03-15-2007, 12:35 PM

SevenStar

03-15-2007, 12:37 PM

I thought Lunghushan was leaving?

you knew better than that.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 12:38 PM

SevenStar

03-15-2007, 12:40 PM

I think a crude "Kick boxing" type of fighting is present in ANYONE who has taken some sort of martial art where they learned how to kick and punch. It's included in the basic operateing system and is powered on Boot.

that's not kickboxing. that is just basic punching and kicking, present in all systems. muay thai uses yielding and borrowing energy. Are they doing muay thai, or is tai chi included in it's basic operating system? it uses listening as well, and you could argue that chopping and other energies are there. Perhaps xingyi is part of it's basic operating system as well?

MasterKiller

03-15-2007, 12:41 PM

Ross has made comments on more than one occasion that his guys are clearly doing lama when they fight san shou.

I can only accept his expert opinion when he says that, because he is the lama guy, and I am not.

Well, his point is that when you boil it all down, everyone who really fights is doing the same stuff, anyway. All the divisions between styles are just symantic when it comes to techniques that can be applied practically.

SevenStar

03-15-2007, 12:45 PM

Ross has made comments on more than one occasion that his guys are clearly doing lama when they fight san shou.

I can only accept his expert opinion when he says that, because he is the lama guy, and I am not.

you're talking about something different now. I don't doubt that he teaches them lama. The issue was whether or not you can SEE it. Can you tell it's lama or does it look like kickboxing to you? If you watch his guys fight and didn't know he trained them, would you know they were CMA guys because you can see form apps, or does the ti, da, shuai and na look like any other art's equivalents, or "crude kickboxing"?

Black Jack II

03-15-2007, 12:54 PM

But nobody fights that way. When they fight, they fight with kickboxing and some throws.

Thats not technically true, here is why, you are speaking in one context and it sounds like the context of a mano vrs mano situation. Most self defense altercations don't start out with two people squared off in fighting stances in the reference of sparring.

Offenders like situations don't fall under a singular description, nor do they have a potential to harm you that is readily discernible untill its to late and right in your face. It's from that position of close-quarter range that you might see the karate player grab the guys racket and pull him into the so-called chambered punch.

It is from different contexts of your enviroment that people should be judging what they practice, not the arts so much themselves.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 12:58 PM

Seven Star,
I think if you are very familliar with the specific style, then yes you can tell. However, not nessarily by the specific technique as many styles all share the same tehcniques. How they are used, the entry and setups and stuff would be more style specific. You might see it in the foot work, or in specific recognizable combos that are common to the specific style but not others.

In reality, someone like knife fighter (for example) cannot "Say" if a fighter is fighting "In style" or not, because he has no experiance in Kung Fu or the specific style. He's an outsider and does not know the details and perticulars to make that call.

Heck, even someone who's over focused on form choreography can't make the call, because they don't know how thier forms are supposed to be applied in a fight, style specifically. At best they would recognise certian familliar combos. But if that combo is also used by another style, then they would have no clue because they are not familiar with the setups, foot work and strategy of thier system.

Black Jack II

03-15-2007, 01:07 PM

lkfmdc

03-15-2007, 01:13 PM

Forms were never very important in my system to begin with. Before Wong Yan Lam and Wong Lam Hoi opened commercial (gasp!) schools the main practice was basics and the "100 roads" which were two people drilling.....

Probably most systems were the same 150 years ago...

In Lama, most forms are just collections of short bursts.... and frankly a lot of the same combinations strung together again and again,,, each form introducing just a few new techniques or concepts

Let's see, one of the most important forms in the system "Siu Lo Han" goes like this

1. parry a kick and blast them with 4 straight punches... yup, we still do that

2. I throw a punch, he shoots under to tackel me, I get under hooks to counter and then create room.... yup, we still do that

3. I throw an overhand, uppercut combo.... yup

4. I throw a hook into a back kick.... yup

5. I do a hip throw..... yup

get the idea

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 01:24 PM

This is exactly my point!

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 01:42 PM

Thats not technically true, here is why, you are speaking in one context and it sounds like the context of a mano vrs mano situation. Most self defense altercations don't start out with two people squared off in fighting stances in the reference of sparring.

Offenders like situations don't fall under a singular description, nor do they have a potential to harm you that is readily discernible untill its to late and right in your face. It's from that position of close-quarter range that you might see the karate player grab the guys racket and pull him into the so-called chambered punch.

It is from different contexts of your enviroment that people should be judging what they practice, not the arts so much themselves.

Guess I should have been a little more explicit here.

The traditional (Okinawan) technique for the 'chambered punch' is a grab and a punch.

When karate got to Japan and was taught in schools, they changed this technique to a 'chambered punch'. They took out the grab. The waza (techniques) taught in most all karate schools are not the traditional techniques.

So when karate people fight, they fight with the watered down techniques. Up block, down block, chambered punch, etc., are all the watered down techniques.

It is very hard to find a school that teaches traditional karate techniques, and even those schools usually when they spar they just use kickboxing.

So if, for example, you are taking Shotokan, and you go to a seminar with the traditional techniques, then where do you practice those? You can't practice them in the school, because nobody else is doing it. They do forms and the watered down techniques.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 02:00 PM

So basically, if your school doesn't drill enough, and just focuses on forms, and if you try to find practice partners, but practice just turns into social hour or arguments over style vs. style, etc.

Then how do you gain any decent skill in your style? Answer: you don't. Look at Fu Pow ... 10 years of CLF or something and he doesn't fight any better than a kickboxer.

So you might as well just take MMA/kickboxing/sanda/sanshou or whatever.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 02:12 PM

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 02:15 PM

Start a high school class, and drill your apps with yoour students. Be strict and military like (They love that).

Yeah that will go over really well when you start teaching them how to break arms. Nope. That was the reason they created the watered down Heians (Pinans) was to teach to kids.

Then find MMA schools with open mat nites and see how you can work your techniques into the fighting untill youncan fight with all your techniques.

You can't work anything but watered down kickboxing and some grappling into MMA. Trust me, try to throw a shuto (knife-hand) strike to the neck in MMA and see how long they let you stay in the class. (like zero minutes).

xcakid

03-15-2007, 02:24 PM

Here is a vid of a kid using kung fu in a school street fight, I have no idea what style, maybe hung gar?

In the end the kid knocks the mexican kid out cold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsFmWipioeg

That's cool. Used the ole classical sili bu(sp?) stance even. Guess that proves you really can fight in such a wide stance. :cool:

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 02:29 PM

Start a high school class, and drill your apps with yoour students. Be strict and military like (They love that).

Then find MMA schools with open mat nites and see how you can work your techniques into the fighting untill youncan fight with all your techniques.

Also, enter as many competitions as possible for the experiance.

Anyways, I guess RD, you teach right? So you can use your techniques. I'd teach high school kids but somehow I doubt the faculty would want anything other than basic kickboxing anyway.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 02:42 PM

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 02:45 PM

Yes, I teach from time to time.

If you teach a High school class, START with basic kick boxing, and just slowly add everything else over time untill you have your full system.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 02:53 PM

Guess the question is ... do any of you think what RD is describing and having a school with mostly apps and few forms would be at all popular?

Guess doesn't even matter if it's popular, but do you think it would attract a few long-term students for training partners?

Reply]
MMA gyms do it all the time, and I know of atleast one kempo school that has no problem keeping students.

When I was at Master Abbate's school in River Grove, classes were allways full too, and he never taught forms. It was all hard core conditioning and twoman practice.

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 03:13 PM

I think a crude "Kick boxing" type of fighting is present in ANYONE who has taken some sort of martial art where they learned how to kick and punch. It's included in the basic operateing system and is powered on Boot.

Boxing, kickboxing, throwing, takedowns and fighting on the ground are what real fighting looks like. The problem with the forms dancers is that they want fighting to be something it is not. Fighting is nothing like most TMA forms. Never has been, never will be.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 03:18 PM

MMA gyms do it all the time, and I know of atleast one kempo school that has no problem keeping students.

When I was at Master Abbate's school in River Grove, classes were allways full too, and he never taught forms. It was all hard core conditioning and twoman practice.

It would be a bit ironic to start teaching the apps before the forms for a couple of local teachers systems that they get paid so much to teach JUST forms and don't even know the apps for.

Even more ironic to do it at extremely low cost when they get paid so much by the hour.

However, given all the negative politics and character assassination that has gone on, such a thing would give certain people what they so desperately have tried to gain via negative tactics. So perhaps waiting a few years until these people are older and even more out of shape and can't practice wouldn't be a bad idea.

CLF-LP-WARRIOR

03-15-2007, 03:21 PM

Royal Dragon... I didn't read everything just the first couple paragraphs.. I commend you for making a bold move and stating facts. Carry on tradition, keep it pure. ~1~ Live Free... Esc0

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 03:25 PM

Here is a vid of a kid using kung fu in a school street fight, I have no idea what style, maybe hung gar?

In the end the kid knocks the mexican kid out cold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsFmWipioeg

There is a perfect example of forms being completely different from fighting. Notice the kid's stance and his tight arm movements before the engagement. Once they engaged, his stance completely changed and his arm movements were completely different. His training did him absolutely no good. He reverted to the same kind of stance and arm swinging he would have done 10 years earlier in first grade.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 03:26 PM

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 03:30 PM

In the days of traditional fighting in Japan, for example, fighting was traditional systems such as katana (sword), yari (spear), kyudo (archery), jujitsu, etc.

I suppose martial arts these days means ring fighting but to assume it was always that way is just asinine.

I assumed we were talking about unarmed fighting. Unarmed fighting in the ring doens't look much different than unarmed fighting in the street, other than the skill level of the combatants.

Fighting with hand-held weapons is somewhat different, although not too unsimilar. However, it still looks nothing like the stylized weapons forms done in many TMA's. If you had ever fought or witnessed full contact fighting with weapons you would know that.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 03:36 PM

I assumed we were talking about unarmed fighting. Unarmed fighting in the ring doens't look much different than unarmed fighting in the street, other than the skill level of the combatants.

Fighting with weapons is somewhat different, although similar. However, it still looks nothing like the stylized weapons forms done in many TMA's. If you had ever fought or witnessed full contact fighting with weapons you would know that.

If you look at Okinawan empty hand or stick forms, for example, some of what you say is true because the forms were designed to hide the true use of the movements.

So for example, a lot of them look a lot like line dancing. Does this mean you fight with line dancing? No ... it was camouflaged because they were invaded by a foreign force (Japanese). Same with Filipino kali. Same with Hawaiian 'dance'. They have essentially 'dance moves', which hide practical combat applications.

But to assume that all forms are nothing like they are practiced in 'actual' combat would be false. If you look at long fist systems like RD is talking about, the moves are done as they are practiced. It doesn't mean you stand around in stance.

This kid in this fight obviously is kindof dumb to get into a stance before the fight even starts. But it did have an interesting intimidation effect, did it not?

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 03:39 PM

If you look at Okinawan empty hand or stick forms, for example, some of what you say is true because the forms were designed to hide the true use of the movements.

So for example, a lot of them look a lot like line dancing. Does this mean you fight with line dancing? No ... it was camouflaged because they were invaded by a foreign force (Japanese). Same with Filipino kali. Same with Hawaiian 'dance'. They have essentially 'dance moves', which hide practical combat applications.

For all intents and purposes, any form that is "hiding" the real movements might as well be dance... because that's all they are. They are no more fighting applicable than is ballet.

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 03:41 PM

But to assume that all forms are nothing like they are practiced in 'actual' combat would be false. If you look at long fist systems like RD is talking about, the moves are done as they are practiced. It doesn't mean you stand around in stance.

Funny how there is no observable evidence of that.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 03:43 PM

For all intents and purposes, any form that is "hiding" the real movements might as well be dance... because that's all they are.

Okay ... for somebody who claims to do knife fighting and studied FMA, I'll have to say that you seem to be really obtuse on this subject. You might want to talk to somebody who did traditional systems about what Filipino 'dance' really is. But then again, a lot of them might not even realize how the 'dance' hides the martial arts applications.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 03:47 PM

Funny how there is no observable evidence of that.

??? If you want to see this in action look no further than longfist systems. A lot of them were designed for troop practice and training armies.

