Military styles question

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

How many here feel that labling an art a "Military" style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?

Or does it make more sense to you that the majority of it's techniques are actually weapons techniques, and not empty hand?

[unkokusai]

How many people think you shouldn't take an argument you are losing over at Dragonslist and try to repost it here in the hopes of a more satisfying outcome?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

How many people think I am doing this because the people on KFM are more educated in the arts than the wannabs on Dragon's List, and would provide a much more stimulating conversation?

Try linking to the original topic tooo...Bright boy!

[unkokusai]

How many people think I am doing this because the people on KFM are more educated in the arts than the wannabs on Dragon's List, and would provide a much more stimulating conversation?



No one. Your problem where you originally posted this desperate plea for affirmation is that there were too many people with real knowledge, experience, and sense to see through your little drama.

How many other sites are you gonna hit in your futile attempt at saving your wounded pride?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Go **** Yourself

[unkokusai]

That answers that!

[Takuan]

Military weapon techniques eh?

Like Gun Fu? :P

Also note that I have no idea what Dragonslist is, so I'm glad that RD posted this here :)

[Shaolin Wookie]

How many here feel that labling an art a "Military" style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?

Or does it make more sense to you that the majority of it's techniques are actually weapons techniques, and not empty hand?

The latter makes more sense to me. I think it's parallel would be between Krabi Krabong and Muay Thai/Boran. The art begins as Krabi Krabong, which is basically broadsword fighting, and ends as Muay Thai/Boran when the swordsman gets disarmed and uses empty hands.

The only difference is, Krabi Krabong is still taught as a combat art, only with sticks; and Muay Thai/Boran involves regular heavy-contact.

Although, when I hear "military art" in CMA, I tend to get skeptical. For instance, RD, I think Ancestor's Fist is a fantastic art. But I wouldn't necessarily consider it "military", b/c the military has changed so much in the last, oh, 1,000 years that it's techniques are rendered obsolete in a military setting.

But unlike Unkokusai, I don't think they're useless and a waste of time.

[golden arhat]

i suppose it depends

i mean a military style could be more weapons based

but the chines have a long tradition of hero and ancestor worship

so say a style is created by a famous general

alot of the empty handed forms could have stuff in them which is purely to honour that person
style for styles sake


alot like that move in shaolin u know the one in every issue of kfm where its a monk standing on one leg the other held up still bent the left arm resting on it also bent and in a fist and the other hand held above as if holding a trident or something

doesnt have much practical application but its still there to honour one hero or another

[golden arhat]

The latter makes more sense to me. I think it's parallel would be between Krabi Krabong and Muay Thai/Boran. The art begins as Krabi Krabong, which is basically broadsword fighting, and ends as Muay Thai/Boran when the swordsman gets disarmed and uses empty hands.

The only difference is, Krabi Krabong is still taught as a combat art, only with sticks; and Muay Thai/Boran involves regular heavy-contact.

Although, when I hear "military art" in CMA, I tend to get skeptical. For instance, RD, I think Ancestor's Fist is a fantastic art. But I wouldn't necessarily consider it "military", b/c the military has changed so much in the last, oh, 1,000 years that it's techniques are rendered obsolete in a military setting.

But unlike Unkokusai, I don't think they're useless and a waste of time.



it isnt taught with sticks

still a cool art

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XSp***0vajY

[Mano Mano]

Originally Posted by RD'S Alias - 1A
How many here feel that labling an art a "Military" style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?

Or does it make more sense to you that the majority of it's techniques are actually weapons techniques, and not empty hand?

I’m glad you posted here as I no longer go on Dragon's List.
Since I’ve been doing Eskrima, I feel that learning weapons first has been beneficial to my timing & distance so I would go with the second one

For instance introducing weapons early on in training such as such as dan dao, dagger as soon as some one have learned their stances & footwork would be more beneficial as long as the teacher knows how to use the weaons...

For instance because the use of weapons & armour it makes perfect sense that chin na & shuai jiao were preferred techniques used by the Chinese armies for empty hand combat.

[RonH]

How many here feel that labling an art a "Military" style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?

This is a ridiculous stance. Anyone that does has an incomplete understanding of the requirements of not only the battlefield, but also getting people battlefield ready in a short amount of time, as well as the possible resources soldiers carry or can use from their environment.


Or does it make more sense to you that the majority of it's techniques are actually weapons techniques, and not empty hand?

A large part of 'military styles' should be weapons because soldiers are likely to go into the field with some kind of weapon that's specifically designed as a weapon. A gun, a blade. Some styles teach people to use any object as a weapon, even if it isn't specifically designed as one. A mini mag flashlight can be used as a very short stick for stick fighting, for instance.

If you are stuck in the field for an extended period of time, you'll run out of ammo, but still have your weapon. A machine gun can be used as a spear/bo staff. A sidearm can be used as a club/sledgehammer like weapon. If there's body armor plates on the arms or legs, your arms or legs can be used as clubs, too. Use your helmet as a club or keep it on for headbutts. If the soldier is issued steel toed boots, those are a weapon, too, in the field, like a mini club on your feet.

Against others in the field that are likely to have body armor on, it's better to have a weapon than not and to use it than opting for an empty handed technique, when considering you are trying to field people that normally don't have any kind of martial art or weapons training beforehand. Those that do are an added bonus, but they aren't always the norm.

[golden arhat]

This is a ridiculous stance. Anyone that does has an incomplete understanding of the requirements of not only the battlefield, but also getting people battlefield ready in a short amount of time, as well as the possible resources soldiers carry or can use from their environment.



