so this is where it stands...

[TenTigers]

in the MMA vs TCMA argument-TCMA who are realistic thinkers have all agreed that ALL TCMA is based on the idea that Kung-Fu is forever a work in progress, always evolving. This being said, many TCMA people who have little or no ground game are searching for answers, whether it be in BJJ ,Judo, Shuai-Jiao,Greco-Roman-whatever, the source doesn't matter, technique-attributes is what counts.
TCMAers also aggree that it is all in the traiining-realistic trainng brings realistic results.period.
sure, there are some-SOME, that will cling to the line that they already have it, have always had it yadda-yadda. but if you aren't training it, well YOU don't have it. As much as parella and I don't see eye to eye on our personal matters, I still give credit where credit is due, and he did what needed to be done-he sought out BJJ and is doing it, as many others are.(hopefully)
Basically, MMA and TCMA people-those that think realistically about their art and its future are in aggreement.
This argument can go on and on forever, but the few speaking for the many on either side is bullsh1t. So let it go. You won't convince the ignorant, and those who know, aren't getting caught up in the drama, they're training.
The others,will argue till they're blue in the face, will post claims, phoney challenges,etc/
let it go. It's done. Let's move on. Look at how much time and effort is wasted on this forum and many others in this pi$$ing match. Time is better spent training.

[SifuAbel]

there is no TCMA v MMA argument.

We are just a bunch of ass holes making personal attacks on the internet. I couldn't care less about defending some of the fruit cakes in TCMA. Nobody here is exempt from being an ass hole to somebody out there.

Sanjuro-ronin said it best. That you have to at least be training against qualified people of other arts to get the feel for their strategies. You may not adopt their strategies but you sure well will know what they are.

[rogue]

in the MMA vs TCMA argument-TCMA who are realistic thinkers have all agreed that ALL TCMA is based on the idea that Kung-Fu is forever a work in progress, always evolving.

At that point you are no longer being traditional, you broke the TMA label. IMO the worst thing to try and do is be progressive while attempting to remain in the TMA camp.

[Ben Gash]

Proggressiveness is the greatest tradition in Chinese martial arts though :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

At that point you are no longer being traditional, you broke the TMA label. IMO the worst thing to try and do is be progressive while attempting to remain in the TMA camp.

Incorrect.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Proggressiveness is the greatest tradition in Chinese martial arts though :rolleyes:

In ALL MA, not just Chinese.

[rogue]

In ALL MA, not just Chinese.

Incorrect.

[MasterKiller]

At that point you are no longer being traditional, you broke the TMA label. IMO the worst thing to try and do is be progressive while attempting to remain in the TMA camp.

FAIL :mad:

[rogue]

So it can be done? You can make changes, point out ineffective and inefficient training methods and still get smile from grand masters X, Y and Z?

Please tell me how, as my experience has been otherwise.

[Ben Gash]

WELLLLLLLL................ It can be somewhat frustrating being progressive in TMA. The whole "teacher as infallible idol" thing is a major stumbling block for starters. Say your teacher's teacher was a REALLY good puncher, won every fight he'd ever been in with punching alone. Say he wasn't very talented at Chin Na or Shuai Jiao? It's not a problem for him because he's a great puncher, he learns the applications his Sifu showed him, but he never really got a feel for them and didn't understand the little things that made them work.
He then teaches your teacher. Because your teacher started in the US in the early 80s, and comes from a middle class neighbourhood, he's never fought a challenge match and he's never been in a serious self defence situation. He did some sport karate tournaments and did OK. He's not quite the puncher his Sifu is, but he's learning TCMA from a great fighter, so he knows what he's getting must be good. He carefully learns all the stuff he's taught, trying hard to replicate it exactly.
You start with your teacher in the mid '90s, your teacher shows you everthing EXACTLY as he learned it. He learned it from a great fighter, so it must be good, right? But we've already ascertained that his teacher wasn't actually anygood at locks and throws. So somebody comes along who's done a lot of wrestling at college and goes "this would work much better if you did this and this". You go "that may be true in sport wrestling, but this is about reality, and these are the traditional methods passed down from my Sigung, who was a great fighter, so they must be better :rolleyes:
While sometimes I think it's sad that Ross and MK have distanced themselves from TCMA, I can understand why.

