PDA

View Full Version : A Discussion of Fighting Techniques



Mjmlnsl
08-12-2007, 06:37 PM
Do any of you question why do so many martial artists of any style or system - Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Brazilian etc resort to the SAME basic punch / kick or kickbox combinations when they fight - no matter their style ?

For so many years I have seen people train in various systems, learn countless forms & techniques - drill them over and over again in classes - and perform them flawlessly in controlled fighting drills and sparring -

BUT when it comes down to a real fighting match against a stranger - whether it be in or out of the ring - that 99% of people resort back to basic kickboxing ???

Why do their "techniques" and their "styles" go out the window and their fighting is not distinguishable from kick boxing ?

Notice in many videos of fights - be it UFC , YouTube, etc - most resort to non-technique based fighting ?

Most things in our lives improve and become updated as time passes - whether it be medicine, science, technology, etc - why do most people not look to update and improve their martial skill and bring it into the 21st century ?

Most people would laugh at someone using an old PC, driving an old car or wearing outdated clothes - but martial artists want to "keep the art pure" and teach techniques "the way they were taught" - but again WHY do a great deal of martial artists not update their fighting ? Why do they use the techniques they have learned the same way that is from "centuries ago"?

Look at western boxers from the 1900's and you will see a stand up and fixed style of fighting - versus a boxer of today that is more crouched and mobile.

I have taken the basics of my martial skills and adapted and enhanced them to not only work in today's world but simultaneously to be as simple as possible.

One example - most of us are able to walk all day long - SIMPLY WALK - why not adapt your fighting step patterns to coincide and be as simple as walking ?Why don't you integrate your style's methodology and incorporate into the simplest and most efficient means of movement for the human physiological structure ?

When you walk naturally you have your best balance, you are your most fluid, you have your best agility and the most speed of movement - YET - when most people fight they retreat into their "stances" or their "footwork pattern" and are not mobile at all - WHY ?

Do you notice that when you fight - are you leaning back or forward ? Where is your weight distribution - on your front or rear foot when you strike ?

Does your movement follow through in your strike or do you stop it as you hit your opponent ?

Where do you intercept your opponent - do you realize the range and are you moving in to intercept or waiting for their strike to come to you ?

Do you pre-plan or anticipate your movements or do you react based upon your opponent ? If you react - do you do so early or wait until the last minute ?

Do you cut angles not only in strike deflections and re-directions but in your footwork and body movement as well ? And if so then how far are you cutting the angles from your opponent ? Are you stepping out and then in again or are you truly cutting an angle as close as possible ?

These are only some of the things I myself have questioned over the years. I would like to hear others thoughts in regards to these statements I have made and the questions I have asked.

I am hoping this topic will lead to a serious and in depth discussion of martial arts - not one that talks only about lineage and how important it is to drop names and promote themselves as this website seems to be about as of late

Sincerely,

Mark Manganiello

Ben Gash
08-12-2007, 07:20 PM
0.8 simply for length

lkfmdc
08-12-2007, 08:00 PM
0.8 simply for length

so, basicly, you are saying FRAT?

I thought this forum was a little better than that?

cjurakpt
08-12-2007, 08:13 PM
Why do their "techniques" and their "styles" go out the window and their fighting is not distinguishable from kick boxing ?
because at the top of the mountain - real combat - all points meet and become the same thing - or something wequally as profound;


Most things in our lives improve and become updated as time passes - whether it be medicine, science, technology, etc - why do most people not look to update and improve their martial skill and bring it into the 21st century ?
Most people would laugh at someone using an old PC, driving an old car or wearing outdated clothes - but martial artists want to "keep the art pure" and teach techniques "the way they were taught" - but again WHY do a great deal of martial artists not update their fighting ? Why do they use the techniques they have learned the same way that is from "centuries ago"?
it's the unassailable argument - when you cite the prowress of some dead Chinese guy 250 years ago + as the source, what can anyone say?


Look at western boxers from the 1900's and you will see a stand up and fixed style of fighting - versus a boxer of today that is more crouched and mobile.
adapt, adopt, improve...