Just because you haven't researched them, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. How else do you train thousands of troops in traditional combat and quickly? In huge groups, huge lines ... otherwise it gets all tangled up and is a huge mess.

This even existed in traditional Western sword fighting and army training systems. Groups of movements, spear movements, sword movements, strung together. Check out the old writings.

Knifefighter

03-15-2007, 03:48 PM

Okay ... for somebody who claims to do knife fighting and studied FMA, I'll have to say that you seem to be really obtuse on this subject. You might want to talk to somebody who did traditional systems about what Filipino 'dance' really is. But then again, a lot of them might not even realize how the 'dance' hides the martial arts applications.

Considering the fact that I have done FMA for 30 years, I know all about the "dance" and how inapplicable it is to real fighting.

neilhytholt

03-15-2007, 03:51 PM

Considering the fact that I have done FMA for 30 years, I know all about the "dance" and how inapplicable it is to real fighting.

Okay. I guess there's no point in discussing it, then.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 04:42 PM

Boxing, kickboxing, throwing, takedowns and fighting on the ground are what real fighting looks like. The problem with the forms dancers is that they want fighting to be something it is not. Fighting is nothing like most TMA forms. Never has been, never will be.

Reply]
I can sort of agree here. Although I do have to point out that the techniques in the forms are generally seen in the fighting pretty much the same as they are done in the form. What happenes it 2-3 or 4 moves out of the form are used and that is all. The "Form dancers" as you like to term, think that a fight will be 20-30 moves of the form verbetum, and it's just not like that.

A "Form" (short for formal routine) is a collection of techniques, and combo's of techniques. You may see some forms that have the same 8 techniques done over, and over again in different combinations. Each combination records a good entry to gain position and a setup, followed by a short striking combo that gives entry to a throw and then an exit. The next combo is the same, useing a different entry and striking variation followed by a similar, or different throw, or lock or what have you. You may have 20-30 or 50 of these in one form used against a variety of situations and incomming attackst or as the agrresions towards your opponent. When you actually fight though, you only use one of them, or often even only part of one of them, IE one or only a few techiques at a time.

Trying to fight with the whole form is akin to an MMA guy trying to fight with the entire Gracie CDROM at one time in the same order the techniques appear on the CD reguardless of the actual situation. The real world does not work that way, and neither does TCMA fighting.

In reality, you only use the technique needed for that moment in time, and that is it.The fightinng DOES look just like the form, only you are seeing just a small sliver of said form...only enough so only an expert inn that system would recognise it.

As for the video, that was a joke. it was an inexperianced young'n trying to fight like Kung Fu...actually, it looked more like some sort of Kata than a Kung Fu form. He looked more like actual kung fu (long arm swings) when he got down to business and fought.

I'd be willing to bet a Choy Lay Fut guy could tell you exactly what apps he used, and which form they came from.

Royal Dragon

03-15-2007, 05:23 PM

As for the funny Kung Fu Fight video, after careful examination, I believe the white kid is a Tournament Karate Kata performer, who has reacently taken up Choy Lay Fut.

He has NO free sparring experiance, but has done plently of pre arranged drills in his Choy Lay Fut class.

He does not seem to have a clue as to how to use his feet, and he is trying to use deep stances that would normally be seen in close during or imediatly following a throw, to cover ground and gain position. This shows his teacher is not very qualified, ot he's just really new to the system and trying to use tings he has no understanding for.

The technique he used for his knockout was classic Choy Lay Fut. Granted it was really sloppy and un refined, and that showes his lack of experiance in the style, but even as bad as it was, it still looks pretty much like bread and butter Choy Lay Fut Forms.

Here is a good vid showing some Choy Lay Fut forms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNS39WuENK4

If you look at the vid closely, you will see the technique this kid was trying to use is shown in 2:14-2:16 and close/similar techniques are seen at 1:03-1:06 - 1:25-1:27 - 2:45-2:50 - 3:13-3:15 - 3:36-3:40 - 4:16-4:17 - 4:18-4:31

So there you have it, even a newbie who really sucks uses his form in fighting...

Laukarbo

03-16-2007, 01:04 AM

another thread ends up everyone tries to defend tma against people who either didnt succeed with their tma or the ones that cant look further than their extended arms

its all good each to their own...

whoever thinks a form is for fighting..or fighting should look like a form is stupid..
If you speak words u hardly make out the ABC in it...
MMA doesnt look like mma if they get involved in a fight outside the ring..it might be to crowded ,the inviroment is different..etc. it will look chaotic,uncoordinated,messy etc.
If a tma practicioner ,who only trains tma, fights in the ring it wont look like tma cos he has to follow the rules..however even in a fight outside the ring it wont look like doing a form..it wont look like a fight out of a shaw brothers movie either..
its not important what it looks like..it got to be effective thats all...
For example this Kung Fu kid from the clip won his fight..no matter how stupid it looked..in the end he got home safe...tma is not about looking good..
well,forms got more important cos of the tournaments,the movies etc.
Forms are nothing but ur ABC..now learn the words,sentences etc.

If I fight in a ring against a mmafighter I will lose for sure..cos i dont train like that..
If I fight the same guy outside,I do everything not to lose or to get injured
the way how to do it I learn in my tma..by conditioning,by drills,by strength training,by sparring etc. the forms are my coordination training,my training to build up stamina,my breathing etc.

oh well,got carried away:D

Water-quan

03-16-2007, 03:19 AM

[B] What is Billed as *Traditional Kung Fu* in most schools today is actually a very modern system. To get real skills, you need to go back to the roots.

YES! Bravo that man! At last! People will scream and rail against this insight, but it is totally true.

Water-quan

03-16-2007, 03:21 AM

At large, the numerous schools of our society generally take the approach of forms and techniques to learn boxing. One must know that this kind practice is just forgery conducted by the later generations, it is not the original essence of combat science – Wang Xiang Zhai

Hitman

03-16-2007, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by neilhytholt
But to assume that all forms are nothing like they are practiced in 'actual' combat would be false. If you look at long fist systems like RD is talking about, the moves are done as they are practiced. It doesn't mean you stand around in stance.

kf- Funny how there is no observable evidence of that.

Have you guys actually checked out Grandmaster Wong kiew Kit's web site - video section? He and his students can use their tradition kung fu in a fight. I know this, because I had sparred with one of his students before.
His web site contains a lot of useful information about how to apply tradition kung fu in fight.

Water-quan

03-16-2007, 04:46 AM

SevenStar

03-16-2007, 08:20 AM

MMA doesnt look like mma if they get involved in a fight outside the ring..it might be to crowded ,the inviroment is different..etc. it will look chaotic,uncoordinated,messy etc.

I use it all the time, and it looks the same... fighting in itself is messy, but my techniques do not have to be modified - they can be used exactly as I use them in training.

a realistic, messy fight and modification of how a technique is performed in a form are not the same issue.

kal

03-23-2007, 03:27 PM

Excellent post Royal Dragon. Very very thought provoking indeed.

There is a system which I have recently become very interested in. It's called Splashing Hands:

http://www.splashinghands.com

What is interesting about this system is that it does not have many forms and those few that it does have, it only teaches much later. Apparently the system first aims to teach students to fight and then later to introduce forms.

Most of the training seems to be drills of short techniques and then some combinations (thousands of reps) as well as two-man drills and exercises:

At first I was put off by this approach, thinking that it is not "traditional enough" and that it was more like Muay Thai or western boxing.

But having read your post makes me rethink things. Perhaps this is actually exactly what traditional kung fu is after all.

I have to say i somewhat disagree on a point. It's not that the traditional arts are misunderstood, it's that they are taught WRONG!.

Through years of research into the Chinese arts, i have learned that originally they were taught very differently than today. Training consisted of basics, basics, basics. Students where not taught forms, but two man applications to the techniques, which were drilled to the point of absolute mastery in small groups as small as 3, but rarely larger than 9.

My system originally consisted of 32 loose techniques that were used in any order, or combination the fighter saw fit at the moment. when it was developed in 960 AD, it had no forms at all. You just learned a few techniques, and mastered the strategies, and tactics of fighting with them, then learned a few more till you eventually learned and mastered all 32 of them. The rest of the training was hard conditioning, and Qi Gong. the Qi gong was really the essence of the style as it in reality was all the fundamental body mechanics used in the techniques isolated into 8 core drills. The phenomenal health benefits were purely a side effect, and never the original goal.

If you fast forward to 1279 AD, when the Sung dynasty fell, you will find that forms had begun to take shape and the practice spread widely...but not to students. Forms practice was for TEACHERS to record their curriculum's in a nice orderly, and progressive manor.

Though it is believed to have originally been an invention of the temples, the practice of forms development for recording a systems core curriculum was most likely spread by military trainers to make it easier for them to remember their curriculum's, and *Maintain* much of their conditioning. The soldiers going though the training never learned the form, they still got Basics, conditioning and endless two man drills combined with strategy and even free fighting. They ONLY learned the form *IF* their military career brought them to the point of being trainers...even then, the form was of their own creation based on their battle field experience.

I don't think forms started to be preserved generation after generation until those military personnel retired, and went home to their various villiages and began teaching the civilians. It was their Civilian students that rose to the level of teachers that preserved the forms taught to them by the former military trainers. Even then, the TEACHING of them was still only to those who were at a level that they began teaching themselves. the students still got Basics, conditioning strategy and endless two-man fighting practice.

Now, in the Temples things were different because they were testing the integrity of their students, so many would put them through grueling conditioning, and extended practice of basics, but once martial lessons were taught, it was still not forms. Those were basically for the teachers.

Fast forward to the Qing dynasty and the advent of commercial schools. THIS is when forms first came into being. It's a relatively modern thing. The masters all started doing this because they began teaching large numbers of people, and really didn't want to teach their secrets to just anyone...but of course wanted money. It was also a way of really dragging out the curriculum so what used to be taught in months, now took years. This is also when alot of the practice of drilling techniques in the air for extended periods of time came into being. Only a Master's inner door disciples were taught correctly. What used to be correct teachings, were now billed as "Higher form", or Higher levels of the arts.

At first one learned a form, and then applications, and then strategy and how to fight with them. But as time rolled on, it got to be more and more and more form oriented, and further, and further away from the original teachings. You eventually go to today where the masters are nothing compared to their forefathers because of generation after generation of degradation.

It's gotten to a point now where only the very few learn the applications, and HOW to fight with their style. Many of them are still secretive, and only teach their closest Friends and family the real goods. Most fighting to day is simplistic San Shou, and not the depth of the original systems. That is really lost, except to the few...when it used to be wide spread to anyone who had gone through the military, or their students after they retired.

Now you have styles that originally had 1 long form, or many 3 AT BEST that was practiced only by the Master, and the teachers under him, to systems haveing a hundred or more forms to learn and hardly any application taught being practiced by everyone to the excusion of actually learing the style. It used to be learning a form meant being a competant fighter with the techniques...now it's just means memorising the choreography....actually understanding is optional if it's even avalaible.

Anyway, it's not about martial arts vs martial way, or Fight vs health, its about teaching right, VS teaching wrong, at least with the Chinese arts.

Today, if you want to recover the skills of the past, you really have to reverse engineer your style, and study it's principals (If you Can even figure that out anymore), and then when you teach, teach the old way.

What is Billed as *Traditional Kung Fu* in most schools today is actually a very modern system. To get real skills, you need to go back to the roots.

Kung Pao

03-23-2007, 09:32 PM

One of the problems with almost every CMA on the face of the earth, applications are often taught and practiced in the most unrealistic manner imaginable. It begins with....okay, step in and punch, or throw that right snap kick. Well, most good fighters don't step into their punches in the same arm/same leg fashion. They fight from a much safer position and use their weapons to wear down an opponent (if strikers....and some grapplers weaken their opponents before going in for the kill).

It wouldn't be so bad if that same arm/leg step forward was only taught to beginners....but it's tne format that pervades the entire systems from beginner to higher level. It's why CMA isn't what a person should study for fighting, unless that person studies something else on the side (like boxing or kickboxing). But all that means is that you're adding decoration onto a skin and bones fighting method. (note: method, not style).

Face it. I did. When you study a CMA style, you're studying stylized fighting. Not necessarily effective fighting. It can be effective, I know this to be true. But as effective as MMA or Muay Thai? Probably not.