[TenTigers]

well, for me, seeing how Guys like Wong Fei-Hung,Chan Heung,Tarm Sarm, Lum Wing-Fei all took methods from different sources to modify what they already had, Since Siu-Lum Ji was a melting pot of many different sources,how Tung Hai-Chuen gave his concepts to several disciples, all masters of their own system, who then took the Bot Gua concepts and then created the many styles of Bot-Gua, How Tai-Chi was Siu-Lum movements with Taoist concepts, which Yang Lu-Chan again modified to fit within his owm personal experience..I can go on...This is the real tradition. Evolution. Sticking with the steam engine, when others' technology have evolved past the internal combustion engine, to nuclear power is not tradition, it's decay. All the so-called traditional arts were created over time,and constant refinement-research and development. This is the tradition we follow.
I happen to teach alot of kicks. I like kicks. I also know how to deal with kicks. My students now know this as well. I also have studied under teachers who did not kick, and their students not only cannot kick, but cannot defend against someone who can. Now some people can stick up their nose and claim that now what I teach is not traditional. I have a teacher who is in his seventies, and a hardcore traditionalist from Guangzhao. He added more kicking techniques to his Hung Kuen-for the same reasons! (probably why we get along so well-kindered spirits) You can bet if he saw the recent "developments" TCMA are doing with their systems by incorperating methods from groundfighting, even though Hung Kuen is a "stand up fighting system," you can bet he'd applaud their efforts.
So would Wong Fei-Hung.

[djcaldwell]

So it can be done? You can make changes, point out ineffective and inefficient training methods and still get smile from grand masters X, Y and Z?

Please tell me how, as my experience has been otherwise.

You can expand, improve and drop ineffective or inefficient techniques and still remain true to the "core" of your art. It is your job to add on and improve with the times. None of us are in 18th, 19th or even early to mid 20th century China.

We are fighting different people, different systems and an entirely differnt mindset. You admit there is inefficiency - what justice do you do yourself, your students or your art by continuing to train them? Why not improve them fill in the holes.

That is the true spirit of "martial arts" our job is to grow and to expand - and you can do all that and still keep true to your core. The grandmasters that you speak of - with all due respect to any elders in the systems across the board - they are not fighting TODAY - they had the opportunity to make their changes advancements to suit their time. Although I always respect and absorb any wisdom that comes from our "elders", the rest of how I pass it along is up to me and if I feel something is pointless, will never be used or will get someone's butt kicked if they try then why do it.

Just my opinion.

[rogue]

MK did you break from the traditional ranks? Does "FAIL" mean you agree or disagree with my opinion?

Ben,
Sounds like my experiences. And I do agree that change was part of the tradition, but somewhere along the way most arts harden up in their outlook. Look at a young art like JKD, they have branches that are very rigid in what they teach.

[MasterKiller]

MK did you break from the traditional ranks? Does "FAIL" mean you agree or disagree with my opinion?

MK took his kung fu to the people! It's my kung fu, not my teacher's. I evolved it to fit my needs.

I disagree with your opinion.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Incorrect.

Yes, you are incorrect indeed.

[rogue]

MK took his kung fu to the people! It's my kung fu, not my teacher's. I evolved it to fit my needs.

I disagree with your opinion.

That's cool and the same attitude I had toward karate. The problem came from other karate people who were shocked that I dropped kata, most Japanese names for techniques, bowing (I shake hands) and most of the other traditions.

So if you consider yourself still a TCMA, do other TCMA still consider you one?:confused:

[gwa sow]

"I evolved it to fit my needs"

isn't that how all our styles came about, judo, bjj kung fu, karate. if not, we'd all be beating each other with sticks and stones

[MasterKiller]

That's cool and the same attitude I had toward karate. The problem came from other karate people who were shocked that I dropped kata, most Japanese names for techniques, bowing (I shake hands) and most of the other traditions.

So if you consider yourself still a TCMA, do other TCMA still consider you one?:confused:

I haven't abandoned kung fu entirely. I'm just focusing 100% on fighting right now while I'm young enough and healthy enough to internalize the skills. I still do forms, just not in class.

And whatever anyone else thinks of what I'm doing, if they have a beef we can cross hands and settle it. That is the kung fu way, afterall. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Some definitions of "tradtional":

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traditional

1. of or pertaining to tradition.
2. handed down by tradition.
3. in accordance with tradition.
4. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the older styles of jazz, esp. New Orleans style, Chicago style, Kansas City style, and Dixieland. Compare mainstream (def. 4).

traditional

adjective
1. consisting of or derived from tradition; "traditional history"; "traditional morality" [ant: nontraditional]
2. pertaining to time-honored orthodox doctrines; "the simple security of traditional assumptions has vanished"

[rogue]

I haven't abandoned kung fu entirely. I'm just focusing 100% on fighting right now while I'm young enough and healthy enough to internalize the skills. I still do forms, just not in class.

And whatever anyone else thinks of what I'm doing, if they have a beef we can cross hands and settle it. That is the kung fu way, afterall. ;)

Good attitude.:)

For me I found that over time I related less and less to my traditional cousins. Couldn't see the point of having to discover what was in the art while others are busy working on, well, making things work.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I haven't abandoned kung fu entirely. I'm just focusing 100% on fighting right now while I'm young enough and healthy enough to internalize the skills. I still do forms, just not in class.