One example - most of us are able to walk all day long - SIMPLY WALK - why not adapt your fighting step patterns to coincide and be as simple as walking ?Why don't you integrate your style's methodology and incorporate into the simplest and most efficient means of movement for the human physiological structure ?
When you walk naturally you have your best balance, you are your most fluid, you have your best agility and the most speed of movement - YET - when most people fight they retreat into their "stances" or their "footwork pattern" and are not mobile at all - WHY ?
in classical Taoist practice, you lie like a bow, sit like a bell, stand like a tree and walk like the wind; the point is that the practice revolves around the regular positions in which we find ourselves in life; so the idea of life as practice is neither new nor implausable, at least from the perspective of self-cultivation; to extrapolate into fighting, it makes sense that one trains in a context specific manner - if you are concerned you may be attacked walking down the street, that's a scenario to work with under live, pressured conditions

very nice ideas overall; but put on your oven mits, because you're gonna get flammed for talking like a crazy-man, asking rationale questions and using sound reasoning to think through things like that...

lkfmdc
08-12-2007, 08:23 PM
you're gonna get flammed



angry villagers are marching toward the castle with torches as we speak......

wu-ji
08-13-2007, 01:17 AM
Two answers for your questions:

1) Specific.

Tournaments are not free fights and they have certain regulations that make certain movements prohibited and certain movements have competitive advantage in the particular tournaments. Those, regardless of the "style", who do not use those advantageous movements will lose the competitive advantage in the particular tournaments. Hence, we observe "generic" movements."

2) General.

Human body only has one head, one body(trunk), and 4 limbs. How many combinatoric ways can we move? I believe that high level martial artists move similarly (as a combination of, with the preference to, striking/kicking/grappling). The major differences are in the quality of the delivery, which boil down to power, speed, and accuracy.

chasincharpchui
08-13-2007, 01:38 AM
Human body only has one head, one body(trunk), and 4 limbs. How many combinatoric ways can we move?

do buck sing, or even clf and you'll see not everything comes down to a straight line, ur combinations are limitless




I believe that high level martial artists move similarly (as a combination of, with the preference to, striking/kicking/grappling). The major differences are in the quality of the delivery, which boil down to power, speed, and accuracy.

NO ONE moves like THE GENERAL!

Ben Gash
08-13-2007, 03:33 AM
so, basicly, you are saying FRAT?

I thought this forum was a little better than that?

I don't actually understand what you're saying. What I'm basically saying is he's trolling.

sanjuro_ronin
08-13-2007, 04:07 AM
Funny thing...a friend of mine commented on how, when two equally matched fighters meet in the ring ( as equal as equal can be obviously) that they can look just as "bad" as the typical street fights on youtube and that only when there is a noticable difference in skill level, do we see a "martial arts fight" and not a brawl.
I disagreed but I understood where he is coming from.

One can say that we "fight as we train" and this is true, but its also a fact that, if we DON'T train for a "real" fight than all the train can and often does, degenerate into a brawl and all brawl look "the same".

People looking to see refined MA moves and such in a "brawl" will not see them, though the principles may be there, unless the skill level is of a quite noticable difference.

David Jamieson
08-13-2007, 05:16 AM
people don't box or kickbox the same way at all.

to the uninformed eye then yeah, it all looks the same, but what that eye isn't seeing is that:

guy a) keeps his hands on the sides of his head and his shoulders up and his head "tucked"

guy b) plays fast and loose, frequently lets the hands down, doesn't shrimp and tends to kick more.

guy c) has a good blend of cover and entering but his kicks are not powerful

guy d) has wicked push kicks, stomps and keeps his guard up, but perhaps is a bit slow with the use of his waist in generating his punches.

and so on and so on and so on.

even in say just boxing, there are very large stylistic differences in how the fight is carried out between the two opponents.

when it is a san shou match, or mma fight or whatever, the person with even a little eye will see stylistic differences.

I basically think the whole posture of the so called kickboxing trap is a fallacy generated by people who seem to think that chinese martial arts should always look like something out of a fantasy movie. well, when americans start fighting like the batman then they can have their point, but otherwise it's hogwash.