Royal Dragon

03-23-2007, 11:56 PM

Face it. I did. When you study a CMA style, you're studying stylized fighting. Not necessarily effective fighting. It can be effective, I know this to be true. But as effective as MMA or Muay Thai? Probably not.

Reply]
See, here si the thing, the Chinese have highly stylised minds. You see it very much in thier art, theater and even writing styles. So when they preserved a fighting method, they sought to preserve the "Style" of it's founder's expression as well, not just the technology itself. It's not enough for them to just "Kick ass", they have to do it with a flair indicative of the style they are practicing.

This is all fine and dandy mind you, however during the advent of comercial schools, when the shift to a more health oriented flavor occured, that "Style" of expression was best taught with in the forms because forms teach one how to move more than how to fight. In the olden days, they needed to fight first, so the forms were only for the teachers to use as toold to refine thier movement and menchanics. But when fighting was downplayed, and the styleistic movements became what the public demanded, CMA really lost it's functionality.

HOW the techniques were used in a fight got lost to how the techniques were supposed to be expressed in styleisitc movement. What you ended up wiht is a huge mess of systems that are taught totally wrong, and totally backwards from thier original ways.

CMAs are completely effective fighting systems *IF* taught the way they were originally taught....IE Techniques and usage fiorst, and forms only for those wishing to teach, or senior players looking to further refine thier body mechanics in ways that only solo practice can refine.

The problem is so much degridation has occured that most practitioners of these systems don't really know the original fighting strategy, or even the original applications for the techniques of thier systems because they have not been taught in at least 3 generations. You get so called masters who have never been in a real fight in thier lives theorisng, and making up applications with no basis in reality, because they have nothing but wild imagination to go by.

Sparring in thier time was minimal, and they were never taught the actuall applications to thier techniques, they don't understand the realities of fighting. They have no real experiance. To make matters worse, they were told that if you just do the form 1000 times the moves just come to you in a fight, and that could not be further from the truth. What happenes is the apps they try to teach are really made up Guesses based on a total lack of reality or foundation...which means most of them get you in more trouble than not.

That leaves those of us who understand what happned to either abandon CMA, or try to get back to the roots and recapture the old school ways of practicing the arts from a long lost day when they were functional. It's like a reverse engineering process.

When you really look at it, some teachers have parts of it, and others have other parts, but few have it all in one. You may have a teacher who actually comes from a line where the apps were preserved, but does not understand the footwork, or how to gain the right position ot use them, or you may have one who is good at developing the fundementals, but can't gte the apps in gear, or another who seems to know the over all fighting strategy, in theory, but is not practiced enough to make it work. So someone dedicated to the true TCMAs needs to examine as many sources as possible and peicemeal it all back together.

I think it's possible, but it takes alot of well rounded study, and it really helps when the few real fighting lines get out and put thier skills on video so the rest of us can study, but it's still a lot of work and willingness to gather each piece of the puzzle to compile in one place.

You really need to go back to the most simplistic functional basics of the art, and rebuild from there. Only the weirdo's with some sort of OCD issues will do that...the rest just go to MMA and get to fighting in a more timely and efficent manor.

Royal Dragon

03-24-2007, 12:07 AM

I think it would be nice if guys like Wai Lun Choi would put thier systems on DVD. At least then we could see example of how real functional Kung Fu should be practiced.
He has a wealth of knowledge that the over all kung fu community is just starving for when it comes to application, useage and fighting strategy.

rogue

03-24-2007, 05:25 AM

Have you guys actually checked out Grandmaster Wong kiew Kit's web site - video section? He and his students can use their tradition kung fu in a fight. I know this, because I had sparred with one of his students before.
His web site contains a lot of useful information about how to apply tradition kung fu in fight.

Hitman, I checked out the site but didn't find any sparring clips except for some very light guided drills at the bottom of the page. Could you post the links to them?

He(Wai Lun Choi) has a wealth of knowledge that the over all kung fu community is just starving for when it comes to application, useage and fighting strategy.
RD, You're in luck. Master Wai Lun Choi will soon be offering the complete 12 animal forms on DVD.
Now the question becomes will we see applications, useage and fighting strategies or just forms?
I don't think anyone in the martial community is starving for those things at all. If they were they could get them from so many sources these days that they could gorge themselves instead of starving. What they are starving for is someone from their own style to tell them that they are learning applications, useage and fighting strategies.

CMAs are completely effective fighting systems *IF* taught the way they were originally taught....IE Techniques and usage fiorst, and forms only for those wishing to teach, or senior players looking to further refine thier body mechanics in ways that only solo practice can refine.

And that's the problem with most traditional martial arts, there's always that
BIG IF.
If only we trained the they used to, if only master so and so would make a dvd, if, if, if. If our traditional arts worked as trained we wouldn't be iffing ourselves silly trying to convince ourselves that it does IF we only had one more secret.
Training effectively isn't rocket surgery and one only has to look at how the sport fighters train as a jumping off point, then modify it to fit your goals.

kal

03-24-2007, 06:11 AM

Royal Dragon

03-24-2007, 06:47 AM

Training effectively isn't rocket surgery and one only has to look at how the sport fighters train as a jumping off point, then modify it to fit your goals.

Reply]
Yeah, but so few schools do that. If you are already well into a style, you can try to make the metamorphisis yourself, but it would require starting asgroup of like minded guys...which is hard to do.

If you are a younger student, you don't have the background and are *Way* better of going to MMA. The odds are just not in favaor of it unless you are one of the few who come from a Chinese fight school...not many of those now a days.

RD, You're in luck. Master Wai Lun Choi will soon be offering the complete 12 animal forms on DVD.
Now the question becomes will we see applications, useage and fighting strategies or just forms?
I don't think anyone martial community is starving for those things at all. If they were could get them from so many sources these days that they could gorge themselves instead of starving. What they are starving for is someone from their own style to tell them that they are learning applications, useage and fighting strategies.

Reply]
I have been waiting for those for years...but If Choi does them, he will show apps. When I went to see him years ago, he was all "app this, app that, app the other thing". He had some VHS of his 12 animals before, and I have seen some of them. He did a deacent job if you can find those but they are not easy to come by.

I just wish I had known about him back in the days I dedicated my life to OYD...God, if I had put that kind of effort into Choi's system, I'd be a Martial God right now...Damm lying cult Mutter fockers.....

rogue

03-24-2007, 08:32 AM

Yeah, but so few schools do that. If you are already well into a style, you can try to make the metamorphisis yourself, but it would require starting asgroup of like minded guys...which is hard to do.

Or taking what you know and going somewhere with effective training. Masterkiller, Sevenstar and others here have done it. I'm figuring that 7* is pretty up And starting a group may be hard but not trying to start the group is automatic failure of the idea.

Water-quan

03-24-2007, 10:07 AM

Isn't he the guy who claims he can use chi to disperse clouds in the sky?

Yes - and that's the least of his claims.

lkfmdc

03-24-2007, 10:25 AM

Read Wong Kiew Kit's latest article in (that other mag) and see what you think. My impression, he lives in a fantasy land and couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag. And NO, I've never seen any of his students do anything remotely looking like alive practice.....

"one steps" do NOT count :rolleyes:

rogue

03-24-2007, 12:16 PM

SPJ

03-24-2007, 06:14 PM

we dun want to blame the long forms for everything.

there are short sets/composite of several/a few techniques/moves that we may practice over and over.

a wushu student just learned some part of the forms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAtA59vl4H0

a wushu coach performing without full intent and gong fa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnGWuqCTucM

a traditional practitioner practicing the same moves over and over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSttlMgg6xA

:)

rogue

03-24-2007, 07:04 PM

I'm sorry, but I didn't see any intent in that form. I may just have an untrained eye but it looked slow with a lot of long pauses and poses.

kal

03-25-2007, 03:33 AM

Yes - and that's the least of his claims.

What are the other ones?

I didn't think you could get much worse than claiming to disperse clouds with chi.

If he really can do that, why don't the governments of the world recruit him to use his chi to do something about the CO2 in the atmosphere? Why doesn't he stop global warming?

Water-quan

03-25-2007, 04:35 AM

What are the other ones?

I didn't think you could get much worse than claiming to disperse clouds with chi.

If he really can do that, why don't the governments of the world recruit him to use his chi to do something about the CO2 in the atmosphere? Why doesn't he stop global warming?

You name it - from long distance cures for cancer through to deadly "cosmos palm" strikes that can kill you with a light touch. His students calim to be pretty much the only real Shaolin stylists, and that they have "internal power" that can easily cause massive internal damage to any MMA stylist - although, of course, they don't need to prove it to anyone - only brag about it.

The group is extremely cult like.

http://www.wongkiewkit.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Water-quan

03-25-2007, 04:46 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAtA59vl4H0

I'd say that is what in forms is called "drawing the form" - relaxed practice, catching the movement. Quite useful for learning forms.

a wushu coach performing without full intent and gong fa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnGWuqCTucM

Looks like a training video, showing the moves so that people can copy them.

a traditional practitioner practicing the same moves over and over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSttlMgg6xA

:)

That looks mor elike actual Ba Ji training.

I think the point here is to know what is being criticised and why. Not everyone has the same intent in martial arts - there's no point criticising someone who wants to do forms; wushu is cool, and anyone can see why someone who has a knack for it might want to do it - it looks cool and is fun to train. If the core reason for training is to do forms, then drawing forms, or doing them slow to teach them is good practice.

The problem comes when they insist on the kinship to practical martial arts. In which case, the forms have to be criticised from a different persepctive - not how they are trained, but whether they are really useful, or really training you for fighting.

Having said that, Ba Ji has a long history of full contact, no rules fighting, with weapons, to the death. Not to say that other methods aren't better - just to say that the "spirit" of genuine no rules fighting is a lot older than just modern MMA.

Criticism in martial arts needs to be aimed properly. Those who love forms are immune from the debtae on actual fighting wushu - until they step in to it by making claims. Otherwise, they're doing what they want to do and fulfilling their core reason for training at that point, so all power to them.

rogue

03-25-2007, 05:40 AM

I've seen Asia use some of his Baji, so I wouldn't write the style off.

SPJ, My apologies. For some reason I read a wushu coach performing without full intent and gong fa. as "with full intent". I must be getting loopy in my old age.:o

Kung Pao

03-25-2007, 05:46 AM

I don't know why CMA'ists, especially teachers, are always talking about internal damage from breathing wrong, moving wrong, or taking these "deadly" CMA punches and kicks.

I think it's a byproduct of CMA's "Holier than thou" attitude, from Master to Student. Some CMA teachers can't fight worth a lick, but won't admit it. I've met wushu guys who said they studied deadly martial arts!:eek: :D

So the Master teaches a student a series of movements, and critiques it incessantly. Well, eventually it will be in excellent shape, nearly as good (at least in functionality) as the master's, so the Master starts making up **** in order to prove he has further knowledge in that field than the student, and the unwitting fall for his ruse (because the **** he makes up is completely unrelated to fighting and martial artis in general---it's just mythology and faux medical stuff-----pllus, he doens't have direct evidence to back him up, he's just regurgitating some **** his master told him). I'd like to see medical proof that kung-fu, done badly, massages internal organs incorrectly and throws chi out of whack....:p......b/c the same movements are done daily outside of MA, and people don't start losing kidneys and livers from it---you can chalk that up to diet.

Chinese martial arts look cool. I don't really think there's anything deadly in 'em. I have a great understanding of pressure points. Doesn't do me a world of good in a fight against someone on my level, because Dim Mak myths don't do **** for creating the openings you need to apply them. It just gives me better aim.....but half the people in the world won't respond the same to a pressure point strike. I once was showing off my pressure point knowledge to some fellow students, and pressed down on a 110 lb. young lady's arm to demonstrate pressure point effectiveness. She didn't respond to anything. I felt like an ass:o ....lol.....

So the skills aren't 100% foolproof. To be honest, I think MMA provides the most effectively reliable defense. At least, from my perspective and experience. But I still do CMA, because it's cooler.:D A good brawler could beat my ass, as he could many of ours.

I'm not out trolling, it just seems like the place to state our opninos on CMA today. There's more unrealistic notions of its supremacy today, than any other decade. But MMA's doing something to deflate its collective ego. Only thing is, MMA just isn't as fun.

lkfmdc

03-25-2007, 09:17 AM

So David, as someone who has made the jump, was it hard to use some of the more modern training methods, and which traditional methods did you keep? I can't believe that it'd be that difficult to transition to more efficient training methods.