Reply]
Isn't Kung Fu about fighting?

What R U doing that is not Kung Fu?

[MasterKiller]

Isn't Kung Fu about fighting?

It should be. But modern fighting doesn't have room for 3-section staffs, rope darts, etc..


What R U doing that is not Kung Fu?

Everything I do is kung fu.

[xcakid]

Ah...maybe its cause I am getting old that I have this view these days.

I use to view TCMA as the end all be all in MA. Afterall it encompassed all of the fighting methodologies. Punching, Kicking, Wrestling, and Joint Locks. Although admittedly, not all instructors are versed in all aspects of TCMA. It was all about fighting with me. Back in the 80's we did not have MMA yet.

Nowadays, I can't see myself training in a pugilistic manner anymore. I am no longer fast. I am no longer flexible. I no longer have a strong constitution. I now train for physical fitness, rather than fighting. My fighting will now consist of calling 911 or shooting an assaillant.

So with that said, I view martial arts more for its health and mental aspect. Progressive arts such as MMA just does not provide that. There is a practicality to it if all you want to do is bang knuckles to heads.

I say that to say this. And I have said this on many threads on this forum. TCMA or any type of TMA, have stopped progressing in the 1900's. It has become stagnant. Training have been wussified. It has not kept up with modern times and modern weapons. Back in the day, MA will train with the most devastating weapons out there, be it bow and arrow, spear, swords etc. Ffwd to today. We still train with those. Good instructors knows and teaches fighting application of these weapons. But c'mon!!! How many people carry around swords and spears nowadays. When was the last time anyone was mugged/robbed with a spear? How come martial arts did not follow progress in weapons? Why don't we practice marksmanship with firearms? Why do most(not all) not practice with knife fighting. Martial Arts style use to innovate weaponry and ways of fighting individually. Take the hook swords or wing chuns butterfly knives. The varying techniques derived from various regions of China. Most adapted their way of fighting depending on terrain and what was available to them to work with. Heck even Taiji has been reduced to a form of dance these days. I bet 80% of Taiji practitioners do not know anything of the art past the postures such as its defense/offense application. Most practioners I've seen do not have the proper stances for the defense/offense application of those postures. Very few arts actually practices concepts in multiple attackers. Or spar with multiple attackers and train in evasion from multiple attackers.

Todays martial arts has been retarded and wussified when it comes to actual fighting. MMA may bring back the innovation and actual combat training. Maybe. But I doubt it, most if not all MMA practioners seem to be testosterone driven pugilist rather than technically martial art minded. There is no mental, philosophical and health aspect of the art. So I believe it will sadly remain a sport like boxing rather than a true art.

So now I view traditional martial arts as a way of learning history and physical fitness/mental health. As for fighitng, I take various firearms courses and continue to study Arnis/Kali. Memorize 911 and keep my cellphone charged. That's my fighting style these days.

[synack]

I think this thread is getting messed up because of wording. You can practice a martial art that was created a long time ago and it won't necessarily be traditional when you practice it. But those who choose to keep what they practice "Traditional" can't be progressive by definition. It has to remain "Traditional" or else you are re-defining the word traditional.

It's like the difference between a 60 something Mustang and a 2007 Mustang. Still Mustangs but very different.

:)

[MasterKiller]

Nowadays, I can't see myself training in a pugilistic manner anymore. I am no longer fast. I am no longer flexible. I no longer have a strong constitution. I now train for physical fitness, rather than fighting. My fighting will now consist of calling 911 or shooting an assaillant.

So with that said, I view martial arts more for its health and mental aspect. Progressive arts such as MMA just does not provide that. There is a practicality to it if all you want to do is bang knuckles to heads.

This is wrong. Plenty of people train combat sports for health and hobby. I have a girl in my class that has dropped 40 pounds since January who never intends to step in a ring or get into a street fight.

[TenTigers]

synak, re-read my original post-Traditional Martial Arts were all about change, evolution, and development. By doing it exactly as the past generations did it, you are going against tradition itself.
Besides, in the last several generations, most TCMA has been taught wrong and is being perpetuated by each successive generation. Emphasis on live drilling, and fighting, and conditioning has always been first and foremost. The emphasis on forms and unrealistic demo-type applications is a more recent innovation. Blindly following this method and calling it tradition is the blind leading the blind.

[TenTigers]

xcakid, how old are you? Are you disabled, or sufferring from an illness?

[synack]

It maybe "tradition" but that doesn't make it "Traditional" or maybe a better word would be "Classical?"

[xcakid]

This is wrong. Plenty of people train combat sports for health and hobby. I have a girl in my class that has dropped 40 pounds since January who never intends to step in a ring or get into a street fight.