hogwash is a cool word isn't it? :p

TenTigers
08-13-2007, 07:16 AM
you will do whatever it is you train. For example, if all you were taught was swinging,arcing punches,such as gwa,sow,cup,been, jong,pow,etc, under stress, you certainly would not resort to jab,cross, etc. Why? Because your body only knows the former, and has never done the latter.
The reason people revert back to "kickboxing" techniques is because when they were first taught the basics, that is what they were taught. Anything else came later, therefore most time was spent doing that.
Why were they taught that? Perhaps it is easier for the beginner to grasp, and therefore feel confident,leading to enrolling-meanining that this is due to the fact that the teacher is concerned about numbers.
The other reason might be because the teacher actually never knew or perhaps knew but didn't teach the other methods.
Another reason-you came from a different school, where you learned "Kickboxing" type fighting. Then you sign up with a teacher who teaches you whatever. What will you revert back to?
as far as the line-"we only have two arms and two legs, and until someone is born with -whatever..." yes and no. Babies and children when they punch do cup choy first. Swinging the arms, or a stick is the same motion. When you were a child, and lost your temper, you went berserk,swinging your arms like gwa,cup.
and you were unstoppable. It's only after you saw how they fight on TV, and tried to fight like John Wayne, that you started getting your arse kicked. You shooulda stayed with what you knew and developed that.:D

monji112000
08-13-2007, 07:20 AM
Do any of you question why do so many martial artists of any style or system - Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Brazilian etc resort to the SAME basic punch / kick or kickbox combinations when they fight - no matter their style ?


The basic punch and kick are the most effective stuff. Hopefully each style will use these basic movements in relation to the style they take. The problem is the kata and the fight aren't the same. Kata are wonderful I am not dogging them.. its just you can't learn to fight from a kata. Just like you can't learn to fight from Chi sao or playing chess, checkers, or bowling.

SevenStar
08-13-2007, 09:01 AM
Do any of you question why do so many martial artists of any style or system - Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Brazilian etc resort to the SAME basic punch / kick or kickbox combinations when they fight - no matter their style ?

For so many years I have seen people train in various systems, learn countless forms & techniques - drill them over and over again in classes - and perform them flawlessly in controlled fighting drills and sparring -

BUT when it comes down to a real fighting match against a stranger - whether it be in or out of the ring - that 99% of people resort back to basic kickboxing ???

you cannot resort to something you have never trained in. Thus, they do not revert to kickboxing, they resort to what is ingrained into them - basics. And the basics of many styles are very similar.


Why do their "techniques" and their "styles" go out the window and their fighting is not distinguishable from kick boxing ?

under high stress and adrenaline situations, you forget everything that is not ingrained into your "muscle memory"


One example - most of us are able to walk all day long - SIMPLY WALK - why not adapt your fighting step patterns to coincide and be as simple as walking ?Why don't you integrate your style's methodology and incorporate into the simplest and most efficient means of movement for the human physiological structure ?
When you walk naturally you have your best balance, you are your most fluid, you have your best agility and the most speed of movement - YET - when most people fight they retreat into their "stances" or their "footwork pattern" and are not mobile at all - WHY ?

depends on the style you train. you will NEVER see a boxer or thai boxer use normal walking footwork is not efficient for them.

mantis108
08-13-2007, 11:03 AM
If you ask me ...

Methinks the highest Kung Fu in a nutshell is sophisticated frailing au naturel. :eek: :D

or be still! Stop the bullets matrix style. [Since I can't do the "yet", I have to resort to frailing] ;)

Mantis108

sunfist
08-14-2007, 04:22 AM
0.8 simply for length

Detract points for recycling.

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47491

PrivateWarrior
08-16-2007, 10:35 AM
How can I put this vicious move into my repertoire? What amazing balance!!!!!!!!! Who is this masked man?

Black Cloud
08-21-2007, 07:52 PM
THIS IS AN EXCELLENT RESPONSE TO THIS POST FROM ANOTHER FORUM.
http://discuss.lingnamsiulum.com/board/index.php?topic=239.new#new



FNG
Newbie
*
Posts: 37


Sit Boy...

deadlyFNG
View Profile
Re: Check out Post
« Reply #3 on: Today at 10:24:19 AM »
In response to your post...

If you are talking about street fighting, or fighting for your life, technique should not matter. Winning matters. I never heard anybody say "wow if it wasn't for his help we would have gotten our asses kicked. But did you see his technique was a bit sloppy?" I do understand your point though.

Maybe the reason for sub-par fight performance in some martial "art" students is perception. What students do compared to what they think they can do is incongruent. Many martial art students are sold on the romantic "artsy" aspect of the arts, and teachers/owners know this. A student needs to realize If you dedicate 80% of your effort on forms training, 15% on physical fitness, and 5% on technique training you are not fight training. You are "art" training. Martial art students still train hard, and are in fact training martial arts but they are not training to fight.