A large part of 'military styles' should be weapons because soldiers are likely to go into the field with some kind of weapon that's specifically designed as a weapon. A gun, a blade. Some styles teach people to use any object as a weapon, even if it isn't specifically designed as one. A mini mag flashlight can be used as a very short stick for stick fighting, for instance.

If you are stuck in the field for an extended period of time, you'll run out of ammo, but still have your weapon. A machine gun can be used as a spear/bo staff. A sidearm can be used as a club/sledgehammer like weapon. If there's body armor plates on the arms or legs, your arms or legs can be used as clubs, too. Use your helmet as a club or keep it on for headbutts. If the soldier is issued steel toed boots, those are a weapon, too, in the field, like a mini club on your feet.

Against others in the field that are likely to have body armor on, it's better to have a weapon than not and to use it than opting for an empty handed technique, when considering you are trying to field people that normally don't have any kind of martial art or weapons training beforehand. Those that do are an added bonus, but they aren't always the norm.

alot of what are called military styles

are not in fact military styles

they are simply created by people in the military

for instance xingyi quan -general yue fei

sunbin quan -general sun bin (tho it may be just based on the principles of his book sun bin bing fa)

etc etc

what i term as a miltary style would bhe stuff like

krav maga, kenjutsu, krabi krabong, muay boran, naginatajutsu

[B-Rad]

How many here feel that labling an art a "Military" style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?
I don't think I've ever seen that... I know some who might laugh at certain styles being labeled military styles, when they clearly aren't though. A lot of people seem to like to label there stuff "military" when it hasn't had anything to do with the military for a couple hundred years, or its connections to the military are through an ancient semi-mythical patron.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

When I was thinking military styles I was originally thinking ancient Chinese stuff, but bringing in the modern was a good idea, especially those that practice them.

I know in ancient China like the beginning of the Sung dynasty forms were kind of a new thing, and I don't think they were too common outside of Shaolin. I know that the few sets that are from China's Military back then seem to be a mix of weapon, and empty hand techniques in one form. I think later they sort of seperated into either emptyhand, or Weapons sets. What I am wondering is if they are ALL weapons sets, and some have additional empty hand techniques in them? that would make more sense to me, as empty hand skills (although needed) would be secondary to weapons.


How many here feel that labling an art a "Military" style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?

This is a ridiculous stance. Anyone that does has an incomplete understanding of the requirements of not only the battlefield, but also getting people battlefield ready in a short amount of time, as well as the possible resources soldiers carry or can use from their environment.

Reply]
This is the stance the Dragon's list people have. They are making fun of me becasue I say the Military stuff would have a lot of weapons techniques, and what they are deming "Fluff" are actually weapons techniques being done without the weapon in hand so they have no obvious empty hand application.

[B-Rad]

This is the stance the Dragon's list people have. They are making fun of me becasue I say the Military stuff would have a lot of weapons techniques, and what they are deming "Fluff" are actually weapons techniques being done without the weapon in hand so they have no obvious empty hand application.
Got any examples?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

alot of what are called military styles

are not in fact military styles

they are simply created by people in the military

for instance xingyi quan -general yue fei

sunbin quan -general sun bin (tho it may be just based on the principles of his book sun bin bing fa)

etc etc

what i term as a miltary style would bhe stuff like

krav maga, kenjutsu, krabi krabong, muay boran, naginatajutsu

Reply]
I think this is also a valid point. A lot of what is now refered to as military styles are really just Village Long Fist. They may have started out as military styles, but they are not so any longer.

Also, when I refer to military styles, or Body Guard styles, I mean arts that were actually used in the military. Not just developed by a General. My style is an example.

There are to major branches. Most people consider the Tai Tzu Hong Quan to have come from the military, and if you look at it it's built on common military styles of the time, like Tong Bei, Cha Fist CuoJiao etc.. Tai Tzu *Chang* Chuan on the other hand was the Emperor's personal fighting style. Yes, he ovbiously developed it during his time as a Military General, and it is also built on the military arts of the time, but I doubt anyone outside of his closest people knew it, so it's not really a military art. The Hong was wide spread, along with all the other various arts the military did at the time.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

How many here feel that labling an art a "Military" style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?

I don't think I've ever seen that... I know some who might laugh at certain styles being labeled military styles, when they clearly aren't though. A lot of people seem to like to label there stuff "military" when it hasn't had anything to do with the military for a couple hundred years, or its connections to the military are through an ancient semi-mythical patron.

Reply]
The knobs over at Dragon's list are doing just that, especially one in particular. Then they say there is something wrong with me for not believing what they say and holding the position that I hold. The whole conversation just got Childish and infantile, so I brought it over here to discuss with people who actually know what they are talking about.

[unkokusai]

Ok, royal******* is completely misrepresenting the brief exchange he had over on Dragonslist before running over here to cry about it. It was not really about actual military training, technique, or weapons at all in the way that most would expect upon hearing the topic. What happened was that he started to go down the "my art is cool because the super duper secret body gaurds of emperor Flintstone II used it about, about a million years ago, and, and, they had the nine foot dragon's tongue halberd that could cut down 100 men in a single blow, and..."