How many boxers you know still boxing @ 80yo.? Unfortunately, I can't ask the same questions for MMA since its fairly new.

Now I would ask the same question regarding a kung fu practitioner, and more than likely we would be able to come up with a few more names.

[synack]

Does George Foreman count? That dude boxed for a long time.

[MasterKiller]

How many boxers you know still boxing @ 80yo.? Unfortunately, I can't ask the same questions for MMA since its fairly new.

Now I would ask the same question regarding a kung fu practitioner, and more than likely we would be able to come up with a few more names.

An 80 year old boxer can still shadow box and hit a bag, which is the equivalent of an 80 year old KF master doing forms.

But How many Kung Fu people are FIGHTING at 80?

If Kung Fu is about fighting, but you aren't using it to fight, you aren't really doing Kung Fu, now are you?

[xcakid]

xcakid, how old are you? Are you disabled, or sufferring from an illness?


Will be 39 in August and have bad knees. Some people say my mental health is disabled. :p

[xcakid]

An 80 year old boxer can still shadow box and hit a bag, which is the equivalent of an 80 year old KF master doing forms.

But How many Kung Fu people are FIGHTING at 80?

If Kung Fu is about fighting, but you aren't using it to fight, you aren't really doing Kung Fu, now are you?

You got a point there, but I don't see many 80 yr olds shadow boxing in gyms, but I do see quite a few 80 yr olds practicing kung fu/tai chi in parks.

No I guess I am not doing kung fu in the fullest sense of the context we are talking about here. But like I said I am mainly doing it for health.

[PangQuan]

How many of you have studied I Ching?

To me many of the principles found in I Ching, IMO, share commonalities in regards to the traditionality of combat training and application.

To stop evolving/adapting is to stagnate, to stagnate is to turn our backs on the truth of combat and the essence of life. To do such is to be anything BUT traditional. IMO

Of course this is in regards to TCMA, based upon the principles, philosophies, and foundations of Chinese thought through out the many many years of development of Chinese Martial Arts.

Perhaps those that view the need to stay "traditional" implies the strict and rigid preservance of ALL aspects of the art they study do not view thier art from the mindset in which it was originally developed.

However if you study classic Chinese history and thought you will find that stagnation is anything BUT traditional.

The classic of change easily displays (one source anyhow, there are many others besides I Ching) this thought process the Chinese have developed, and IMO is a core principle and truth in any progressive endeavor.

peace.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Although adaptation is the general rule, traditionalist seek to preserve what was discovered in the past. That is why you have systems with 100 forms. traditionalists are more better termed the collectors of the knowledge, and the fighters are the users of that knowledge. Both have a place.

The fighters only use a small part of the collection, BUT each fighter uses a different small part, so the colllectors need to collect a pretty big library of techniques and strategies for them.

[zenile]

It should be. But modern fighting doesn't have room for 3-section staffs, rope darts, etc..



Everything I do is kung fu.

Wouldn't these weapons be useful for the other aspects that they can improve on..hand/eye coordination, rooting, power generation, etc.?

[MasterKiller]

Wouldn't these weapons be useful for the other aspects that they can improve on..hand/eye coordination, rooting, power generation, etc.?

Sure, but they are not as efficient as lifting kettlebells or hitting a speed bag, and the attributes acquired using weapons doesn't really directly translate into increased hand-to-hand attributes.

Swinging a Kwan Dao around just makes you good at swinging a Kwan Dao around.

[MasterKiller]

You got a point there, but I don't see many 80 yr olds shadow boxing in gyms, but I do see quite a few 80 yr olds practicing kung fu/tai chi in parks.

You could be doing Yoga or Pilates or anything else, for that matter.

It's not the kung fu keeping people healthy, it's getting off the couch and doing excercise.

[zenile]

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just was just referring to your post about no room for these types of weapons in modern fighting. I think swinging a Kwan Dao is analogous to mixing up your training, similar to what MMA guys do with Kettlebells and other tools. Practicing with weapons are just other tools to mix up your training.

You're never going to find yourself swinging a Kwan Dao around in a fight, just as you would never swing a kettlebell. But I bet after you've swung either of these around for an hour, you've given your body a workout that you otherwise wouldn't have gotten from other methods, be it doing forms or doing sprints.

[MasterKiller]

But I bet after you've swung either of these around for an hour, you've given your body a workout that you otherwise wouldn't have gotten from other methods, be it doing forms or doing sprints.

But which is more efficient? That's the real question.

Spending 3 months learning a 5 minute kwan dao form...practicing "tossing your beard back" for the bow ala General Kwan, working on ground maneuvars and behind the back spins..., remembering complicated foot patterns and which end of the blade does the blocking, etc...All the hours invested in just learning the routine...not to mention the time it takes to perfect the moves.