There is a difference between "martial art" and "martial sport". If you visit a boxing gym you'll see people punching, punching, punching, and punching. If you visit a Judo Dojo, or a Mui Tai gym, or olympic TKD what do you think they're doing? Punching, kicking, throwing, repeating RELEVANT TECHNIQUES ON A PARTNER. These are "martial sports". A martial athlete spends 90% of his/her effort on hard physical training, and 10% on everything else. They are less concerned with esoteric "artsy" stuff, and more focused on peak performance, and techniques that work. These martial athletes prepare for contact.

Then there are "combat" styles which differ again from "art & sport" styles. Combat training focus is on quickly developing pure reaction based on emotion, and reading situations/people. Not even close to Aikido, Hung Ga, or boxing training.

If you are a "martial artist" great, more power to you! You indeed have a respected and relevant spot in this "martial community". Just don't fall into the trap of believing you can go a few rounds, and do well because you know a form and it's applications. Oddly enough it seems many martial artist's fall into this trap. A perception realignment just might save you a black eye, or even your life in a serious self defense situation.

Your friendly nieghborhood FNG

TenTigers
08-22-2007, 02:56 PM
FNG-Nice post, for the most part, as it talks specifically of attitude in training. However there is one point on which I feel I must comment, and that is the misuse of the term ,"Martial Art," in which you are not alone.
Chinese use the term Martial Art (Mo-Nieye) which is distinguished from Martial Skill (Mo-Suht) as it pertains to a level of development that is beyond mere skill. It is a level where the person expresses the technique, whether it is boxing,painting,music,etc, through himself, and himself through it. It becomes a part of him. It is no less combative, or reality-based than anything else.
Westerners have taken this term and created a different interpetation, which is to mean a focusing on the performance aspect,rather than the combative.
I understand the motive, however, it is based on a false assumption.

Sam
08-23-2007, 12:12 PM
In my experience I've found that technique and forms are not enough. Physical development and internal training are essential. Once those are attained then sensitivity and a live hand must be mastered against a resistant, fighting opponent. Two man sets and Chi Sao are great tools to sharpen your technique but live fighting and footworks with control is essential.

Black Cloud
08-23-2007, 03:15 PM
IMO...

I feel that forms and drilling techniques have their place; BUT without "live" contact with an opponent that is moving around, you can not subconsciously understand how to use techniques; techniques must be a natural impulse to a moving opponent. You must learn good footwork and how to move swiftly around a live opponent.

If you meet someone on the street, and there is an altercation, the person is not going to stand "squared off" in front of you, punch, and wait for you to react. If you are only learning form, drilling technique, and not fighting, you should rethink your training.

Yum Cha
08-23-2007, 05:53 PM
You fight like you train. You can say no more than that.

Sure, real fighting is different to forms. Real fighting is different to sport fighting too.

People lament the loss of traditional skills, yet they do some whimpy forms and spend the rest of the lesson kickboxing, and surprise surprise, when they fight they look like kickboxers.

yea, yea, yea, I heard it all from you "sport fighting" heros before....and you miss the point totally. You may get the noobs nodding their heads in admiration, but sorry, you can fight with "style" it just may be way over your heads as you sit staring at shadows on the cave wall.

Let me translate: If you train a front kick and hook over and over, you'll have a wicked front kick and hook. If you train a knee attack and 'feed a forearm' you'll have a wicked knee attack and "feed a forearm."

Its p1ss easy to train front kick, hook, nice and safe, the public love it, they get to feel the sweat and leather, feel bad-a$$ed and work their chops in sparing and comps.

Training alternative, more punishing techniques is a lot harder, takes more time, it takes a different approach.

So guess what, lowest common denomenator rules. Students and dues roll in, blah, blah, blah... Economic rationalism.

Lets look at CLF, one style that really adapts to ring fighting with gloves. A good CLF fighter doesn't look like a kickboxer, a point already made. Likewise, I've seen good Pak Hok fighters that don't look like kickboxers.

Sadly, the truth is, too much crud, too many weak and over commercially motivated teachers, and too many short term students wanting quick fixes and ego boosts.

Bring it on punks :D

And if the best you can do is 'look at grappling', than you're just proving my point. Never trained fighting so hard with so little real risk in my life.

And, if you fight UFC, talk to me about UFC, otherwise, save your nutriding wannabe bad-a$$ posturing for your girlie boyfriends. Lets stay "real word".