First, I had a "step up" because Chan Tai San was very different than many sifu. He hated the BS, he was very open minded. Not only did he study many different TCMA, he also studied boxing and judo.

The biggest obstacle is the MIND. People who get "confused" and think they have to train like a bad Shaolin kung fu movie :p

TCMA always had sand bags, mine just read "Fairtex" on the side. Thursday night we were doing "scales" and other Shuai Jiao single person "forms"

The big differences are that when we strike we wear pads (and actually CTS recommened we use boxing gloves), we don't wear uniforms (which isn't a difference to me, CTS never had uniforms), and we don't do forms (biggest one, since CTS still clung to forms as a method of training)

rogue

03-25-2007, 09:40 AM

Royal Dragon

03-25-2007, 09:44 AM

I am curious about that as well.

lkfmdc

03-25-2007, 09:52 AM

Thanks for the response David. Now can I ask what changed in taking your Lama Pai and moving it to San da? Did certain techniques get left behind and others heavily modified? Were any babies tossed out with any bathwater?

I'd rather be known as a san Da person than a Kung Fu person because in today's day and age Kung Fu has become something radically different than what I was raised in. I feel more comfortable around San Da and MMA people, they actually remind me more of the martial art I grew up in.

In Lama Pai, there were always the core techniques, the things you practiced alll the time, the important stuff, the stuff you fought with.... I still teach all of that. Teh technique is not modified, I am just doing it in work out clothing, with gloves, against other people instead of in forms

The bizarre thing about TCMA is the need to have "other stuff", to have nifty stuff, to have showy stuff, to have stuff to fill the forms....

Most TCMA people feel they must keep teh forms. My sifu did, that and he recognized it was a profitable business. A lot of people came JUST to learn the forms....

But at the same time, we knew most (if not all) of the forms were from Wong Yan Lam and Wong Lam Hoi or later.... for a good part of the history of the style, there were NO FORMS

So why cling to them

Royal Dragon

03-25-2007, 09:58 AM

rogue

03-25-2007, 12:33 PM

So the only things changed are the accouterments of the art that was learned from Chan Tai San and not the art itself.
Another question, without forms how do you keep the system intact?

Royal Dragon

03-25-2007, 01:40 PM

Another question, without forms how do you keep the system intact?

Reply]
You remember the core techniques, and fight with them alot.

lkfmdc

03-25-2007, 02:05 PM

So the only things changed are the accouterments of the art that was learned from Chan Tai San and not the art itself.
Another question, without forms how do you keep the system intact?

What is "intact"? Every single technique Chan Tai San ever learned? I know for a fact that many things CTS learned he did NOT teach... there were things he learned that ultimately he didn't agree with. There were things he taught that weren't necessarily part of his own method, so they got less emphasis, then there was his "core" material

I don't need forms to do the system anymore than I need those grade school blue grammar books to speak English.... we do the system everyday in drills, we integrate the theories in every practice....

rogue

03-25-2007, 03:07 PM

No wonder you were banned in China!:eek: :D ;)

neilhytholt

03-25-2007, 03:23 PM

No wonder you were banned in China!:eek: :D ;)

Actually he'd be right at home now in China with sanda.

Scott R. Brown

03-26-2007, 02:16 AM

Hi RD,

Great original post!!

I agree with your friend whole heartedly! I gave up forms for fight training purposes over 20 years ago. I mostly train basics and grappling techniques. Basics, short techniques, two man drills and multiple opponent drills are what will prepare one most efficiently for the real world.

On the occasions I am in the mood to train forms I string together basic movements in random ways. When I train forms (which is rarely) I do them for fun, to work on graceful transitions from one technique or basic movement to another, and to train myself to spontaneously react. In the above sentence, “graceful” is meant to be defined as: “maintaining centered balance with the purpose of performing an idealized movement”. In an actual fight it is a rare opportunity when a movement may be performed in its idealized manner.

Hi Knifefighter,

Some days back I think you mentioned that boxers don’t train forms. I have to disagree with you on that. They just don’t call it forms, they call it shadowboxing. Shadowboxing trains the basic punches in a manner that connects them as they “might” be used in a real boxing match. This IS a form! It is the same manner in which I train; randomly connecting the basic movements with the purpose of training the muscles to spontaneous respond as a changing situation dictates. Connecting basic skills into a continuous succession of movements is forms training!!

Water-quan

03-26-2007, 03:03 AM

for a good part of the history of the style, there were NO FORMS

Reply]
Tai Tzu had no forms originally either. All the forms of Tai Tzu were perfected in the Ming dynasty. Some of the key ones started before that, like the 32 commonly taught by shaolin, but prior to that, and in many parallel lines (to Shaolin), it was just a collection of loose techniques.

Hsing Yi originally had no forms as well - and as I have mentioned, quite correctly, was sometimes known as Yiquan (before modern Yiquan.) Forms are a very modern, relatively speaking, invention.

Water-quan

03-26-2007, 03:06 AM

Hi RD,

Some days back I think you mentioned that boxers don’t train forms. I have to disagree with you on that. They just don’t call it forms, they call it shadowboxing. Shadowboxing trains the basic punches in a manner that connects them as they “might” be used in a real boxing match. This IS a form!

Shadow boxing is not forms. However, it's right to say forms probably grew out of shadow boxing, or that shadow boxing is what forms should be, or that forms are a corrupt version of shadow boxing. To say that forms as we know them are the same as shadow boxing isn't true. What we need to do, in that case, is reclaim themenaing of "form" to mean somethign much more fluid than fixed, robotic copying.

Scott R. Brown

03-26-2007, 05:15 AM

Hi Water-quan,

I never equated Shadowboxing with TCM forms as “we know them”! You have somehow misunderstood the definition of forms. Shadowboxing is exactly what forms are; a series of movements, one following the other, for the purpose of training! I was very clear about that, please read my post a bit more carefully! Shadowboxing IS as you have said though; “what forms should be”. Just because shadowboxing is NOT equivalent to what TCM forms generally are in practice does not mean it is not a form!

Just because shadowboxing are forms
And TCM forms are forms
Does not mean Shadowboxing is the same thing as TCM forms or vise versa!

Just because Socrates is a man,
And Plato is a man,
Does not mean Socrates IS Plato!

Herein lays your misunderstanding!

As far as shadowboxing and TCM forms are concerned: One (TCM forms) is inadequate, generally speaking, for the desired purpose, the other (Shadowboxing) is ideal for the desired purpose!

Royal Dragon

03-26-2007, 06:24 AM

Hsing Yi originally had no forms as well - and as I have mentioned, quite correctly, was sometimes known as Yiquan (before modern Yiquan.) Forms are a very modern, relatively speaking, invention.

Reply]
Forms came into being around the Yuan dynasty (Although a few existed prior). They originally were a way to catalog a system. They were used mostly by the teachers, and masters to define a curriculem. Originally they recored strictly techniques (Like my core Tai Tzu form), but later they began to recored good combo's as well.

Forms are good for working mechanics. Forms are great sport specific cardio, and a good way to help *Maintain* your conditioning and giving you good material to work on in your personal time.

I still do forms myself, but it's what I do in the summer out in the park. I do them for 40 mintes after my warmup or Qi Gong. I am supposed to do this 3 X a week, with drills and stance work 2 times a week, but it never works out that way. I lose weight this way, that is why I do it. I never do forms when I have partners. It's wasteing valuable partner time.

All winter when I am in doors with little room, I condition and do stance work, drills etc. Again, if and when I have partners, I do two man work so as not to waste my valuable time with them.

Black Jack II

03-26-2007, 06:29 AM

they call it shadowboxing

Shadowboxing is a not a form. A tcma form has a definate start and a definate finnish, a format from one end to the other, shadowboxing and other training tools like escrima's carenza does not. It is always changing, always flowing and has no set in stone codified spectrum.

Water-quan

03-26-2007, 06:33 AM

Water-quan

03-26-2007, 06:37 AM

[
Forms are good for working mechanics.

Not really, in my view.

Forms are great sport specific cardio, and a good way to help *Maintain* your conditioning and giving you good material to work on in your personal time.

Who says it is good material?

I still do forms myself, but it's what I do in the summer out in the park. I do them for 40 mintes after my warmup or Qi Gong. I am supposed to do this 3 X a week, with drills and stance work 2 times a week, but it never works out that way. I lose weight this way, that is why I do it.

Well, each person has a core reason, or reasons, for doing martial arts. If you've identified yours as weight loss, and it is working for you, then all power to you.

I never do forms when I have partners. It's wasteing valuable partner time.

Some times I accidentally become nostalgic, and try to remember forms that I once knew... but it doesn't last for long!

All winter when I am in doors with little room, I condition and do stance work, drills etc. Again, if and when I have partners, I do two man work so as not to waste my valuable time with them.

As long as you are doing what you enjoy - all power to you!

Royal Dragon

03-26-2007, 07:10 AM

See, here is the thing, I still feel forms have a place, just not in the teaching and training of the students. I think when it's time to learn to fight, you are better off doing basic drills for fundementals, conditioning, and heavy two man work.

I like to teach the form last...after fighting has been developed.

Scott R. Brown

03-26-2007, 08:19 AM

Shadowboxing is a not a form. A tcma form has a definate start and a definate finnish, a format from one end to the other, shadowboxing and other training tools like escrima's carenza does not. It is always changing, always flowing and has no set in stone codified spectrum.

Hi Black Jack II,

Boxing DOES have a codified spectrum of movements. The movements are more limited than TCM, but that does not make them any less of a form.

If, for you, a form must have a definite start and a definite finish then all one is required to do for shadowboxing to become a form, according to your definition, is to have a definite beginning and a definite end. Not all shadowboxing is random movements, although according to my definition of forms random movements are just as much a form as fixed movements.

However, when shadowboxing, or hitting the bag for that matter, one may work on fixed combinations over and over again. Since the combinations begin and end with the same punches they would meet your criterion.

I believe your criterion to be rather simple however and it does not cover the full spectrum of possible forms. In my original system of CMA we had a form that was meant to be free flowing. That is spontaneously created at the time of the practice/performance it would therefore never be the same form twice. The movements would be random, yet it was still a form.

The beginning and end to to any particular form is relative anyway. If I were to observe you performing a form I could just a easily redefine it according to arbitrary criterion and state it is not a form.

A form is nothing more than movements occurring in a sequence for the purpose of practicing those movements. To require the movements to conform to any individual's or school's arbitrary criterion is narrow-minded at the least and arrogant at the most.

Scott R. Brown

03-26-2007, 08:28 AM

Well, I might have misunderstood what you were talking about - and I thinkt he reason for that is that what we mean by "form" can change, depending on perspective. For me, "forms" have a specific meaning now, so to re-claim the idea of shadow boxing as a form we have to alter the percieved meaning.

What shouldn't happem is that via confused language use fixed forms steal credibility from shadow boxing.

Hi Water-quan,

Yes, I understood that your definition of form was narrower than mine. If you consider the term "form" to mean: a series of movements performed with the purpose of perfecting/practicing them, and this is what TCM forms mostly are, then any series of movements practiced with the purpose of perfecting their execution is a form. This is how I define forms and it is essentially the purpose of TCM forms. So it is not a requirement for the actions to conform to any other restrictions.

Black Jack II

03-26-2007, 08:31 AM

I know what boxing does and does not have, what your trying to do is use confusing tactics to say shadowboxing and traditional formwork are the same.

Which they are not.

I may have certain base personal tools I tend to work with in the confines of shadowboxing, this depending on if I stick to traditional boxing tools but when, where, and how I apply them are at my consent and not a codified routine set in stone.

The fma tool of carenza is the same, the letters of the alphabet, shapes, symbols, ever changing angles and directions. Its a far cry from being stuck in a kata.

Royal Dragon

03-26-2007, 09:16 AM

Form = "Formal Routine"

The word "Form" is just for short.

Scott R. Brown

03-26-2007, 09:19 AM

Hi Black Jack II,

You are not reading my posts very carefully. I very explicitly stated they are similar in purpose, NOT identical. They are NOT the same/identical. Shadowboxing and forms serve the same purpose, that is, to practice specified movements with the purpose of learning and perfecting them in action.