That sort of thing, and someone simply called him on it and he got all misty and had to run and tell y'all about it.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

COLOR="Red"]alot like that move in shaolin u know the one in every issue of kfm where its a monk standing on one leg the other held up still bent the left arm resting on it also bent and in a fist and the other hand held above as if holding a trident or something[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Reply]
I allways thought that was wrapping a guys head in your arms and pulling them into a knee strike. Like if you came at him from behind and started a head lock, but instead pulled him backwards so his spine went into your knee. The raised hand is chambered for a followup strike to the face.

[unkokusai]

[
The knobs over at Dragon's list are doing just that, especially one in particular. Then they say there is something wrong with me for not believing what they say and holding the position that I hold. The whole conversation just got Childish and infantile, so I brought it over here to discuss with people who actually know what they are talking about.




Wrong, wrong, wrong. Anyone can go over to Dragonslist and see that it is one of the most carefully moderated forums around for providing everyone a chance to say their piece in peace. The fact that RDumb here considers this site a safe haven for spinning yarns and historical role-play where he can hide and never be questioned should give all serious MAs here pause.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Ok, royal******* is completely misrepresenting the brief exchange he had over on Dragonslist before running over here to cry about it. It was not really about actual military training, technique, or weapons at all in the way that most would expect upon hearing the topic. What happened was that he started to go down the "my art is cool because the super duper secret body gaurds of emperor Flintstone II used it about, about a million years ago, and, and, they had the nine foot dragon's tongue halberd that could cut down 100 men in a single blow, and..."

That sort of thing, and someone simply called him on it and he got all misty and had to run and tell y'all about it.

Reply]
Um No, that is not at all what happened. I was making the same points there as I am here. I never once said anything about military arts being greater than other arts. I said what those guys considered fluff was just techniques they did not understand and were never taught the actual use for. A lot of said techniques were probably WEAPONS techniques, and are just being done empty handed in the form.

All you Dragonslist people started attacking me for not having the same uneducated view as you do, which I found laughable because you are all wrong, so I came over here where I could discuss this with educated and experience individuals who aren't trained by watching Narito.

Then you came over here and attacked me and accused me of just looking for affirmation becasue I was "Losing" the argument over there....which is another Bull**** premis you made up out of thin air on your own.

So, Like I said before Go **** Yourself....and that goes for all those infantile idiots over at DL as well.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Anyone can go over to Dragonslist and see that it is one of the most carefully moderated forums around for providing everyone a chance to say their piece in peace. The fact that RDumb here considers this site a safe haven for spinning yarns and historical role-play where he can hide and never be questioned should give all serious MAs here pause.

Reply]
Nope, sorry, the people here on KFM are far more educated and experienced and would take me to task faster....and with real substantial arguments at that.


So again, Go **** Yourself and stop interrupting us and the discussion with your tantrum.

[unkokusai]

I saw the whole tihng. You were just too weak to actually defend your position so you ran away over here were you could wallow in numbing affirmation rather than stand behind an argument you were losing badly.

Like I said, anyone can go over there and see for themselves.

[B-Rad]

alot of what are called military styles

are not in fact military styles

they are simply created by people in the military

for instance xingyi quan -general yue fei
I believe xingyi quan is one instance of a style that WAS used in the military, even fairly recently in the 20th century. There's xingyi quan military training manuals and even xingyi bayonet techniques. :)

[unkokusai]

[
Nope, sorry, the people here on KFM are far more educated and experienced .



Than you? No question. More importantly, you feel safe hiding here because you've been here so long and can hide behind folks who will put up with whatever you say.

In any case, its completely obvious for anyone who bothers to read it that you were hopelessly losing an argument there so you came here to try again.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Un Stupid, I did not run, I RESTARTED the thread after it got locked. That too degraded into stupid mocking of what is really sheer commonsense.

Those people are juvenile, and infantile and want to believe everything is like whatever propaganda machine they come from.

Now, again, stop derailing the discussion.

[Vash]

COLOR="Red"]alot like that move in shaolin u know the one in every issue of kfm where its a monk standing on one leg the other held up still bent the left arm resting on it also bent and in a fist and the other hand held above as if holding a trident or something[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Reply]
I allways thought that was wrapping a guys head in your arms and pulling them into a knee strike. Like if you came at him from behind and started a head lock, but instead pulled him backwards so his spine went into your knee. The raised hand is chambered for a followup strike to the face.

The power of Christ compels you to use the "Qoute" Button.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Than you? No question. More importantly, you feel safe hiding here because you've been here so long and can hide behind folks who will put up with whatever you say.

Reply]
LOL!! Um people here are just as likely to tell me I am wrong as anywhere...maybe even faster becasue they all know I should know better.


In any case, its completely obvious for anyone who bothers to read it that you were hopelessly losing an argument there so you came here to try again.

Reply]
Yet you don't post links the the discussions.....hmmm, I wonder why?

Now go back and complain over there, I grow tired of your colliky presentation.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

When I first started this Internet thing, Quote buttons did not exist.

I believe xingyi quan is one instance of a style that WAS used in the military, even fairly recently in the 20th century. There's xingyi quan military training manuals and even xingyi bayonet techniques.

Reply]
Yeah, I heard that. So if it wasn't a Military style then, it is now.

[unkokusai]

Un Stupid, I did not run, I RESTARTED the thread after it got locked..


The thread was closed in large part because of you and your attitude. You were then allowed for some reason to restart the same **** topic and proceeded to steer it into the same hole as the first one.




http://www.dragonslist.com/discussion/battlefront/20232-flowery-fists-far-eye-can-see-ii.html



http://www.dragonslist.com/discussion/battlefront/20233-bodyguard-system-always-equals-strong-combata-not.html

[unkokusai]

When I first started this Internet thing, Quote buttons did not exist.