Yea, I'm feeling pretty good today, must be the pain pills...

sanjuro_ronin
08-24-2007, 04:17 AM
You fight like you train. You can say no more than that.

Sure, real fighting is different to forms. Real fighting is different to sport fighting too.

People lament the loss of traditional skills, yet they do some whimpy forms and spend the rest of the lesson kickboxing, and surprise surprise, when they fight they look like kickboxers.

yea, yea, yea, I heard it all from you "sport fighting" heros before....and you miss the point totally. You may get the noobs nodding their heads in admiration, but sorry, you can fight with "style" it just may be way over your heads as you sit staring at shadows on the cave wall.

Let me translate: If you train a front kick and hook over and over, you'll have a wicked front kick and hook. If you train a knee attack and 'feed a forearm' you'll have a wicked knee attack and "feed a forearm."

Its p1ss easy to train front kick, hook, nice and safe, the public love it, they get to feel the sweat and leather, feel bad-a$$ed and work their chops in sparing and comps.

Training alternative, more punishing techniques is a lot harder, takes more time, it takes a different approach.

So guess what, lowest common denomenator rules. Students and dues roll in, blah, blah, blah... Economic rationalism.

Lets look at CLF, one style that really adapts to ring fighting with gloves. A good CLF fighter doesn't look like a kickboxer, a point already made. Likewise, I've seen good Pak Hok fighters that don't look like kickboxers.

Sadly, the truth is, too much crud, too many weak and over commercially motivated teachers, and too many short term students wanting quick fixes and ego boosts.

Bring it on punks :D

And if the best you can do is 'look at grappling', than you're just proving my point. Never trained fighting so hard with so little real risk in my life.

And, if you fight UFC, talk to me about UFC, otherwise, save your nutriding wannabe bad-a$$ posturing for your girlie boyfriends. Lets stay "real word".

Yea, I'm feeling pretty good today, must be the pain pills...

LOL !!
All very good points, fact is, one will always fight like he/she trains.
Funny thing is, you can spend the majority of time doing forms and 2 man sets and what not, but IF you do bag work and do it in a "kick boxing mode", THAT is what you will revert to, even if its a small part of your training, why?
because you can't fool your body, when contact starts it reverts to whatever contact training you had, and in the above case, "kick boxing bag work".

boh
09-04-2007, 01:34 PM
hi mjminsi

I will rephrase the original question this way:

"Can Traditional Chinese Kung Fu (TCKF) techniques be used for fighting,
and why is it not being used more often?"

Having studied and practiced Martial Arts for close to 30 yrs, I and a few others in our school have always found this question intriguing.

I can answer an affirmative yes for pt. 1, it can be used very effectively in fighting! [0] - this indicates footnotes at the bottom of the post

I will try to answer pt. 2, "Why do so few use it?"

I can speak for the Trad. Chinese Kung Fu (TCKF) aspects, as I have been praticing this for many yeras and recently been informally teaching, or I would rather say, doing R&D & learning. The style I am most familiar with is WuZu, (Five-Ancestors boxing) and Wu Mei Quan (Wu Mei is the Shao lin nun that reputedly founded Wing Chun, but this style is very different from WC). Both of these are Southern Shaolin, internal/external styles, with more enphasis towards the internal I would say. The forms are more like Fujian White Crane, with more short rather than long movements, where movements may be linear or circular or combine both (there's a Youtube link at the end of this post).

What you say is very true, even for the "old-masters", this refers to a famous fight, in the 1930's in China, between 2 very reputable Crane and Taiji masters.
That clip is somewhere on Youtube, and the fighting standard is abysymal! Basic kickboxing is right!

But I would disagree with you to say we should change our fighting techniques just becaus they are old! A shark, as an animal has remained unchanged for 200M years! Why? Becuase its 'design' has been perfected early on, its just as relevant now as 200M years ago. You don't laugh at the shark, just as you would laugh at someone using and old car/PC as you say. (the fact that the car & PC are imperfect designed forced upon consumers due to an industry monopolies is another matter.)

Even now, we are slowly 'discovering' the advantages of the shark that enabled it remain unchanged, its denticles on its skin that allows it swim with reduced drag, its use of electro-magnetism as one of its sensory mechanisms etc... Just as with the shark, whose attributes are preserved in its DNA, we should try to discover the essence that are hidden in the TCKF forms lineage (its DNA).