Or lifting kettlebells, or weights, or whatever, 25 minutes 3 times a week.

[PangQuan]

Although adaptation is the general rule, traditionalist seek to preserve what was discovered in the past. That is why you have systems with 100 forms. traditionalists are more better termed the collectors of the knowledge, and the fighters are the users of that knowledge. Both have a place.

The fighters only use a small part of the collection, BUT each fighter uses a different small part, so the colllectors need to collect a pretty big library of techniques and strategies for them.

word.

In addition I would like to add that the traditionalists should only retain and preserve the knowlede that is of actual use in regards to combat or health aspects of martial arts. Though that in essence could encompass such a large degree of information even on one principle alone if they were to collect several adaptions of evolution. There is 'this way' there is 'that way' there is 'my way' and there is 'your way' then there is 'his way'....some people actually take it on themselves to remember all these....

thus is the heavy weight of responsiblity to many lineage holders...One I personally do not envy.

This again brings up the aspect of those that have spent their lives collecting, categorizing and memorizing quite a lot of information.

Perhaps not great fighters, yet holders of a vast amount of information concerning the history, development, and outcome of many mens lives of addition and development in their arts past.

IMO these men are due a large degree of respect not only as teachers but as people who have actually sacraficed a good deal to preserve what many would not.

[Black Jack II]

Wouldn't these weapons be useful for the other aspects that they can improve on..hand/eye coordination, rooting, power generation, etc

Yes, it can be, but other methods are avaliable like MK stated that are more streamlined for those attributes.

The filipino methods often use this way of thinking on occasion, triangulation, body shifting, range detection, agility, ambidexrous training, intergration of cadence both stable and broken, but you don't need these things to develop the body mechanics of the hand to hand aspect of the system at all.

Some would say that to focus heavy just on the sticks is a waste of time in this regard. I agree.

[xcakid]

You could be doing Yoga or Pilates or anything else, for that matter.

It's not the kung fu keeping people healthy, it's getting off the couch and doing excercise.


True, but I look really good in silk pajamas. Chicks dig it.

[TenTigers]

one, Synak, I'm fifty and I still roll, bang bare knuckle and train hard.
And I am probably alot more mentally disabled than you.:p
two-MK-I like to play the Kwan-Dao and I know for a fact that if I had to, I could pick up a No Parking sign and wreak havoc with it as a weapon. (cuz, I've done that) Whereas, people without trainng with a huge heavy unbalanced weapon would not.
As far as tradition is concerned, I teach the traditional forms, give my students a good overall understanding of the core principles and concepts of the art, and allow them to decide what suits them, making sure that they in turn allow the same choices for their own students. This can only occur if the system is passed down completely intact to the best of our ability. This is tradition.

[zenile]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when I go to the gym, I might decide that I want to work out my chest. Well, I'm looking at doing flat bench press or flat bench with dumbbells (or both if I'm trying to kill myself :D). Now one might be more efficient than the other, but that doesn't necessarily mean I should just do that workout to the exclusion of any others. The reason? Muscle memory. Muscles will recall movements and get very good at certain movements the more I do them. So, after several months of doing the flat bench, I find myself having to lift 5 times the weight to break half the sweat as I used to.

So, if kettlebells and kwan dao's are the same workout, but one is more efficient than the other, to me it still makes sense to use them both (otherwise my body gets really good at lifting kettlebells, and I find myself working 5 times as hard to break that sweat).

[MasterKiller]

So, if kettlebells and kwan dao's are the same workout, but one is more efficient than the other, to me it still makes sense to use them both (otherwise my body gets really good at lifting kettlebells, and I find myself working 5 times as hard to break that sweat).

They aren't the same. That's my point. They might both be strenuous, but they develop different attributes.


two-MK-I like to play the Kwan-Dao and I know for a fact that if I had to, I could pick up a No Parking sign and wreak havoc with it as a weapon. (cuz, I've done that) Whereas, people without trainng with a huge heavy unbalanced weapon would not.

That's fine, and I'm not knocking weapons work if you have time to maintain it and also develop your h2h skills. All I said was I was devoting 100% of my time to fighting, and IMO swinging a Kwan Dao right now does not fit my training model.

I did play with my 3 section for about an hour on Sat., but that was just because my daughter was napping and the lawn was already mowed.

[Shaolinlueb]

Everything I do is kung fu.

same here. even though we do some thigns that may look like judo take downs and some throws, it is still all kung fu to us.

[Fu-Pow]

People should check out the book that Dave Ross recommended "Chinese Historical Training Manuals" by Brian Kennedy. The first part of the book is largely opinion but I think it helps to put things in perspective.