And you are just too stupid to use it now?

[RonH]

alot of what are called military styles

are not in fact military styles

they are simply created by people in the military

for instance xingyi quan -general yue fei

sunbin quan -general sun bin (tho it may be just based on the principles of his book sun bin bing fa)

etc etc

what i term as a miltary style would bhe stuff like

krav maga, kenjutsu, krabi krabong, muay boran, naginatajutsu

This goes back to what I was talking about in the multiple attackers thread. The military style may not actually be used by a military, but it does have a certain 'flare', a feeling. A philosophy, characteristic of what 'could' be used by a military. How it's taught also probably has methodologies as those or similar to those used by people that are or have been in the military. Overall, it's like the style is trying to make people without any armed or unarmed experience battlefield ready in as short amount a time as possible. This includes farmers and other civilians using the farming tools that have to fight invaders. Learning how to run through and use very tall grasses and mud to their advantage, for instance.


Reply]
This is the stance the Dragon's list people have. They are making fun of me becasue I say the Military stuff would have a lot of weapons techniques, and what they are deming "Fluff" are actually weapons techniques being done without the weapon in hand so they have no obvious empty hand application.

That they deem as fluff, as well as the conclusion they draw from it, is utter idiocy and flies in the face of deductive reasoning and all that is logical. Empty hand technique is specifically that. Empty handed. Whether the empty hand beig used is using an armed application/methodology is irrelevent. A thrust to the throat with a spear or with the middle and forefinger together as one is still a thrust. Most power still comes from the hips, legs and feet working together, as they propel the instrument into the soft tissue where blood likes to congregate.

[RonH]

The 'Body guard system...' thread is not at issue, so it is worthless for this discussion. Being able to use weapons that are guns and not guns, while able to perform empty handed techniques and have the ability to exert control over a situation and not just brawl, so the client is gotten to safety is a no brainer.

Flowery fist 2 had fallacious logic, making appeals to self-authority and the authority of others. Flowery fist 1, the opening post's author, in response to post number 3, did talk of fluff in specific martial arts subgroups, as RD said. He also spoke of how styles get what some would call fluff. Who adds what, the originator or future students? That is what the initial topic was about. In RD's first post in the thread, #6, he explains that what he initially thought was fluff in his style, he says is bad a$$. I don't know what his style is, so I can't be sure which parts he's talking about, but it isn't uncommon for the uninitiated to view something as fluff, where someone that has taken the time to understand the art and how and why a move is used to know why it is far from fluff.

That bit about martial arts not being about reality, but comfort is totally stupid. The kung fu bunnies thing was funny. Also, RD, I think that stance of your style in your avatar can just as easily be learned after getting good with ballet. So, pfffbbbtt! :p ;) j/k

Flowery fist 1 also had a bunch of fallcious logic arguments, much like the ones that cropped up in the multiple attackers thread.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

In RD's first post in the thread, #6, he explains that what he initially thought was fluff in his style, he says is bad a$$. I don't know what his style is, so I can't be sure which parts he's talking about, but it isn't uncommon for the uninitiated to view something as fluff, where someone that has taken the time to understand the art and how and why a move is used to know why it is far from fluff.

Reply]
I do Tai Tzu Chang Chuan/ Hong Chuan. It's old Long Fist.

Thank you for actually seeing my point. Somehow they missed it and decided to lynch me when they did not comprehend instead.

I can't tell you how many times I found a real use for what I *Thought* was fluff. The more I learn about my art, the more I see it's all straight forward usable techniques, and what I originally thought was fluff were really takedowns, joint locks, or devastating finishing moves. Either that, or you see the same moves in the weapon sets, and then it all makes sense what the move is for....so again it is not just fluff. It's just not understood.

Once you understand that you start to see even so called *Empty hand* sets are full of weapons techniques.

[RonH]

Rational thought is good for the mind. It releases so many hinderences.

[RonH]

...,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Rational thought is good for the mind. It releases so many hinderences.


Reply]
Shh, don't speak so loud, lets just keep that as our little secret. :p

[RonH]

They didn't want to believe me in the other thread. There's no reason they're believing it now.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Which other thread? The DL one? or one here?

[golden arhat]

Which other thread? The DL one? or one here?

he's talking about the multiple attackers thread

where he said that going limp helps when getting elbowed in the face

which is pretty far from rational IMHO

[RonH]

Which other thread? The DL one? or one here?

The multiple attackers one. The one where they ignore my repeated statements that I had only said part of what I would do, but they take only that one part, excise the specifics and hold it up, as if that was the totality of what I said. None of them were interested in listening to the totality of my way. The thread is full of fallcious arguments and nosesnse from the other side.

[golden arhat]

The multiple attackers one. The one where they ignore my repeated statements that I had only said part of what I would do, but they take only that one part, excise the specifics and hold it up, as if that was the totality of what I said. None of them were interested in listening to the totality of my way. The thread is full of fallcious arguments and nosesnse from the other side.

dont mock us please oh lord
spare us

royal dragon can read it at his leasure

[unkokusai]

Un Stupid, I did not run, I RESTARTED the thread after it got locked. That too degraded into stupid mocking of what is really sheer commonsense.


The first thread got locked because of you and the next one became just as ridiculous again because of you! You couldn't get what you wanted so you ran over here to cry about it.