Just because Socrates is a man
And Plato is a man,
Does not mean Socrates is Plato!

This is a simple syllogism that explains the confusion. Just because shadowboxing is a form and TCM forms are forms does not mean they are identical. Their purpose is identical, their methods are identical, the actions are different. This is of course meant to apply to TCM forms that are meant to teach applications rather than just dancing or acrobatics.

You seem to be suffering from the affliction of those who think that TCM forms are perfectly designed and cannot be modified. Forms are arbitrarily designed. They start with specific techniques (applications) and are ordered according to the purpose of the designer of the form. The movements may be combined in any order the practitioner desires. There is no form police requiring any form to contain any specific order of movements, number of movements or types of movements. They are all arbitrary based upon the desired purpose of the originator of the form.

I am using simple reasoning to explain my point. I have clearly defined my meaning numerous times! There are no confusing tactics on my part, only narrow-mindedness and/or simple-mindedness on yours!

Royal Dragon

03-26-2007, 09:42 AM

Following the form how it's designer designed it is what TCMA does though. To do anything different is designing your own form, based on your needs. Now you are not doing the founder's *Style* any more persay,but more your own sub style of the original.

Black Jack II

03-26-2007, 10:30 AM

You seem to be suffering from the affliction of those who think that TCM forms are perfectly designed and cannot be modified

No, I am not of the above by any means, shape or form.

although according to my definition of forms random movements are just as much a form as fixed movements

This is where we differ. I tend to believe that set codified forms often limit a player rather than allow him to express himself. You definition of what you call forms does not click with what a wider group tend to believe, I am going with the larger definition.

Scott R. Brown

03-26-2007, 06:07 PM

Hi RD,

I agree, when modifying a traditional form, it is no longer a traditional form according to today's definition of traditional. When the traditional form was first created, however, it was not traditional! It was an original form created for a specific purpose. It is considered traditional now because it has been done for a certain length of time by multiple generations of students within the same style.

In this sense traditional can mean anything someone wants it to mean. Does two generations make it traditional? Does the form need to be done for 100 years or more? At some point the form was new and was not considered traditional.

Forms were created for a specific purpose.

Let us take a hypothetical traditional form with say 5 techniques (applications) that are addressed. The applications occur in a specific pattern of 1,2,3,4,5. If a practitioner changes the order of performance to 3,4,1,5,2, adds techniques 10, 7 and 35, then perhaps changes a closed fist to an open fist or a hammer fist to an eye poke, it is no longer the same form even though it addresses the same applications. Technically it is a different form, but it is not necessarily any less practical. It is not the original form as designed by the originator so it cannot be considered traditional.

The new form's effectiveness should not be judged by whether it conforms accurately to the original "traditional" form, but whether it achieves its desired purpose with efficiency. Which presumably is the practicing of applications with the purpose of perfecting the movements. Even if the purpose is, as you have stated, for the purpose of remembering the applications, the second form meets those requirements regardless of whether it is a traditional form or not.

Hi Black Jack II,

Conformity by a majority to an opinion does not necessarily confer correctness to the opinion. I have carefully defined what forms are, there has been no effective refutation of my definition. Your argument has only stated that a form must have a specified beginning and end and conforms to a majority opinion. Shadowboxing has a beginning and an end and is widely practiced with the purpose of learning and perfecting applications of the techniques practiced. Hmmmmm, that sounds like a form to me!

Traditional forms provide a common identity for a specific style. That is a benefit. But blind adherence to forms that no longer provide the practitioner with the intended benefit regardless of majority opinion is a detriment!

Royal Dragon

03-26-2007, 07:35 PM

During the time when my style was founded, there were no forms, just loose techniques.

I would imagine that it is only natural to review them all from time to time in whatever order the indvidual practitoner sees fit, or even in a random order. My guess is formalised routines (Forms for short) solidified form practices similar to shadow boxing, and mental review of you collection of fighting tools.

Water-quan

03-27-2007, 01:56 AM

Percieve by intuition that which is plainly correct; reject with courage that which is plainly wrong.

Black Jack II

03-27-2007, 07:33 AM

practiced like crazy to ensure that it would work in combat

How does you doing a technique in a set form ensure that it will work in the chaos enviroment of combat.

Knifefighter

03-27-2007, 07:54 AM

In my young days I would learn a single movement and it would be cherished like the lost treasure of El Dorado, practiced like crazy to ensure that it would work in combat and would be to teachers satisfaction so he might show another.

And that's exactly one of main problems with forms.... practicing moves in isolation and thinking that it will work in combat. The only way to get an idea of how moves will work in combat is to use them in combat and/or in situations that are as close to combat as possible.

Jumping around like a bug and/or practicing a move in the air has almost nothing to do with combat.

Knifefighter

03-27-2007, 07:58 AM

Some days back I think you mentioned that boxers don’t train forms. I have to disagree with you on that. They just don’t call it forms, they call it shadowboxing. Shadowboxing trains the basic punches in a manner that connects them as they “might” be used in a real boxing match. This IS a form! It is the same manner in which I train; randomly connecting the basic movements with the purpose of training the muscles to spontaneous respond as a changing situation dictates. Connecting basic skills into a continuous succession of movements is forms training!!

If you are going to lump shadow boxing into the same box as forms, then you have to differentiate between different types of forms.

The movement patterns in shadow boxing and actual boxing are almost, if not, exactly the same. If someone is doing forms and thier fighting is expressed just like their forms, then you are correct... they are the same.

However, most people who practice forms fight nothing like when they do forms.

Kung Pao

03-27-2007, 11:24 AM

And that's exactly one of main problems with forms.... practicing moves in isolation and thinking that it will work in combat. The only way to get an idea of how moves will work in combat is to use them in combat and/or in situations that are as close to combat as possible.

Jumping around like a bug and/or practicing a move in the air has almost nothing to do with combat.

But what if they're too deadly to practice in person? lol....

Kung Pao

03-27-2007, 11:38 AM

If you are going to lump shadow boxing into the same box as forms, then you have to differentiate between different types of forms.

The movement patterns in shadow boxing and actual boxing are almost, if not, exactly the same. If someone is doing forms and thier fighting is expressed just like their forms, then you are correct... they are the same.

However, most people who practice forms fight nothing like when they do forms.

I'd go further and say shadowboxing is not at all like forms. Shadowboxing is a way to practice combinations on someone standing in front of you, with dodges, etc. in a more realistic manner. You face one direction, and one direction only ----that is, you face your opponent.

You can practice your forms' techniques in a shadowboxing format, but you have to break apart your form and string together more realistic combinations. You don't go from a front sweep to three straight punches, to a backwards hop, to a whirling 360 smash kick. Forms combinations are not effective as combinations. It's why you have to break apart your forms. Forms themselves are usless. Punches and kicks are useful. They're coded in forms, but the forms themselves are crap, for fighting anyways. Good for cardio.

I posted this on another thread, it's relevent:

"Fighting in a style doesn't necessarily mean flapping like a crane, dancing like a mantis, or ripping liike a tiger. It might only be three or four solid techniques, or variations on punches in a form. As my teacher always says: "Fighting should look like fighting." It's the linear/circular philsophies, body positioning, etc that really determines mastership of a style. My teacher looks like a crane when he does his forms. His shaking jin is amazing. If you grab him in any shaui chao grab (I have), he can shake you off with no effort.
But hwen he fights (he has family/professional relations who do MMA, and sometimes train with us---hardcore guys, they are), you see crane concepts and power generation. But you wouldn't say he looked like a crane, because he doesn't stay perched on one leg for ten minutes like in the movies. BUt to a trained eye, you'd say....holy ****, that man knows his crane. His strikes are crane strikes, but he can box straight up using what he's learned, and he's never studied anything except crane. You have to play with your forms, and dissect them, and train with others to attain understanding (especially the latter). Nothing will ever be more effective than a straight punch or a jab. Every MA uses them in some variation. Boxing didn't create it. It's in your CMA forms, too. "

PangQuan

03-27-2007, 01:32 PM

on a similar thought.

i often take sections of my routines and break them out into seperate drills. I ill work these drills and combinations similar to shadow boxing. building combos from various sources.

often i will take sections of a form and modify them to be more "modern" higher stances, sometimes shorter footwork, guard, etc. to kind of put them into more of a sparring/fighting format.

a lot of times you will find static stances and akward postures within CMA, sometimes i find it nice to change some techniques, combinations around to feel more realistic and "light"

same techniques, same applicable drills, just with a more "street"(lol) atmosphere to the execution.

of course when i do the entire routine from beginning to end, i change nothing and remain true to the tradition of the sequence.

for realistic or pulled partner drills, ill often change things around to fit in with more of a dynamic "life in motion" kind of practice.

Royal Dragon

03-27-2007, 05:32 PM

So someone who makes a stance higher to make it functional, does not undertsand it's original function and reason for being deep?

BlueTravesty

03-27-2007, 08:39 PM

I think there may be another reason for the less-than desireable state of MOST TMA's in our time, besides the issues that a lot of the others have brought up, such as the over-reliance on forms, not enough drilling of the basics, some teachers being frauds, etc. (interesting how many TMAists agree with this as well) Another possibility I'd like to offer is the over-reliance on "twists" and "theories."

Take some of the popular traditional systems of our day- Shotokan, TKD, Wing Chun, Taiji, Bagua, Xingyi, Aikido, and, dare I say it? Jeet Kune Do. They all have a common trait- we are led to believe they started out as very formidable fighting systems, but for some reason, do not kick as much @$$ as one would expect. (I said COMMONLY, please do not jump on me if you train one of these systems and bust heads on a daily basis.) They also fall into the pattern of espousing and emphasizing a theory or aspect or approach that sounds reasonable "on paper." but the practitioners have a hard time demonstrating the effectiveness of these applications in a live environment.

The reason for this could be the fact that the founders were bad@sses due to being among the best in their respective arts. Let's take Aikido for example. Ueshiba was apparently one tough mofo in his prime, and wasn't too bad when he was older either. However, the probable reason for his prowess probably had more to do with his in-depth understanding of Daito-Ryu Jujutsu as well as the hard training that Old-School Jujutsu entailed. When he "discovered" the concepts of harmonizing with an attack to neutralize it, the concept was taken and elevated to an almost cult-like status (for which he was most likely somewhat responsible). The theory was thought to make the hard work, the sweat and toil, obsolete. On the other hand, there are bouncers and corrections officers out there who have taken aiki small-joint manipulation and used it reliably. And as SevenStar has pointed out, when Aiki IS done well against resistance, it looks suspiciously like Judo Shiai. When Taiji or Xingyi are done well against resistance, they look like "harder" styles. When Karate, Kung Fu, etc. are done well against resistance, they look kinda like Kickboxing :eek:

Now, there are arts out there that came from other systems, and emphasize a particular aspect or twist, but work fairly well. Judo, Kyokushin, Sanda, Brazilian Jiu-jutsu, etc. All have jettisoned certain aspects of their parent systems; but are able to preserve the effectiveness of these twists by constantly pressure testing them, and providing fighters that are in good fighting condition.

In short, the reason that many TMA's are suffering from a lack of "applicability" might not be due to "impractical" techniques (though there is a bit of that- Tornado Kicks anyone?) and in many cases it's not due to a lack of conditioning- many TMA'ists are in very good shape, but then, there are quite a few who aren't. But because people forget that the theories that made the system formidable in the right hands, the twists that helped the founder of the system make a breakthrough, mean nothing without the hard work it takes to use the basics reliably.

Keep in mind, this isn't a knock on TMA's, and it's nothing new. Just a particular "twist" on some of the other theories on this thread.

Scott R. Brown

03-28-2007, 02:28 AM

Hi Knifefighter,

I agree with you. I have repeatedly, and very carefully, defined what I mean by forms so I will not repeat myself again. I believe my definition falls within your qualification.

Hi BlueTravesty,

That was a good post!

I think what occurs is a blind devotion to a fixed form. In this circumstance by form I mean the specific manner/principles, strategy and tactics an individual or group adheres to that defines their fighting system. These principles are carefully defined and then taught within any system/style. The practitioners then conform to the boundaries of the teaching and cannot think beyond these arbitrary boundaries. This limits their ability to think and behave outside the box, the carefully defined principles. Indeed they may not even recognize they are confining themselves within boundaries. In Zen, this confining of ourselves within a system of thought, is called a “fixed form”.