Namely, he lists as the historical cornerstones of Chinese martial arts practice as:

Basic Conditioning, Basic Technique Practice, Set Routines and Sparring.

I would add to that paired drill practice (eg in Taiji it is Push Hands).

If you take out the set routine practice, you pretty much end up with the cornerstones of MMA practice (or any martial art practice for that matter).

The thing that MMA approach adds is a subfocus on ground grappling which is conspiciously absent from most if not all CMA training.

Another component that TCMA adds is a stand alone Nei Gong or "internal work" practice which is designed to increase coordination and efficiency in movement.

So to summarize and generalize:

TCMA=MMA + set routines + Nei Gong practices -ground grappling

MMA=TCMA -set routines -Nei Gong practices +ground grappling

I'd also add that "sparring" can mean a lot of different things. Mostly I think that the guideline for sparring is "realism." In this respect I think that both MMA and TCMA often fail. Sparring with extended groundgrappling is not realistic and sparring WITHOUT it is just as unrealistic.

FP

[PangQuan]

same here. even though we do some thigns that may look like judo take downs and some throws, it is still all kung fu to us.

word to your mother :p

what gets me is how often people forget what kungfu means and that EVERYONE has kungfu in something.....

[Shaolinlueb]

word to your mother :p

what gets me is how often people forget what kungfu means and that EVERYONE has kungfu in something.....


exactly. what kung fu means is the most important thing!!!

wushu on the other hand is what all martial artist's do. that means military art. modern or traditional.

[MasterKiller]

People should check out the book that Dave Ross recommended "Chinese Historical Training Manuals" by Brian Kennedy. The first part of the book is largely opinion but I think it helps to put things in perspective.

Namely, he lists as the historical cornerstones of Chinese martial arts practice as:

Basic Conditioning, Basic Technique Practice, Set Routines and Sparring.

I would add to that paired drill practice (eg in Taiji it is Push Hands).

If you take out the set routine practice, you pretty much end up with the cornerstones of MMA practice (or any martial art practice for that matter).

The thing that MMA approach adds is a subfocus on ground grappling which is conspiciously absent from most if not all CMA training.

Another component that TCMA adds is a stand alone Nei Gong or "internal work" practice which is designed to increase coordination and efficiency in movement.

So to summarize and generalize:

TCMA=MMA + set routines + Nei Gong practices -ground grappling

MMA=TCMA -set routines -Nei Gong practices +ground grappling

I'd also add that "sparring" can mean a lot of different things. Mostly I think that the guideline for sparring is "realism." In this respect I think that both MMA and TCMA often fail. Sparring with extended groundgrappling is not realistic and sparring WITHOUT it is just as unrealistic.

FP

FU-POW just child-raped the correct and warned it not to tell anyone.

[PangQuan]

FU-POW just child-raped the correct and warned it not to tell anyone.

Lmfao, thats so quote worthy.

[rogue]

So to summarize and generalize:

TCMA=Basket Weaving + set routines + Nei Gong practices - minus the baskets and weaving.

I somewhat agree, but c'mon guys, you can call what you do what ever you want, but this later day "we've been MMA all along" is stretching it don't you think? If it isn't being trained then it isn't there anymore.

[monji112000]

in the MMA vs TCMA argument-TCMA who are realistic thinkers have all agreed that ALL TCMA is based on the idea that Kung-Fu is forever a work in progress, always evolving. This being said, many TCMA people who have little or no ground game are searching for answers, whether it be in BJJ ,Judo, Shuai-Jiao,Greco-Roman-whatever, the source doesn't matter, technique-attributes is what counts.
TCMAers also aggree that it is all in the traiining-realistic trainng brings realistic results.period.
sure, there are some-SOME, that will cling to the line that they already have it, have always had it yadda-yadda. but if you aren't training it, well YOU don't have it. As much as parella and I don't see eye to eye on our personal matters, I still give credit where credit is due, and he did what needed to be done-he sought out BJJ and is doing it, as many others are.(hopefully)
Basically, MMA and TCMA people-those that think realistically about their art and its future are in aggreement.
This argument can go on and on forever, but the few speaking for the many on either side is bullsh1t. So let it go. You won't convince the ignorant, and those who know, aren't getting caught up in the drama, they're training.
The others,will argue till they're blue in the face, will post claims, phoney challenges,etc/
let it go. It's done. Let's move on. Look at how much time and effort is wasted on this forum and many others in this pi$$ing match. Time is better spent training.

my thinking is its a mental deference ...

what makes a style or art progressive vrs “traditional”?

In 100 years won't some of the MMA systems be “traditional”?

Personally when I see a “traditional” martial art used in a practical method, that is progressive. I don't just mean MMA training, you can also look at many other areas of combat. Self defense, ect..