[unkokusai]

This goes back to what I was talking about in the multiple attackers thread. The military style may not actually be used by a military, but it does have a certain 'flare', a feeling. A philosophy, characteristic of what 'could' be used by a military.

*ahem*.....................................

[unkokusai]

[ Somehow they missed it and decided to lynch me when they did not comprehend instead.


Its your ego that makes you want to believe that not agreeing with you means "did not comprehend"

[Mr Punch]

This is a ridiculous stance. Anyone that does has an incomplete understanding of the requirements of not only the battlefield, but also getting people battlefield ready in a short amount of time, as well as the possible resources soldiers carry or can use from their environment.Nah, it's not a ridiculous stance. Krav Maga, and hybrid CQB styles that take a mix of aikido restraint techs, basic judo kuzushi and throws, BJJ for getting up/quick finishes on the ground, Thai/Chun/kickboxing for basic punch/kick combos, Kali for knifework and various unarmed strategies... that would be valid for the reuqirements of 'the battlefield'. Xing Yi may have been a valid battelfield art 1000 years ago, as might various spear arts and whatever, but now, no. In a similar way to the way that people's knowledge of and access to good SD methods and strategies have changed since the first suffragettes took up JJ, battlefield techs have changed.

And while of course you can use anything as a weapon, unless you practice with that thing in a realistic manner (inc all the mental side like stress training/animal day type stuff) it's irrelevant. Conversely, of course most training that would be useful if your assault rifle is knocked out of your hands in a small room with two insurgents in it would be useful in any SD situation, it doesn't follow that that is automatically a 'battlefield situation' per se. Battlefield situations are snipers, suicide bombers, checkpoints, covering fire, IEDs etc: the average GI doesn't have time, nor does the Army have time money or resources to train everyone in hours of H2H combat stuff.


A machine gun can be used as a spear/bo staff. A sidearm can be used as a club/sledgehammer like weapon. No, a machinegun could be used as a club: are you really suggesting that a machinegun would be useful used like a bo/spear? And therefore, by extension that learning bo/spear arts would be more useful than any basic three hours of repetitive intensive training that might actually involve evasion and using the butt-end of a rifle as a club?

I've used classical jo and bo skills in very light contact free sparring many times. Worked fine. I've also used them in full contact free sparring with foam sticks (still packed a wallop enough to KO, but nothing fatal): got the **** beaten out of me. Sure, you can say I'm no good at classical stick if you like! But my experience against an untrained guy using basic aggression and what would be roughly equivalent to standard oldskool quarterstaff (lots of short range stuff, both ends, baseball bat kind of swings though both ended kind of stuff too, and again I'll mention aggression in spades) would lead me to believe that in real life a lot of this stuff is ****, plain and simple.



what i term as a miltary style would bhe stuff like

krav maga, kenjutsu, krabi krabong, muay boran, naginatajutsuThis is my point exactly: look at kenjutsu. The moment kenjutsu left the battlefield and became a dojo discipline it lost most of its bite. There was no danger in the Tokugawa period, so guys who really did learn by practical battlefield experience like Miyamoto Musashi easily cleaned up the dojo 'masters'. So now, while a Katori Shingen Yagyu Ryu master has some really impressive skills, and no doubt, give him a swordfight against say, anyone on this board, and you get diced, put him in Mosul or on backstreet slum, unarmed, anywhere in the world, and he's toast.


I believe xingyi quan is one instance of a style that WAS used in the military, even fairly recently in the 20th century. There's xingyi quan military training manuals and even xingyi bayonet techniques. :)OK, bayonet from spear: there's one practical modern application for an old art. Then take Ueshiba, also a juukendo (bayonet) master, and renowned as 'King of Bayonet' on the battlefield, yet look at what aikido became!


This goes back to what I was talking about in the multiple attackers thread. The military style may not actually be used by a military, but it does have a certain 'flare', a feeling...I suspect that in most real situations that feeling is followed quickly by the feeling of blood trickling out of your face, **** trickling down your leg and a bruises all over your body. You're talking 'military mind' as a discipline? Any aggression training would be more relevant.


Learning how to run through and use very tall grasses and mud to their advantage, for instance.I don't remember these skills being part of Xing Yi, Kenjutsu or Aikido curricula. I've met some Welsh ninja type people :eek: ('Pathfinders') who practised this kind of stuff a lot of always practised outside... but again, it's pretty off the scale of standard kwoon/dojo fare.


Whether the empty hand beig used is using an armed application/methodology is irrelevent. A thrust to the throat with a spear or with the middle and forefinger together as one is still a thrust. Most power still comes from the hips, legs and feet working together, as they propel the instrument into the soft tissue where blood likes to congregate.It's not irrelevant at all. On the contrary if you think using a spear thrust is the same as using a spear-hand thrust I think you're sadly deluded. Sure, the power generation is similar. There the similarity ends. It sounds like you come from some art that overstresses power over and above any of the other factors involved in fighting. The timing, distancing, speed, leverage, lethality, penetration and countless other factors are radically different with a spear from with a spear-hand.

Let's get back to the original question:
How many here feel that labling an art a "Military" style because it descended military automatically means it is full of useless fluff and should be laughed at?No, not automatically. There are probably many useful techs and principles involved, but must we go back to the chant of 'it's how you practice, not what you practice'!?


Or does it make more sense to you that the majority of it's techniques are actually weapons techniques, and not empty hand?Irrelevant... but must we go back to the chant of 'it's how you practice, not what you practice'!?