Firstly, a lot of this goes back to the form. If the form has been kept authentic and well preserved, you will find that many of the strokes are very practical and can be applied in a real life situation, often with great effect. Hence one may say, that fighting techniques can (and should be extracted form the form...[1]) and its the training and familiarisation of these techniques that give you the fighting ability. However, if the form or the art has not been taught in its original form, then ths effectiveness of these techniques may be lost. [2]

Also, from my experiance, a stroke/movement may look the same to the naked eye, but there are a lot of very subtle angles and positioning of hands, wrist, elbows and shoulders, or I would say rather 'relative positioning'. If one of these are 'out' it can greatly reduce the effectiveness of the stroke. And I have not even mentioned combining the upper body movements with lower body movements, hips, knees, feet, stance. In other words, to be effective, it has to be executed with extreme precision. Any sloppiness makes it next to ineffective.

This brings me to the 2nd part of the problem, in TKFC, is the method of teaching, in present day, we train as a large (10 or more) group, start with group drills and forms, then if you're lucky you do some chi-sao, or similar 2 man drills. Your modern-day instructor may not be very knowledgeble, yes he has a certificate, requisite belt/grade and can teach the basic syllabus.. [3]
Compare this with 'the old days', its mostly small groups, <10 persons in the master's home. The maser himself did the teaching, you probably did forms and 2 man drills and often the master himself would be involved in the drills (see 'direct transmission' below.

This is compunded by the fact that in the modern context, we only train 6 hrs. (3 hrs, 2 times) a week, whereas in the old days, the student served as an apprentice in the masters home, training perhaps 6 hrs a day!

OK assuming you figured out what that movement in the form does, you (the teacher) extract it out and makes it into a drill. And you practice the drill regularly until its second nature. But wait, have you got it right?

To teach it correctly requires great attention of detail, and that is assuming the teacher himself has 'got it'. He has to correct your positions (this is common to tradition schools and teaching), you may have to 'touch-hands' (have hand to hand physical contact), the teacher may have to perform the moves and the student, thru 'touching hands' can 'feel' what it is like. Sometimes, the teacher may have to perform the move with more force in a more controlled simulated combat situation for it to work or for the student to 'feel' it. This is what I suppose is termed 'direct transmission'[4].

The 3rd part of the problem is also related to learning/teaching, the difficulty in learning becos of the huge gap in skills between a good master/teacher and the beginer student[5]. This gap may be a major obstacle to learning even if the teacher was sincere and genuine in his teaching. Taking the 'kung fu is poetry/literature' as an analogy, a university lietrature proffessor will find it very difficult to teach a kindergarten student! The student just does not have the skills to even begin to understand the professor!

To be able to grasp and apply a technique, requires the student to have certain basic TCKF skills (note: these relate spefically to the WuZu I practice, altho they may relate to other styles) that of 'listening'[6] and 'heaviness'[7]. What it means is that the student must achieve these minmum level of skills, they are the 'key to the door' without which all other techniques are beyond reach! Even if the teacher were to give personal instruction, even 'direct transmission' will fail, because the student will not be able to pick it up. How many TCKF students you know off have achieved even this key?

Also, speaking from WuZu perspective, a lot of these techniques require the 'internal' skills to be developed, to complement the external techniques skills, to make these methods effective. Some techniques may work with purely external/physical means but their effectiveness is reduced, ie: against a larger/heavier opponent etc.. and these result in the longer 'learning' time.

And this leads to the 4th point, most students have not mastered their techniques, and hence not been able to apply it! This also relates to the fact that fighting for your life and fighting in competitions are 2 very different thing - shall not elaborate too much on this, as its well discussed. Basically, what this means is that drilling a technique in a dojo, with partners that are consistent and not out to harm you is very different when facing an unpredictable and unfreindly opponent.

Another way to look at this due to the long learning curves of mastering the techniques, by the time the student has mastered it, they have lost the inclination for 'sport' fighting. Meaning, most of the fights you see on YouTube are adolescents teens or 20-30 somethings, they may be too young to have nastered the techniques.