Once you learn the rule, you learn why its a rule and then you learn why do or don't follow the rule.

For example How many TCMA students get told that you should always fight completely flat footed?

Or how many people are taught a form were you use a Animal technique, wheel punch, low stance. How many of these students are also taught, the reasons why , how, why not and how not to use these movements? What about fighting strategy? ect.. ect..

This is the real reason why so many people do boxing and kick boxing. I can show you the basics of both styles in ONE DAY. After that its aliveness , strategy , timing, reaction, ect..

Boxing is so amazing not because of its mechanics (which are wonderful I am not knocking boxing), but for all the other things that come with it.

CMA in that respect is at disadvantage. But that should be overcome quickly, by proper teaching and preparation. You should be introduced to the same aliveness training early on no matter the style or the type of combat.

Traditional just needs to look around and adapt to the “newer” opponents and training methods. That may require changing your stance, strategy, or even the types of techniques you once preferred.. they may be less effective.. or maybe not. Its a personal journey, nobody can do it for you.

Just my dumb rant... ignore it its probably better that way.

[sanjuro_ronin]

By the strict sense of the word, any MA with a "history" is a TMA, judo and Boxing for example and wrestling too and even BJJ.

Thing is, what traditional should mean is a MA aimed towards combat and personal defense, as opposed to SPORT arts aimed at sport.
YES, TMA can be sport and sport and be TMA.

It's what is "emphasized" that makes one primarily a TMA or a Sport Combat art.

[Fu-Pow]

I somewhat agree, but c'mon guys, you can call what you do what ever you want, but this later day "we've been MMA all along" is stretching it don't you think? If it isn't being trained then it isn't there anymore.

I think this probably needs to be evaluated on a school to school or person to person basis.

I know there are some "traditional" schools that have remained true to the ORIGINAL practices of TCMA.

Those are the ones that would not need to do much to modernize their training. Mostly they would need to get some ground grappling integrated and do more realistic sparring (which it would be if there was a possibility of going to the ground.)

And, no doubt, there are some unique aspects of TCMA that will probably never be taken up by the MMA crowd, ie Nei Gong or Set Routines.

So they will never be equivalent but I think the point of this thread is that so we can move beyond the differences and see how much is actually similar....talking about ORIGINAL TCMA and MMA, not the current Form Factory incarnation of TCMA.

So to put this in the positive, a "complete" modern TCMA curriculum would include:

-Basic Conditioning (Wai Gong and Nei Gong),
-Basic Technique Practice (Stand Up, Clinch and Ground),
-Paired Drill Practice (Stand Up, Clinch and Ground),
-Free Sparring (including Stand Up, Clinch and Ground Ranges)
-Set Routines

It's alot and my other suggestion is that TCMA pair down/condense its forms and possibly dispense with the weapon forms that cannot be practiced in Drills or Sparring.

FP

[rogue]

By the strict sense of the word, any MA with a "history" is a TMA, judo and Boxing for example and wrestling too and even BJJ.

Thing is, what traditional should mean is a MA aimed towards combat and personal defense, as opposed to SPORT arts aimed at sport.
YES, TMA can be sport and sport and be TMA.

It's what is "emphasized" that makes one primarily a TMA or a Sport Combat art.

Then why do the sport combat guys beat up the real combat guys most of the time?:confused:

[rogue]

I think this probably needs to be evaluated on a school to school or person to person basis.

I know there are some "traditional" schools that have remained true to the ORIGINAL practices of TCMA.

Those are the ones that would not need to do much to modernize their training. Mostly they would need to get some ground grappling integrated and do more realistic sparring (which it would be if there was a possibility of going to the ground.)

And, no doubt, there are some unique aspects of TCMA that will probably never be taken up by the MMA crowd, ie Nei Gong or Set Routines.

So they will never be equivalent but I think the point of this thread is that so we can move beyond the differences and see how much is actually similar....talking about ORIGINAL TCMA and MMA, not the current Form Factory incarnation of TCMA.

So to put this in the positive, a "complete" modern TCMA curriculum would include:

-Basic Conditioning (Wai Gong and Nei Gong),
-Basic Technique Practice (Stand Up, Clinch and Ground),
-Paired Drill Practice (Stand Up, Clinch and Ground),
-Free Sparring (including Stand Up, Clinch and Ground Ranges)
-Set Routines

It's alot and my other suggestion is that TCMA pair down/condense its forms and possibly dispense with the weapon forms that cannot be practiced in Drills or Sparring.

FP

I can agree with a lot of that. What are set routines?

[PangQuan]

I can agree with a lot of that. What are set routines?

forms............

[PangQuan]

we practice fighting all day so we can what? fight? defend ourselves? compete in a sport?

likely the only of those 3 that will every see much real action will be the sport aspect.

weapon training is similar to sport training. provided that you actually learn to use your weapon.