The question is providing only two fairly pointless and not even mutually exclusive alternatives, plsu a fairly arbitrary classification of 'military arts' in the first place.

[Mr Punch]

Oh for ****s sake, just read a couple of other things and didn't realise that RonH is the village idiot round here... and to think I answered him seriously :mad:

[golden arhat]

The first thread got locked because of you and the next one became just as ridiculous again because of you! You couldn't get what you wanted so you ran over here to cry about it.

see now what seems rediculous to me is not that he brought it here

its that ur acting like he's done something childish

he posted it there it didnt work out so well
so he brought it over here to see what us guys had to say and how our opinions varied etc

whats wrong with that at all?

[cjurakpt]

Oh for ****s sake, just read a couple of other things and didn't realise that RonH is the village idiot round here... and to think I answered him seriously :mad:

you obviously didn't read any of my public service announcements warning against just such activity...

incidenty, it's funny how many people have arrived at that same perspective independently - I think I should start a "realization" quote thread...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Old time (koryu for those that habla bujutsu) military arts have certain things that COULD be useful nowadays, but the vast majority have already been assimilated into modern sport arts.
kenjutsu is, like mentioned before, a fine example of what can happen to a combat art when it becomes a sport, Kendo, BUT the issue was when they changed from a real sword, even the bokken ( or bokuto if you prefer) to a shinai.
You can't handle a sword unless you use a sword.
BUT, most high level Kendoka DO train with real swords too.

Current military H2H systems are fine for their purpose, to instill a "fighting spirit" and some basic survival skills on the battlefield, that are not designed to make anyone into a "fighting machine".

[RonH]

Nah, it's not a ridiculous stance. Krav Maga, and hybrid CQB styles that take a mix of aikido restraint techs, basic judo kuzushi and throws, BJJ for getting up/quick finishes on the ground, Thai/Chun/kickboxing for basic punch/kick combos, Kali for knifework and various unarmed strategies... that would be valid for the reuqirements of 'the battlefield'. Xing Yi may have been a valid battelfield art 1000 years ago, as might various spear arts and whatever, but now, no. In a similar way to the way that people's knowledge of and access to good SD methods and strategies have changed since the first suffragettes took up JJ, battlefield techs have changed.

The problem lies in the blanket statements without trying to learn what the style and the moves are about. The thing is the stance says that, if something is called a 'military style', it must have fluff. This is without any other evidence provided. No demos, no descriptions, no underlying principles. It's a rush to judgement because of unfair treatment. If fluff is found, analysis on what the fluff is and why those that teach it don't feel it's fluff is the next step. This stance does no in depth analysis. That is where logic is thrown out the window.


And while of course you can use anything as a weapon, unless you practice with that thing in a realistic manner (inc all the mental side like stress training/animal day type stuff) it's irrelevant.

Sometimes, it isn't required. Using items as a club is often an instinctive action, which works a lot of the time. The principles of using a club are easily adapted to many situations.


Conversely, of course most training that would be useful if your assault rifle is knocked out of your hands in a small room with two insurgents in it would be useful in any SD situation, it doesn't follow that that is automatically a 'battlefield situation' per se. Battlefield situations are snipers, suicide bombers, checkpoints, covering fire, IEDs etc: the average GI doesn't have time, nor does the Army have time money or resources to train everyone in hours of H2H combat stuff.

Exactly.


No, a machinegun could be used as a club: are you really suggesting that a machinegun would be useful used like a bo/spear? And therefore, by extension that learning bo/spear arts would be more useful than any basic three hours of repetitive intensive training that might actually involve evasion and using the butt-end of a rifle as a club?

Most of the volume of many machine guns are spear/bo staff like in shape. Some have a top handle, there's the trigger/trigger handle, a magazine. That's the only extra parts to make it not spear/bo shaped. The emission end and the shoulder butt can be gripped much like one can with a spear/bo staff. There are, however, other forms. The P90 has the clip laying horizontal and not sticking out of the bottom, its overal length is much shorter than say an M-16. Carbines are shorter, but still have the rifle-like features. Some guns are very blocky for most of their volume, but have a narrow barrel sticking out of the front.

In many cases, when out of ammo, using it as a spear/bo staff can work in close quarters fighting. It's just a lot of the deep stances that you see in forms done with spears/bo staffs usually aren't gonna work, since you're elbow-to-elbow or closer in CQF.

I'm not saying more useful. I'm saying it'd be a good suppliment. Not a replacement.


I've used classical jo and bo skills in very light contact free sparring many times. Worked fine. I've also used them in full contact free sparring with foam sticks (still packed a wallop enough to KO, but nothing fatal): got the **** beaten out of me. Sure, you can say I'm no good at classical stick if you like!

Or you can say that the other guys were just better.


But my experience against an untrained guy using basic aggression and what would be roughly equivalent to standard oldskool quarterstaff (lots of short range stuff, both ends, baseball bat kind of swings though both ended kind of stuff too, and again I'll mention aggression in spades) would lead me to believe that in real life a lot of this stuff is ****, plain and simple.

For an example, if against an opponent in a small room, you're both out of ammo and he decides to drop his gun and pull out a knife. Your forward hand moves from cupping the front end of your rifle to gripping over top and your rear hand grips over top the butt. He thrusts the knife forward, the blade on the thumb end of his hand. You raise your rifle, deflecting his thurst up and pushing his arm away. You bring the rifle back down and towards you, swinging the butt end into his solar plexis.