Also TKFC techniques are severely hampered by use of gloves, and competition rule; well argued for here; <http://www.lingnamsiulum.com/philosophy.htm>
[8]

footnotes: (the forum allows max 10,000 chras. posting footnotes as a separate post
Traditional techniques can be used in combat-2 footnotes

boh
09-04-2007, 01:37 PM
this are footnotes for my prev article: Traditional techniques can be used in combat 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[0] How do I know TCKF techniques can be used..?
Firstly, we were inspird by our late Grandmaster Chee Kim Thong. He was a battle hardened master that had a reputation in Fujian, southern China, had combat expriance against the Japanese (swords vs rifles) during WW2. I was one of those that were privilaged to have seen him use these techniques, quite a few times, against challengers who are profficient fighters in various arts (Karate, Tae Kwan Do, Muay Thai and various Kung Fu styles). Some of these challengers, some were Caucasians, Afros and although physical much larger than him, he stopped them without serious injury. Some of these joined our school after.

Since his demise, some of us senior students have also done a lot of R&D based on his teachings and discovered much new things. As they say, in TCKF you never finish learning. I have been personally testing out these techniques and I'm satisfied that they can work.

Also GM Cheee is succeded by his sons, one of which is based in Sydney, Aus. who has a very strong school/club producing many newer generation students that are very strong, and can apply such techniques.


[1] ...extracting fighting applications form the form
The form is a encapsulation (or packaging) of techniques that make up the
essence and knowledge of a particular TCKF style/school. Thus embedded in the forms are fighting & defence techniques, perhaps movements that stretch & condition muscles and tendons, techniques together with breathing that develop and promote flow of Qi. Having a form makes it easier to 'hand down' the art form in-tact, it forms a sort of syllabus, a closure/goal to a stage of teching (ie: complete form no.3 and you are an intermmediate student..)

Thus a TCKF form, is like literature or poetry, if a practioner has sufficient knowledge and experiance, he can 'read' the form and extract many 'intepretations'. What this means, is that just one movement, in the form can be applied in many ways, against hand attacks, against kicks, be used as a defense, an attack or even a lock. It can be varied by changing certain angles, using it higher or lower etc...

Then its a matter of extracting the stoke, 'discovering' its uses and nuances, and drilling it until it becomes 2nd nature... easier said than done.

note: the above concepts which I fully accept was first expounded in KB Frantzis book, 'The Power of Internal Martial Arts' and also mentioned somewhere in Michael Manganiello's excellent site <http://www.lingnamsiulum.com/>

[2] Forms get 'changed' for various reasons over time. Often, it could be
because the master that inherited the form did not understand its full implications, and wanted to 'simplify' it, or he/she added movements that they favoured and removed movements they disliked.
In modern times, its often marketing reasons, some TKFC forms have been 'prettied up' made to look more attractive to prospective students, with wide, long, 'more graceful' movements and high kicks. The Southern Shao Lin styles are charcterised by their short-tight movements, the few kicks if any are low. Hardly appealing to the average adrenalin, media hyped male teenager (West or East, does'nt matter as TV is now so prevalent).

Even other martial-artist not familiar with Southern Shaolin styles consider it ugly. This also explains the popularity WuShu over TKFC (..lets not ge into the misconception that it is Kung Fu!).

[3] Syllabuses and grading!
This is a modern construct inevented by the Japanese to promote their martial arts, and it has been very successful indeed. This is good for developing qunatity but not quality. One of the failings I see is if I'm not wrong, even in Karate, you only get to learn the advanced stuff ('San Chan' form?) after you got your Black Belt 2nd or 3rd Dan. But a 1st Dan Black Belt can be leading a class.


[4] Direct transmission
This was an important factor for learning and teaching efefctiveness in the old days, where the master was one-to-one with the student. This could explain why students could acquire high levels of skills within duration of a matter of 3-5 years.

I feel this is sorely lacking nowadays, either because these teachers are themselves not up to the level, or where masters 'cannot afford' to teach students one-on-one, beacuse they charge 1,000 for a 2 days Qi-qung seminar!.

[5] Huge Gap in skill levels
I think this applies more so in the styles that have an 'Internal', Qi, component. You may master the physical part of the technique, but without the Internal contribuition, its effectiveness is greatly reduced. Hence a student tries it out, it does'nt work, goes back to basic kicks and swings.

[6] 'listening'
This refers to the ability to 'sense' and predict an apponents movements and techniques once there is physical hand-to-hand contact (h2h). This helps in learning , if a student knows how to 'listen', he will be able to feel the subtlety of forces and angles used to execute a movements, when performed by the teacher/master, and hence br able to try to replicate it.

At a higher level, 'listening' can also be used to to sense not only physical movement but movement of Qi.