In strategy and tactics a “fixed form” confines one to a specified manner of fighting. This creates weaknesses that may be exploited by clever/insightful opponents. I have given many examples of this in previous posts in the past. One example is Alexander the Great; one of the reasons he was undefeatable was because he found the flaws (fixed forms) in the tactics of his opponents and exploited them to his own advantage.

A more recent example of this is the UFC competitions. I have been acquainted with Chuck Liddell’s trainer (John Hackleman) for well over ten years. Many, many years ago we were discussing the UFC. John told me that he had applied to compete in the first competition and was refused. John had been a professional fighter for many years traveling all over the world to fight. His impression was that the Gracies did not want any real competition. I would agree with him. The original UFC’s were designed to advertise the Gracie system. If they had been seriously challenged from the beginning they would stand to lose millions of dollars of revenue in the marketing of their system of fighting. Just the fact the John has trained a champion leads me to believe that the Gracies had something to fear.

The reason the Gracies did so well in the first competitions is because they fought according to different strategy and tactics than their opponents. Their “fixed form” exploited the weakness of stand up arts. Stand up arts had no chance since their own “fixed forms” generally ignored ground fighting, something the Gracies excelled at. By establishing the rules of the competition to favor their own style they as much as ensured victory. In a sense they changed the fixed manner in which many thought of fighting by breaking/changing the rules of engagement. By rules here I mean the established, fixed manner that many thought how fighting “should” occur. This is the same thing that Alexander did as well as all of the other great generals of history. Discover the fixed manner (boundaries) in which your opponent fights and fight outside those arbitrary boundaries. If your opponent cannot adjust effectively then victory is assured. Now that opponents have adopted the “fixed form” of the Gracie method of fighting they face stiffer competition and no longer dominate as much as they once did.

To defeat an opponent, discover their “fixed form” and fight to its weakness. If I had to fight a ground fighter I would fight somewhere or somehow that neutralized the effectiveness of their strength. Musashi used this many times in his exploits. On one occasion where he was pursued by a number of opponents he ran to a rice paddy where the banks of the paddies allowed only one opponent at a time to attack him from firm ground. On another occasion when he was supposedly fighting a kusarigama on a chain he ran into a bamboo grove. Both tactics negated the strength of his opponents and increased his potential for victory!

JetLi'sFearless

03-28-2007, 02:33 AM

SevenStar

03-28-2007, 03:37 AM

weakness of mma: nop mental training, you could see it when that leben guy broke down without a fight and let those guys bully him, no matte rhis skill of fighting he was basically defeated without a fight.

train for a fight. have the fight. re-read your post.

Hishaam

03-28-2007, 04:10 AM

weakness of mma: nop mental training, you could see it when that leben guy broke down without a fight and let those guys bully him, no matte rhis skill of fighting he was basically defeated without a fight.

Sometimes it's better to read and think about what other more experienced members write.

Back to the subject.

Knifefighter

03-28-2007, 07:35 AM

A more recent example of this is the UFC competitions. I have been acquainted with Chuck Liddell’s trainer (John Hackleman) for well over ten years. Many, many years ago we were discussing the UFC. John told me that he had applied to compete in the first competition and was refused. John had been a professional fighter for many years traveling all over the world to fight. His impression was that the Gracies did not want any real competition. I would agree with him. The original UFC’s were designed to advertise the Gracie system. If they had been seriously challenged from the beginning they would stand to lose millions of dollars of revenue in the marketing of their system of fighting.

LOL @ another one of the 70,000 people who were refused entry into the UFC because they might have been "too good."

I was at the Gracie Academy back in those years. The Gracies had 100% belief that their system could beat anyone in no time limits matches. They did not turn down people because they were afraid of being beaten. They were so confident in their ablities that they had Royce fight instead of Rickson, who was 10 times better than Royce.

The reason the Gracies did so well in the first competitions is because they fought according to different strategy and tactics than their opponents. Their “fixed form” exploited the weakness of stand up arts. Stand up arts had no chance since their own “fixed forms” generally ignored ground fighting, something the Gracies excelled at.

In case you missed it, the first UFC's had several grapplers who were quite proficient on the ground... Dan Severn (260 lbs), Ken Shamrock (220 lbs), and Remco Pardoul (260 lbs) come to mind offhand.

And guess what? Royce, at 170 lbs., had to fight each of them in these tourneys that somehow set-up and 'ensured" his victory.

By establishing the rules of the competition to favor their own style they as much as ensured victory.

Um... am I missing something here?

How does no time limits and everything except eye gouging, fishhooking, and biting favor their style?

Crosshandz

03-28-2007, 07:35 AM

The irony of an Yiquan practioner, namely myself, defending traditional forms and stuff does not escape me. Nonetheless as well as being the UK representative of Yao Chengguang my teacher is also a disciple of Chen Xiaowang and proficient in both arts (and a couple of others besides) and I have respect for his skill. I should not want to kick out at him and have an immortal pound mortar down on my knee.

I would say the problem is not with the forms per se the problem is with the foundation and the execution of the forms. Personally I do not think a person should be practicing forms until he or she has a very strong basis from which to work from. Technique without force is no more than flowery fists and embroidery kicks.

Speaking as a practioner of a Chinese (albiet unorthodox) martial art the problem I see with many traditional forms of Wushu (taken in its proper sense and not to describe some form of gynmastics) is that most of its practioners are completely undertrained. For instance, the legendary Chen Fake used to sleep for around 3 hours a day in order to spend the bulk of his day practicing. His student Feng Zhiqiang would wake up at 4 in the morning and train until 11 before going to work his shifts. Chen Xiaowang is well known for the time he put in training in his stances and his forms (30 times a day of Laojia no matter how tired he was). Most Wushu men simply dont have that kind of dedication.

As my teacher explains scientifically here (http://www.yiquan.org.uk/art-zz.html) Zhan Zhuang is the basis of Internal Martial Arts. However, Zhan Zhuang is often practiced incorrectly by Wushu players or underemphasised. Zhan Zhuang should be practiced for at least an hour minimum everyday and I dont mean two 30 minute slots I mean 1 hour straight with a highly developed use of intent to develop intramuscular coordination between the nerves and red muscle tissue (which my teacher, for sake of simplicity, calls postural muscles in his article). Without a developed sense of intramuscular coordination the power that the forms are supposed to express will be absent. The sensitivity developed by Zhan Zhuang is a prerequiste for moving practice. Once upon a time in China (had to stick a movie quote in) you might be practicing nothing but stances for months even years and with good reason.

As I see it intent is heavily underemphasised by traditional martial artists. Some people will say I am going to say that because I practice Yiquan but to my mind forms are just attacks that are arranged in a certain way so that practioners wont forget them, no? Its all well and good trying to make lazily arranging clothes or whatever its called look as nice and pretty as possible but there must be intent. The last time I checked that move was not a dance it was a parry followed by a strike to the solar plexus. I'm not a Taiji guy but if I were as I practiced lazily arranging clothes I'd be visualising the martial application of the move and without tensing up perhaps envision my hands being held by a couple of guys and having to move against this resistance to perform the technique as someone came at me with a glass bottle. Again these feelings of moving against resistance and intent to strike (naturally you are going to blast anyone who tries to bottle you) promote nervous activity which develops internal connection.

I do not think that the techniques of traditional Chinese martial arts are impractical. I do believe however that the vast majority of them particularly those utilised by the Neijia are not much to write home about without intra muscular coordination developed to a degree that most people are unwilling to work hard enough to get. A further irony, in my opinion, is that those who probably would be willing to work that hard are actually MMA guys whose opinion of traditional martial arts has been negatively influenced by the inability of its practioners to use their techniques properly because of they lack a firm basis in force development methods of TCMA.

I like the minimalism of Yiquan so I do not know if I will ever stop practicing it and move on to practice something else. I'm just saying dont discount TCMA. Not every TCMA player is all fluff and no substance. Behind the velvet glove you can find iron. Sure a lot of the time its hard but you can find it and that in itself is testament to the fact that there is something to TCMA.

Knifefighter

03-28-2007, 07:51 AM

I would say the problem is not with the forms per se the problem is with the foundation and the execution of the forms.

Speaking as a practioner of a Chinese (albiet unorthodox) martial art the problem I see with many traditional forms of Wushu (taken in its proper sense and not to describe some form of gynmastics) is that most of its practioners are completely undertrained. For instance, the legendary Chen Fake used to sleep for around 3 hours a day in order to spend the bulk of his day practicing. His student Feng Zhiqiang would wake up at 4 in the morning and train until 11 before going to work his shifts. Chen Xiaowang is well known for the time he put in training in his stances and his forms (30 times a day of Laojia no matter how tired he was). Most Wushu men simply dont have that kind of dedication.

Zhan Zhuang should be practiced for at least an hour minimum everyday and I dont mean two 30 minute slots I mean 1 hour straight with a highly developed use of intent to develop intramuscular coordination between the nerves and red muscle tissue (which my teacher, for sake of simplicity, calls postural muscles in his article). Without a developed sense of intramuscular coordination the power that the forms are supposed to express will be absent. The sensitivity developed by Zhan Zhuang is a prerequiste for moving practice. Once upon a time in China (had to stick a movie quote in) you might be practicing nothing but stances for months even years and with good reason.

As I see it intent is heavily underemphasised by traditional martial artists..

You can practice your forms for 17 hours a day with all the intent you want, but they will not do you a bit of good if you are not regularly training live with resisting opponents.

What is wrong with TMA (one of the things, anyways) is teachers brainwashing their students into thinking all they have to do is practice their forms longer or with more intent.

Royal Dragon

03-28-2007, 07:54 AM

As I see it intent is heavily underemphasised by traditional martial artists. Some people will say I am going to say that because I practice Yiquan but to my mind forms are just attacks that are arranged in a certain way so that practioners wont forget them, no?

Reply]
For the new forms, Ming Dynasty and up, yes. The forms record good useable combo's. For the older ones, thye just record techniques in o perticular order (That I can see). That is why the really old forms looks so choppy. Tye are just records of techniques used in the system. To really see the system, you have to see them being fought with.

>>Its all well and good trying to make lazily arranging clothes or whatever its called look as nice and pretty as possible but there must be intent. The last time I checked that move was not a dance it was a parry followed by a strike to the solar plexus. I'm not a Taiji guy but if I were as I practiced lazily arranging clothes I'd be visualising the martial application of the move and without tensing up perhaps envision my hands being held by a couple of guys and having to move against this resistance to perform the technique as someone came at me with a glass bottle. Again these feelings of moving against resistance and intent to strike (naturally you are going to blast anyone who tries to bottle you) promote nervous activity which develops internal connection.

Reply]
I dissagree. I feel that if you are doing the fomr in the air, alone, you should be thinking inward, and focusing on refining your mechanics to ahigher degree. all the other stuff you mentioned should be done with a partner....unless you don't ahve one.

One of the things I have been noticing is that people like to do form when they should be doing partner work, so they "Visualise" a pretend partner. Now, that may be a good thing to do in your spare time, but when you are working solo it's time to refine body mechanics, not be thinking about fighting (Open/close Kua, etc...). So by doing so, one not only gets nowhere with thier fighting skill by not actually fighting, they have also rendered the practice of the solo form useless as well.

Royal Dragon

03-28-2007, 08:06 AM

You can practice your forms for 17 hours a day with all the intent you want, but they will not do you a bit of good if you are not regularly training live with resisting opponents.

What is wrong with TMA (one of the things, anyways) is teachers brainwashing their students into thinking all they have to do is practice their forms longer or with more intent.

Reply]
I don't think empty air form practice was meant to be done any great length of time. I think it was maintinace work and for refining body mechanics during the teacher's priviate time alone away from his students.

If you spent 1/3 of your practice on single man exercises, which include drills for power genration and foot work, bag work and such things, how much of that would be doing the complete form choreography? Maybe 40 minutes to an hour 3-4 times a week?

Remeber, you still have 2/3 of matiral to work on that is vital as well, like conditioning and actuall skill work with your partner's.

Sure, doing the form 30 times (Which would be extensive time wise for a Taii form) will get you moving like greased lightinging, and the physical attribut of that alone will give you a serious edge over someone untrained, but against someone who *IS* trainined, it's gonna give you zip, ziltch, zero and nothing.