Whether he has armor there or not doesn't matter. If he doesn't, he's hit. If not, you've at least unbalanced him some. Now, you take your once forward hand and bring it back to the hand on the butt of the rifle. You raise it a little and swing it down and to the outside of one of his knees hard. He goes down and you kick the knife away if you can and pummel him with the rifle, like it was a club.

In this example, the rifle is used like a bo staff and a club.

For an alternative, when he thrusts forward with his knife, you step to the side and push his knife arm the opposite way. Letting your forward hand slid over the top of the rifle, you thrust your back hand forward, using the end of the barrle like a spear and jab hard at his throat, assuming there's no armor there.

He's hurting and you use your rifle like a club in the previous example. That's how you can use it as a spear. There's no slicing happening, unless you have a bayonet on the end, but you do have a hard, metal point for jabbing very soft and sensitive tissue.


I suspect that in most real situations that feeling is followed quickly by the feeling of blood trickling out of your face, **** trickling down your leg and a bruises all over your body. You're talking 'military mind' as a discipline? Any aggression training would be more relevant.

The feeling I was talking about is the way things are done, the underlying mindset of the principles the style uses. When it comes to 'military styles', a 'military mindset'-aggression training is a vaild avenue to study and use. I have no problem with this thinking or this type of training. I've done it myself. I know the benefits of judicial application and control of agression during fighting.


I don't remember these skills being part of Xing Yi, Kenjutsu or Aikido curricula. I've met some Welsh ninja type people :eek: ('Pathfinders') who practised this kind of stuff a lot of always practised outside... but again, it's pretty off the scale of standard kwoon/dojo fare.

Unless you trained in areas where there are tall grasses and mud, it's unlikely that your teachers would have prepared you specifically for such a thing. Government militaries are teaches, though, that will train you for this sort of thing because of the potential assignments in areas with tall grasses and mud, even if there isn't any close by to the training camp.

However, the context I said it in was farmers and civilians using what tools they had on hand to defend themselves, as well as using the terrain around them to help get the upper hand on outside invaders.


It's not irrelevant at all. On the contrary if you think using a spear thrust is the same as using a spear-hand thrust I think you're sadly deluded.

You treat the limb as if it was the weapon itself. That's how saying only weapons forms without any empty hand stuff means there is no empty hand work is bupkis.


Sure, the power generation is similar. There the similarity ends. It sounds like you come from some art that overstresses power over and above any of the other factors involved in fighting. The timing, distancing, speed, leverage, lethality, penetration and countless other factors are radically different with a spear from with a spear-hand.

I come from the art of taijiquan. There are 2 primary subgroups, for lack of a better word. There's the pacifist taijiquan user and the fighter taijiquan user. I come from the latter.


Let's get back to the original question:No, not automatically. There are probably many useful techs and principles involved, but must we go back to the chant of 'it's how you practice, not what you practice'!?

No. If your point is to attack hair by trying to tickle it, it's unlikely that you'll be able to win a fight.


Irrelevant... but must we go back to the chant of 'it's how you practice, not what you practice'!?

No, because it's how you practice with correct applications. Trying to tickle hair isn't gonna do it.


The question is providing only two fairly pointless and not even mutually exclusive alternatives, plsu a fairly arbitrary classification of 'military arts' in the first place.

And the arbitrary classification flies in the face of deductive reasoning and is unfair.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

No, not automatically. There are probably many useful techs and principles involved, but must we go back to the chant of 'it's how you practice, not what you practice'!?

Reply]
I think my point on DL was more along these lines. I'd like to add though that you have to have a teacher who KNOWS what the apps are for, and how they are used in order to practice them correctly.

The blanket statement that any art labled a Military or bodyguard art *Must* be full of fluff is just ignorant. And when you look at an art saying it's mostly fluff, especially if it was a military art or body guard descended, then I think it makes more sense that you have not been taught what those moves are for, or how to apply them, than the moves themselves are just fluff.

I think the problem comes from schools who teach form, after form, after form, and only teach a few apps from each form before moving on.

In the Old days, you were not taught the form persay, but you learned one technique from it, and how to use it realistically. Then you learned the next technique and so on. It could take you a couple of years to learn one form that way, but you would be able to fight with every technique, and you knew what everything is for.

If you have been learning a new form every few months, all you have time for is to just survey some of the uses of some of it's techniques. This means that like 80-90% of your form is non functional *to YOU* because you were never taught the function. This makes it *Appear* to be full of fluff, when it is actually rich on applicable technique.

[Shaolinlueb]

eagle claw was created from a general, but over the time i think it has become what most kung fu has become a performance based thing to preserve a style.

the true military aspect of kung fu i feel has been almost totally lost. very few people still know it.

i mean hand to hand combat has always been the same. punches are punches, kicks are kicks, but there are so many technological advances in military you probably wouldn't even meet in Hand to hand anymore.

[Shaolinlueb]

I think my point on DL was more along these lines. I'd like to add though that you have to have a teacher who KNOWS what the apps are for, and how they are used in order to practice them correctly.


RD

any teacher can deliver applications in a classroom environment. its the guys who can actually use them that are impressive. just cause you know an application doesnt mean you are a lethal killer.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

eagle claw was created from a general, but over the time i think it has become what most kung fu has become a performance based thing to preserve a style.

the true military aspect of kung fu i feel has been almost totally lost. very few people still know it

Reply]
Then the style has also been lost.



any teacher can deliver applications in a classroom environment. its the guys who can actually use them that are impressive. just cause you know an application doesnt mean you are a lethal killer.