IMO weapon training should be viewed in the same light as training for a sport.

its for fun.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Set routines = Two man drills.

Formal routines is what the forms are. In fact,"Forms" is just short for formal routine.

Forms were for teachers to help organize thier curriculum and refine "Thier" body mechanics, never for students to use as training.

[PangQuan]

Set routines = Two man drills.

Formal routines is what the forms are. In fact,"Forms" is just short for formal routine.

Forms were for teachers to help organize thier curriculum and refine "Thier" body mechanics, never for students to use as training.

So I have always wondered. At what point did they take the two man forms and decide to actively start solo training students the same way?

[Fu-Pow]

Set routines = Two man drills.

Formal routines is what the forms are. In fact,"Forms" is just short for formal routine.

Forms were for teachers to help organize thier curriculum and refine "Thier" body mechanics, never for students to use as training.

Set Routines=Forms

[PangQuan]

IMO

its all the same thing.

Two man sets, single sets, weapon sets, setting the table, setting bones......

its all about the form baby!

:p

[SifuAbel]

A form is the shape of things. A set is a routine.

[Fu-Pow]

In the book I referenced he is talking about a pre-determined routine...meaning the routine's pattern or movements are "set" ahead of time.

That's how I read it.

FP

[PangQuan]

thats why its all the same to me.

different strokes for different folks i suppose. its easier if i just look at it all the same way :p

[TenTigers]

"So I have always wondered. At what point did they take the two man forms and decide to actively start solo training students the same way?"
__________________
About the tinme they stopped using it for battles and needed to promote their schools. Did you know that they really didn't "Name" their styles up until several gens back? Why bother? Shut up and practice. What difference does it matter what style? Gung-Fu is Gung-Fu. Wong Fei-Hung referred to his Gung-Fu as Siu-Lum. People didn't have the need to attach heroic figures to their art, like Hung Hei-Guen, Jee Siem, Ng Mui, Ngok Fei,etc. It's simply marketing. Two-man sets are one thing, overloading your curriculum with this and that two-man set,two-man weapon sets,etc. Most of these are more for demo than training.
And to make the student feel he's learning something viable.

[rogue]

Sacraledge, heresy, blasphemy!!! Ten Tigers is in league with the Devil, aka That Sanda Guy.


Xing Yi == Mind Formal boxing?:confused:

I'm with Abel on this.

[PangQuan]

"So I have always wondered. At what point did they take the two man forms and decide to actively start solo training students the same way?"
__________________
About the tinme they stopped using it for battles and needed to promote their schools. Did you know that they really didn't "Name" their styles up until several gens back? Why bother? Shut up and practice. What difference does it matter what style? Gung-Fu is Gung-Fu. Wong Fei-Hung referred to his Gung-Fu as Siu-Lum. People didn't have the need to attach heroic figures to their art, like Hung Hei-Guen, Jee Siem, Ng Mui, Ngok Fei,etc. It's simply marketing. Two-man sets are one thing, overloading your curriculum with this and that two-man set,two-man weapon sets,etc. Most of these are more for demo than training.
And to make the student feel he's learning something viable.

Thanks. The whole marketing aspect makes perfect sense.

How will you make a living in times of peace if your greatest skill is that of war?

some things never seem to change...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Thanks. The whole marketing aspect makes perfect sense.

How will you make a living in times of peace if your greatest skill is that of war?



You get a job and don't compromise your principles.
OR
You teach sport and call it what it is, Sport.
Nothing wrong with that.

[sunfist]

You will never have it 'all' in a single art. To make a horrible analogy, a complete art is an unstable compound. It can only exist in an artificial state, when synthesised from several arts. Then, when your new 'super' art is passed down to your students, it too will be incomplete. Why? because you are trying to instill numerous disparate methods in your students within a single conceptual framework, and they simply wont get it. They too will have to collect the missing pieces and make up their own complete art.

The point being, kung fu is what it is. It doesnt need modification to 'fix' all of its problems any more than muay thai needs modification to give it a ground game. If you take MT and want a ground game, you go to a sub grappling class. Why do people always assume if you take kung fu and want a ground game, the best idea is to mix a few ****ty ground drills into your curriculum (that you most likely got out of a book)?

TCMA doesnt need to progress in terms of scope, quite the opposite, it needs refinement. Perhaps when half of the people practicing it understand why the hell theyre doing what theyre doing, we can look at what to add and what to take away.

[SifuAbel]

I'm with Abel on this.

Me too. :D

[cjurakpt]

don't forget the biggest TCMA marketing scheme (scam) of all times: the "invention" of tai chi by Yang Lu Chan...

[David Jamieson]

why can't threads like this just be shot and put out of their misery immediately? :p