You need foot work drills, two man work of all levels. You need strategy, and tactics of entry, retreat and applying your techniques once you managed to get position. A hour of that will beat 6 hours of empty air forms work anyday.

Scott R. Brown

03-28-2007, 08:14 AM

Knifefighter,

It is easy to criticize someone you DON"T KNOW and circumstances YOU DON"T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT and principles YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND!

Your opinions about what may or may not have happened are meaningless because you were not actually there and don't know. I wasn't either. I am just repeating the comments made to me first hand. He, is after all, the trainer of Liddell so he clearly has some experience and ability. You don't know him so i think your comments are without authority.

Concerning the principles of strategy and tactics I mentioned, you do not understand them so you cannot comment on them with any authority.

Once you understand them a bit more clearly then you may have comments worth responding too!

If you would like them explained a bit more clearly feel free to ask a bit more appropriately and less like an A$$hole and I will be happy to explain them to you in simpler terms!

Royal Dragon

03-28-2007, 08:26 AM

Crosshandz

03-28-2007, 08:46 AM

the legendary Chen Fake used to sleep for around 3 hours a day in order to spend the bulk of his day practicing.

Reply]
Sounds like he was severly sleep deprived. That wold have slowed his progress almost to a stand still. It would have taken him 10 years to do what someone else sleeping a full nite could do in 1.

It sounds like insane inneficiancy to me. It's a wonder he got any skills at all like that...unless it's a total BS story to help build his *Legend status*....Of course the younger generation that does not know any better will try to emulate, and never get any good...

Actually it comes from the most reliable source his student Hong Junsheng. Hong was an intensely practical person who refused to even mention concepts like 'Qi' because he thought they were useless and made it his business to dispel myths about Chen Fake like the idea that Chen came to Beijing to fight the three Li brothers. A story often told about Chen Fake which Hong showed up to be a fake. Chen Fake really was that dedicated to his training. It is possible to do what Chen done. A friend of mine who is hard up for cash is working multiple shifts in different jobs and sleeping similar hours without the benefits of Qigong to help him recover.

As for practicing on internal body mechanics. How exactly do you execute the technique without the right mechanics? For external martial arts it might be different but for internal martial arts you should get it quite easily. You dont actually have to perform the forms at break neck speed and if you have practiced Zhan Zhaung for any sensible amount of time you should be able to feel when you're doing things wrong. The connectivity between your nervous system and red tissue of the skeletal muscles should be developed enough for you to feel your body shifting your posture. So if your hip fold 'kua' whatever you wanna call it is closed as you perform certain patterns you would feel it in your lumbar spine down through the hipfold into the tendons in the thighs and most acutely in the knee. To compensate for the improper dispensation of weight your knee would have to adjust position or it would be strained and this would alert you to the fact that you were doing something wrong. Moreover, the use of intent is used to generate awareness of what is going on in the body. For instance, Yiquan uses visualisations like pushing through water or moving your feet through mud so that the practioner becomes aware of the subtle postural shifts that occur in the body when triggered this for the purpose of developing greater connectivity.

Having no 'Xing' is fine having no 'Yi' is not.

Scott R. Brown

03-28-2007, 09:03 AM

I knew a Doctor that only slept about 3-4 hours a day. He was in his 50's.

I work nights and home school my son in the mornings. Some weeks I only sleep 3-4 hours a day and on occasion get one or two 30 min. naps.

Just because we can't do something and we don't know anyone who can do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Just that it may be unlikely. Unlikely doesn't mean it can't be done too, however.

Royal Dragon

03-28-2007, 09:05 AM

Knifefighter

03-28-2007, 10:00 AM

If you spent 1/3 of your practice on single man exercises, which include drills for power genration and foot work, bag work and such things, how much of that would be doing the complete form choreography? Maybe 40 minutes to an hour 3-4 times a week?

Remeber, you still have 2/3 of matiral to work on that is vital as well, like conditioning and actuall skill work with your partner's.

You need foot work drills, two man work of all levels. You need strategy, and tactics of entry, retreat and applying your techniques once you managed to get position. A hour of that will beat 6 hours of empty air forms work anyday.

Another problem with many TMA' s is they leave out the most important 50 to 70%... sparring.

Crosshandz

03-28-2007, 10:01 AM

That is alll find, but building those attributes is better through single drills, than complete forms. Forms done in thier entirety are to refine those attributes AFTER they have been develoed by the drills, not before. Forms is like the last step. doing them first has little bennifit outside of the cardio.

Agreed. In the body of my original post I did say something very similar. If you read my first response on this thread you will see that I did say that I felt that people jumped into forms far too early without proper foundation. If I were a Taijiquan teacher (and I'm not but if I were) I would probably emphasise Zhan Zhuang and silk reeling above other stuff. If your Zhan Zhuang and your silk reeling are good your root and ability to transfer power will be good so it would only be a question of adding a structure to a firm foundation. However, if I did that I would probably a) lose a lot of students because they'd get bored with my classes and b) end up aping the Yiquan method of Zhaun Zhuang, Shi Li, Mo Ca Bu. So may as well stick with Yiquan.

Royal Dragon

03-28-2007, 10:04 AM

If I were a Taijiquan teacher (and I'm not but if I were) I would probably emphasise Zhan Zhuang and silk reeling above other stuff. If your Zhan Zhuang and your silk reeling are good your root and ability to transfer power will be good so it would only be a question of adding a structure to a firm foundation. However, if I did that I would probably a) lose a lot of students because they'd get bored with my classes and b) end up aping the Yiquan method

Reply]]
I'd add pushhands practice as well, for the footwork and positioning skills it teaches.

Crosshandz

03-28-2007, 10:05 AM

Another problem with many TMA' s is they leave out the most important 50 to 70%... sparring.

Cant disagree with that.

Knifefighter

03-28-2007, 10:05 AM

It is easy to criticize someone you DON"T KNOW and circumstances YOU DON"T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT and principles YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND!

It is also extremely easy to make statements such as "I know someone who wasn't let into the UFC," implying that it was because of his skills. Considering the fact that I was around the people putting on the UFC at the time, I'd say I do know a little bit about it. Anyone who was actually ever kept out of the UFC's was done so because of lack of skills, not the other way around.

People have been claiming they were not allowed into the UFC because they were "too good" almost since its inception.

Concerning the principles of strategy and tactics I mentioned, you do not understand them so you cannot comment on them with any authority.

I understand them perfectly... take your opponent into a realm in which you lessen his advantage or increase your own.

Smart combatants have always done this.

However, you were implying that the Gracies set themselves up by only including standup fighters and not including very good ones at that... which is not the case. The only way they set themselves up was by not bringing in other BJJ/vale tudo guys from Brazil to fight.

Scott R. Brown

03-28-2007, 06:27 PM

It is also extremely easy to make statements such as "I know someone who wasn't let into the UFC," implying that it was because of his skills. Considering the fact that I was around the people putting on the UFC at the time, I'd say I do know a little bit about it. Anyone who was actually ever kept out of the UFC's was done so because of lack of skills, not the other way around.

People have been claiming they were not allowed into the UFC because they were "too good" almost since its inception.

Hi Knifefighter,

I doubt you know much about it. It is just as easy to say, "I was there a the beginning so I know", as it is to say what I have said. John, as a former professional fighter, has a documented history of fights. With a documented history of fights I doubt he was passed up due to inadequate ability.

Here is what John says about his history on his website:

After turning professional, John fought the world's best Boxer's and kickboxers winning many State, National, and World titles, as well as fighting on television many times, and for Don King. He has 30 years of amateur and professional fighting experience. John was rated as the #1 Kickboxer in the world in the 1980's.

At the very least he had more experience and ability than many of those NON-professionals in the first few UFC fights.

You are in no position to know whether John was passed up or not. Neither am I, but since I know him I am inclined to believe him while since you presumably know the Gracies you are inclined to side with them.

As a "student" at the time I doubt you were in on any meetings or had any understanding or knowledge of the marketing goals of the Gracies. The fact they had marketing goals is not a criticism of the Gracies or their system of fighting. But their marketing goals were very clear from the beginning. This is merely capitalism at work and for the successful execution of their strategy they should be commended!

I understand them perfectly... take your opponent into a realm in which you lessen his advantage or increase your own.

Smart combatants have always done this.

However, you were implying that the Gracies set themselves up by only including standup fighters and not including very good ones at that... which is not the case. The only way they set themselves up was by not bringing in other BJJ/vale tudo guys from Brazil to fight.

If you cannot see how the Gracies set themselves up to win according to standards that THEY set up then you do not have a complete understanding of the concept. The statement is not a criticism, it is an observation of fact.

It is very simple:

If I set up a competition taking (questionably) all comers, but I limit the skill set or increase the skill set I am doing this for a purpose. The Gracies purpose was to showcase their art. That is not a criticism, it is an objective observation of fact. They had a skill set that was not widely known or understood, but is successful within a specific context of fighting. Since they were the originators of the UFC they had the freedom to set up the required skill set. They set up the required skill set that favors/showcases their method of fighting. This is smart marketing, and an observable fact! They did not limit the skill set to boxing because that is not where they excel, they did not set up the skill set to be combat shooting because that is not where they excel. This is an objective fact.

Once competitors understood the skill set used by the Gracies and trained according to that skill set the Gracies won less often because the fighting now occurs on a level playing field. If the Gracies trained in combat shooting or Boxing then they would have the ability to excel in those fields of combat just as those who now train according the the skill set of grappling are now competitive against the Gracies. They Gracies originally excelled more frequently because their opponents did not have the necessary skill set to compete evenly. Now opponents do and winning is determined by who has perfected the skill set, has the necessary conditioning, and effectively executes and understands strategy according to the prescribed skill set of the competition.

The Gracies, and anyone else, can be beaten by:

1) Limiting the opponents ability to use the skill set in which they excel,

2) Exceeding the ability of the opponent in a skill set in which they excel,

3) Changing the context of the fight; what is frequently called cheating, but is merely changing the context in order to win.

Knifefighter

03-28-2007, 09:08 PM

They set up the required skill set that favors/showcases their method of fighting. .

What skill set was that?

After turning professional, John fought the world's best Boxer's and kickboxers winning many State, National, and World titles, as well as fighting on television many times, and for Don King.

Which professsional world boxing title did he hold?

kal

03-29-2007, 12:32 AM

If you cannot see how the Gracies set themselves up to win according to standards that THEY set up then you do not have a complete understanding of the concept. .

I can't agree with this at all.

No-one was prohibited from using their arts or techniques in the early UFCs. It's not as if the Gracies made a rule that ONLY grappling was allowed, you know.

Boxers were free to box, kickers to kick, wrestlers to wrestle, etc. Everyone was free to do virtually exactly what they liked. If the boxer's punch was able to knock out the grappler then that's what should have happened. No-one said that he wasn't allowed to do it.

Scott R. Brown

03-29-2007, 01:52 AM

Hi kal,

You do not understand my point. Perhaps the following reply to Knifefighter will make the point more clear:

Hi Knifefighter,

I am an acquaintance of John’s, not a buddy of his. I have known him for about 10 years or more. As you might imagine he is in demand for his time. I am not inclined to call him to get the information you want. It is pretty trivial. He is a pretty nice guy and I think he would give it to me if I asked I am sure, but I will not harass him for a trivial matter. If I meet up with him in passing at some point in the future I will try to remember to ask him and then let you know. We also have mutual friends so if I discover one of my friends is meeting with him I will try to get them to ask him for me. I would do a bit of internet research if you are that interested. There must be something in the UFC organizational archives about him. Since you are acquainted with the Gracies perhaps you have access to that data base or know someone who does.

I believe the quote said he, “fought the world’s best boxers and kickboxers.” I believe his world titles were in kickboxing, not boxing. I have never heard him say he had any boxing titles and his website does not say he has.

I am wondering if you are making conversation, being argumentative, or really are not aware of what skill set the Gracies practice. I find it hard to believe you are that dense since I know you to be experienced in MMA and have stated you have trained with them. Perhaps you are simply attempting to discover what I think I understand about the Gracie method. While I have a general understanding of their proscribed skill set it is immaterial to the principles I am discussing. Fights occur within a context defined by the rules we “think” they should follow or have conditioned ourselves to fight within. I am speaking of streetfighting here. Our training influences how we think a fight will/should occur and this limits our ability to be a success if our opponent fights according to a skill set we are unable to respond too effectively. For example, bringing a gun to a fist fight! The gun changes the context of the fight and the weaponless person is in a world of hurt if he was not prepared for this change of context. If we are trained to fight or expect to fight only one person and there are multiple attackers we are also subject to loss if we are unprepared to make the mental adjustment necessary to succeed.