Listening skills are not confined to hard or soft styles, but commeon to styles that practice h2h drills and exercises. e.g. 'Chi Sao' (Wing Chun) or 'Push Hands', Tai Ji, 'rou shou' BaGua.

[7] 'heaviness'
Refers to developing and channeling power to the hands/arms when engaging an opponent. This can be used in both attacking and defensive applications. When used defensively, usually in 'power-blocks', it not only diverts the opponents attack, but can also be used to attack the attacking arm, causing pain/breakage and thus disarm him, or unbalance the opponent to setup a counter attack.

Used aggresively, heaviness allows the attacking arms to powers-through the opponents defenses to reach its target, like a battering-ram; or used with more finesse, like a armour piercing shell with pinpoint accuracy.

I suppose this is related to the concept 'Chum Kiu' (sinking the bridge) in Wing Chun.

[8] Wu Lin competitions
This is an interesting development in competitions, especially for traditional kung fu practitioners. These are a competition and rules that favour TCKF. It was initiated by the Southern Shaolin WuZu Federation (Nan Shoa Lin) based out of Fujian province in China. They have links internationally with quite a few TCKF schools.

The last round 2007 has been broadcast on national TV in China, CCTV, and they are planning a more ambituous event for 2008.

Its full-contact, based on WuShu SanTa rules, but the big difference is there are no gloves! All hand strikes, kicks, locks, throws are allowed, They have body pprotection, no headgear, but strikes to head, groin back? are not allowed. Not perfect but much better than most other comps I know.

冠木侍
12-22-2007, 07:43 PM
I too have noticed that the moves and techniques learned in the class seem to "go out the window" when people spar. Common techniques like the basic "jab" and "cross" used in boxing and kickboxing are utilized and the traditional moves are non-existent. So, if it weren't for the uniform or school emblem (whatever is used to differentiate styles), we would not be able to accurately discern the fighting style that the combatants are trained in.

Seems like we only get to see such fights in the movies.

But there are ways to apply such things as "cross stances" and "fan blocks" into sparring or point fighting. It just takes timing and practice.

BUK SING
01-21-2008, 04:50 AM
wat about kung fu how many other styles have a basic fist as a panther fist, snake fist, phonix eye fist, crane fist or tiger claw

jdhowland
01-21-2008, 01:20 PM
FNG-Nice post, for the most part, as it talks specifically of attitude in training. However there is one point on which I feel I must comment, and that is the misuse of the term ,"Martial Art," in which you are not alone.
Chinese use the term Martial Art (Mo-Nieye) which is distinguished from Martial Skill (Mo-Suht) as it pertains to a level of development that is beyond mere skill. It is a level where the person expresses the technique, whether it is boxing,painting,music,etc, through himself, and himself through it. It becomes a part of him. It is no less combative, or reality-based than anything else.
Westerners have taken this term and created a different interpetation, which is to mean a focusing on the performance aspect,rather than the combative.
I understand the motive, however, it is based on a false assumption.

Nice post. But it seems to imply that the term "martial art" is a translation of a Chinese concept. The phrase "martial art" was, as far as we know, first used in English in the writings of old Geoff Chaucer, so it obviously derives from Norman French. In the social context of that time and place "martial art" was any systematized study that supported the knights or military aristocracy.

SteveLau
01-30-2008, 07:16 PM
Mark Manganiello,


Yep, this happens quite often in sparring or real fight. There are a number of reasons for such phenomenon IMOV:

- These simple moves are very effective, and relatively easy to master and apply.
- The fighters have not mastered sparring skill.
- Their sparring training is not very good.

These factors are somewhat related to each other. For example, if one’s sparring skill is not up to expert level, then he will instinctively resort to use simple moves in fighting or whatever tools he is able to use effectively.

The third point I mention above correlates to what other members have said. If the training emphasizes little on combat, then the student is unlikely to develop good combat skill. As I have mentioned before, a student will not become a master if his training does not include sparring.


Regards,

Kc
Hong Kong

SteveLau
01-30-2008, 07:24 PM
With respect to the attitude towards MA training, not every one agrees on the meaning of the names of the activity they are doing. Even they are of Chinese origin. I am of Chinese origin, but my mentality is universal. I mean I believe the world is One. My words here are a reply to the mention of training attitude and also its goal. That has a lot to do with my previous post - why some students include or do not include sparring exercise in their training by intention.



Regards

KC
Hong Kong