However, for the sake of the conversation and for those who may not be familiar with the principle of changing the context of a fight I will answer your question, although any careful reader should be able to understand my point by reviewing my previous comments on this thread.

While the conversation is about MA I will contrast boxing and the Gracie method to illustrate my point because the narrower skill set used by boxers creates a greater contrast. Hopefully this greater contrast will make the principle easier to understand for those unfamiliar with the principle.

Boxers use no kicks. They shuffle, step, hop, bob, weave and clench. They have a core of 5 or 6 basic strikes. Areas of impact are limited to the front of the body above the waist and the knuckles of the fist. The body movement along with the permitted strikes comprises their skill set. Strategy and tactics used in boxing are limited by the skills that are allowed, the three minute round, the size of the ring and number of rounds.

Grappling arts, or the Gracie skill set allows for kicks, throws, joint manipulation, various strikes, elbows, head butts, strangulations/chokes, etc. I believe originally there was no time limited rounds in competition. No eye gouging, biting or groin strikes are allowed. Of course these might be used in a real fight.

An athlete following either skill set, boxing or Gracie method, trains according the skill set allowed within their competitive arena. Since the Gracie method is also a method of self-defense, a wider scope of allowable skills would be practiced than those allowed within competition.

When a boxer fights within the Octagon he is at a disadvantage due to the expanded skill set allowable. The wider scope of skills permitted has not been trained for and therefore he is not prepared to use those skills or defend against them. If a Gracie style fighter fights within a boxing ring he is at a disadvantage due to the narrower skill set required. A boxer’s skill set is narrower and he has a greater expertise of those skills than a Gracie style fighter. Since the skill set of a Gracie fighter is larger he must spread his time over a wider variety of skills to become proficient. This reduces the time allowed for boxing skills and narrows the opportunity for using boxing strategies. The conditioning of the Gracie skill set requires more grappling/wrestling type of conditioning. The boxer is more aerobically prepared for boxing and is better prepared to keep his gloves up over the length of many rounds than a Gracie style fighter.

Each style of fighting trains a specific skill set. This skill set mentally and physically conditions the individual to expect a fight to occur according to that conditioning. In the street when the context of a fight is limited by a specific skill set or mental expectation it creates a weakness that may be exploited by an opponent. If an individual expects a fight to unfold according to his preconceived expectation and manner of fighting he will be unprepared for a change in context and this will be his weakness.

On the street a Gracie style fighter has an advantage over the boxer. But a devious opponent who has grown up breaking the rules will pull a gun, bring friends, etc. Anything to change the context of the fight to his advantage.

A little back ground:

I spent about 12 years or so working at the Calif. Dept of Corrections. I worked amongst individuals who fight dirty and to win, not according to a preconceived skill set or strategy other than to win at any cost. They will not and do not fight fair. They fight to win! They will gang up on you, sneak up behind you, befriend you and then attack with a weapon when your guard is down, approach you, stick a gun in your gut, empty it and run, etc. I have seen and know of individuals who have been shot, stabbed, clubbed, broken, and beaten down mercilessly and they keep fighting back. I knew an inmate who crawled to his enemy to continue the fight even though a hole had been blown in his leg by a guard and the guard still had his gun trained on him. These people do not care about consequences to themselves or others. Get the enemy and destroy him is all they think about.

These experiences have influenced the manner in which I think of fighting and are the source of my knowledge and comments on this subject.

Royal Dragon

03-29-2007, 07:22 AM

Scott, UR the guy the Marines need!!, Not Shamrock!

Knifefighter

03-29-2007, 07:24 AM

I am wondering if you are making conversation, being argumentative, or really are not aware of what skill set the Gracies practice. I find it hard to believe you are that dense since I know you to be experienced in MMA and have stated you have trained with them.

I'm pretty familiar with them. I've trained BJJ for 12 years, 6 of them at the Gracie Academy.

Grappling arts, or the Gracie skill set allows for kicks, throws, joint manipulation, various strikes, elbows, head butts, strangulations/chokes, etc. I believe originally there was no time limited rounds in competition. No eye gouging, biting or groin strikes are allowed. Of course these might be used in a real fight.

For all intents and purposes, the Gracie skill set (more so, even, back then) is limited to ground work. Their punching was non-existent from a standup perspective; any kicking almost so. Their takedowns were hugely lacking.

So, basically, against a boxer, it was their ground skill-set vs. the boxer's punching skill set.

I spent about 12 years or so working at the Calif. Dept of Corrections. I worked amongst individuals who fight dirty and to win, not according to a preconceived skill set or strategy other than to win at any cost.

You are right... these were not street fights or assaults. However, if you bring this type of fighting into the equation, you are now comparing apples to oranges and doing so in a way that cannot be objectively compared.

WinterPalm

03-29-2007, 10:32 AM

You are right... these were not street fights or assaults. However, if you bring this type of fighting into the equation, you are now comparing apples to oranges and doing so in a way that cannot be objectively compared.

So can we finally agree that in terms of apples and oranges, a dissimilar skill set and varied training methods are going to be the norm? If they truely are apples and oranges, can we not now say that training for apples is going to be different than training for oranges?

Knifefighter

03-29-2007, 10:36 AM

So can we finally agree that in terms of apples and oranges, a dissimilar skill set and varied training methods are going to be the norm? If they truely are apples and oranges, can we not now say that training for apples is going to be different than training for oranges?

Yes... However, the way most people train for the "street", with their too deadly to go full contact techniques, is even more dissimilar. The reality of the street and the way most people train for that is like comparing apples to airplanes.

WinterPalm

03-29-2007, 10:45 AM

neilhytholt

03-29-2007, 02:50 PM

It's still a little surprising nobody has brought up a point...

which is the definition of 'take' ...

'Take' is slang for what you get when you steal something, 'the take'.

Most teacher seem to be most interested in their 'take' from the state of kung fu ... LOL

Knifefighter

03-29-2007, 02:53 PM

I suppose the method I follow of which I think is probably the street method that differs from that which you've listed is to have near or full contact sparring as well as drills that train you to attack soft tissue areas with an objective of maiming. Sparring is like training the delivery system against other trained people so that you have enough control and ability to execute the "street" techniques if you have to. I suppose it is the inclusion of self-defense orientation and maiming techniques that makes this apporach different from a sport perspective which is essentially a test of sparring skills under specific rules.
I think this is why people claim their style cannot be represented in competition, because there are rules that remove a good portion of what they train to do in an all out combative situation. Albeit the person's understanding of the delivery system is what is put under the test.

Hitting with force is an integral part of the delivery system. The "maiming" drills that teach you to pull back teach you to do just that. Not only that, they give you a false confidence in these "maiming" techniques which usually are not as lethal as the practitioners believe.

If you really want to train for the street, forget the "maiming" drills and replace them with full contact against multiple opponents, weapons and on the ground in a variety of situations and environments.

Scott R. Brown

03-29-2007, 07:40 PM

You are right... these were not street fights or assaults. However, if you bring this type of fighting into the equation, you are now comparing apples to oranges and doing so in a way that cannot be objectively compared.

I agree to a certain extent, however it is all fighting. How we evaluate fighting skill sets depends upon our purpose and goals for learning the skill sets. Training for a streetfight, a competitive fight and being a peace officer applying control techniques are similar, but different. The ability to fight within the broadest context possible creates the greatest advantage as long as we avoid hitting the point where the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

My recommendation to increase the likelihood of success has always been "bring apples to an orange fight". This is exactly what occurs when a boxer tries to fight a Gracie fighter, it is apples fighting oranges. Change the context of the fight and you create an advantage.

Royal Dragon

03-29-2007, 08:03 PM

Not really, becasue the boxer has a difficult time exploiting a Gracie's weakness, where as the Gracie has trained to do so to the Boxer. it's more like compareing one apple, to a crate of oranges.

Scott R. Brown

03-30-2007, 01:07 AM

Hi RD,

You are misunderstanding my point. I am applying the principle to streetfights/self-defense situations and not competitive fights between boxers and Gracie style fighters.

The contrast between boxers and the Gracie style was meant to illustrate the point. However, in the competitive fighting arena your statement is true only when a boxer enters the octagon; the crate belongs to the boxer when a Gracie style fighter enters the boxing ring!

The strategy is to fight in a manner the opponent is not prepared to defend against. When in a fist fight, bring a knife; when in a knife fight, bring a gun; when in a gun fight, bring a bigger gun. Before anyone twists my comments again, this is meant as an example only. It may also be stated: when in a fist fight, bring your friends or bring a baseball bat, or sneak up behind your opponent; whatever it takes to win or tilt the advantage to your favor. At the very least MA need to understand that this is how REAL bad guys fight. So at least they will be better prepared in the event it actually occurs to them.

Keep in mind my opinions are colored by interaction with people who have done just that. When I make comments about REAL bad guys, these are the ones I am referring too. NOT the simple school yard duels that many consider a REAL fight. That is NOT a real fight, it is a duel. a duel is where both parties have some expectation of a fight contained within some sort of rules no matter how broad those rules are. A REAL fight (to me) is to win no matter what it takes. This is self-defense against a dangerous opponent who means to kill you, rape you or your family, or intends to do you or someone else great bodily harm!

A real life example happened when I was in high school and this very thing occurred. I grew up in a very rural area. Most fights were duels. We had a kid move in to our area from the city. He grew up where fights were REAL fights, NOT duels. For some reason the city kid took a dislike to one of our local boys and challenged him to a fight. He was standing beside a doorway with his right shoulder and arm concealed behind the door. As our local boy approached to meet the challenge the city boy pulled his arm from behind the door and he was holding a pipe that he used to cave in the local boy's head. Needless to say the city kid was escorted off the grounds by the police and was never seen again. If he had been seen again then the country boys would have fought by city rules and attacked him with 20 or more people and I am sure he would have been killed.

This is another great example of my point where one guy brought apples to an orange fight; he changed the context of the fight; he fought a REAL fight. These are the various ways I have been stating the point through the years on this BB. REAL bad guys fight to win; they don't fight to be fair; they don't fight to duel.

TaiChiBob

03-30-2007, 04:54 AM

Greetings..

Hi Scott: You have made a distinction that is largely overlooked as people compare various styles of "duels".. TCMA, MMA, etc.. have a very different challenge in a real fight.. much of the comparisons valid for "duels" vanish at the street level.. and it's surprising how the various styles fare..

Be well..

Royal Dragon

03-30-2007, 07:08 AM

Scott,
What you are describing in a very long winded fashion, is just "Pit your strength, against his weakness"

Scott R. Brown

03-30-2007, 05:48 PM

Scott,
What you are describing in a very long winded fashion, is just "Pit your strength, against his weakness"

LONG WINDED???? Me LONG WINDED???

Whatever do you mean??:D

Scott R. Brown

03-30-2007, 06:06 PM

Hi RD,

Well it isn't exactly pitting strength against weakness. It includes it, but it isn't limited to that. It is more the ninja way. Which is sort of, use your intelligence rather than your strength. It is more like "Use strategy before technique."

At times it might be pitting your strength against his weakness, but other times it is working around the opponents strength. Mostly it is cheating in a manner that ensures, or enhances, the opportunity for victory. In this sense it is a strength to use strategy, but I think you may be referring to technical or physical strength rather than the strength of the intellect (strategy and tactics).

It involves a mental change from fighting fair to fighting to win. Of course in America this involves law suits and jails. What I am trying to accomplish here is not the encouragement of others to fight dirty and thereby risking their freedom, but to get them to realize that REAL bad guys fight this way and this should be understood when engaging in fights or when attacked by REAL bad guys.

You may recall the recent vid link someone posted here where one guy bumps into another and the bumpee slaps the bumper who promptly pulls out a handgun and empties it into the bumpee! The bumpee didn't have a chance to react, he was dead almost instantly. This is an excellent example of what I mean when I say REAL bad guys don't care about rules and don't care about the consequences. All they care about is winning.