Reply]
Not if they don't know them. A forms teacher who does not know the apps can't teach them to his students. THAT is all too common in CMA.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

LOL!! Dragon's List is editing my posts now...

[Shaolinlueb]

[I][COLOR="Red"]
Then the style has also been lost.



just about all of them have been.

[unkokusai]

LOL!! Dragon's List is editing my posts now...

How so? :confused:

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

just about all of them have been.

Reply]
I don't know if I would go that far. I think there are plenty of styles that still produce good fighters. I would like to believe that at least one line of each style still has it.


I know South Mantis guys are tough, as well as many North mantis guys. There are a lot of Bagua Taiji and Hsing I guys who still have the goods.

But there are also lines that are just full of forms fairies who couldn't explain a usable app for anything.

I think that is really what the MMA movement is about. Learning what techniques are workable, and sticking to them. They hold the stuff not understood on the sidelines, or disguard them, not because they are useless, but becasue the use is not known (Which may be one an the same by some perspectives).

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

How so?

Reply]
They deleted part of my post.

[unkokusai]

Really? Which part?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

http://www.dragonslist.com/discussion/308235-post28.html

It should say

Wow, the stupidity of some people here is just mind boggling.....

[unkokusai]

http://www.dragonslist.com/discussion/308235-post28.html

It should say

Wow, the stupidity of some people here is just mind boggling.....



Well gosh, why do you think that might have been taken out? :rolleyes:



Sounds like someone was trying to do you a favor.

[RonH]

I don't see the need to edit posts, even if moderators didn't like what was being said. Leave it all in there for all to see, so there couldn't be accusations of changing with any merit. The evidence can easily be linked to. What it's been changed to isn't even grammatically accurate. 'Is' was in reference to the word 'stupidity', which is singular. Now, 'is' should be 'are' because that word is in reference to 'people', which the excising now makes it look stupid.

[unkokusai]

If he didn't want to look stupid he shouldn't have posted that in the first place.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

These guys just read stuff, jump to thier own conclusions and run with it. They deserve to be called stupid.

If you read up, you will see that he quoted a comment of mine refering to my depth of stance and that you can't get that ability from a video. I made that comment in response to being accused of just watching videos rather than actually learning from real teachers, and putting in real honest hard work at my practice.

I am basically using the pic in my avatar to refute the accusation that I am just a video student, because you simply cannot get that ability from watching tapes. Especially if you note the structural alignment, and the fact that it is right on the money THAT deep, when most people have to cheat and arch their backs to go that low.

The video accusation thing goes back many years, because I was talking about learning a few things from books, and video in the late 90's

Somehow these knobs at Dragon's list seem to think that is the only study I have ever done, and no matter how many times I describe all real world learning I have, from real people, they just disregard it and go back to the video thing to discredit my arguments. It's like talking to a wall over there.

Now that there is a picture that basically proves I HAD to have learned from someone of skill, they twist the comment around to make it seem I *Think* being able to hold that stance automatically means one can fight. I never said that. I was trying to convey that you just cannot get it that good without a skilled teacher, to refute thier video study accusations.

[RonH]

I think it also means you can walk around a house built around the height of a dwarf and not have to get on your knees to do it. :p

[unkokusai]

These guys just read stuff, jump to thier own conclusions and run with it. They deserve to be called stupid.

If you read up, you will see that he quoted a comment of mine refering to my depth of stance and that you can't get that ability from a video. I made that comment in response to being accused of just watching videos rather than actually learning from real teachers, and putting in real honest hard work at my practice.

I am basically using the pic in my avatar to refute the accusation that I am just a video student, because you simply cannot get that ability from watching tapes. Especially if you note the structural alignment, and the fact that it is right on the money THAT deep, when most people have to cheat and arch their backs to go that low.

The video accusation thing goes back many years, because I was talking about learning a few things from books, and video in the late 90's

Somehow these knobs at Dragon's list seem to think that is the only study I have ever done, and no matter how many times I describe all real world learning I have, from real people, they just disregard it and go back to the video thing to discredit my arguments. It's like talking to a wall over there.

Now that there is a picture that basically proves I HAD to have learned from someone of skill, they twist the comment around to make it seem I *Think* being able to hold that stance automatically means one can fight. I never said that. I was trying to convey that you just cannot get it that good without a skilled teacher, to refute thier video study accusations.


Again, you are HERE crying about this because you failed to make your case over there. Pretty lame to run away and try and save face over here where you feel more 'protected.'

Oh and you might want to give the "This tiny picture of me in a pose proves my great skill!" thing a rest. Its not workin' for ya.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Lol!!!!!! :d

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Well, it's clear to see you are a definite Dragonslist idiot.

if you read, I am saying it is proof I have learned form real teachers, becasue someone who learns form a video cannot get it that good, especially not that good AND that low at the same time.

It has nothing to do with my mad skills.

Also, Moron, I am not crying, I am trying to answer you.

[unkokusai]

First of all, the whole reason you started this thread was because you were crying like a little ***** because you couldn't defend yourself over there.

Second, one still photograph is "proof" of absolutely nothing. In any case, YOU seem more hung up on your 'video learning' experience than anyone over there was.

[golden arhat]

Again, you are HERE crying about this because you failed to make your case over there. Pretty lame to run away and try and save face over here where you feel more 'protected.'

Oh and you might want to give the "This tiny picture of me in a pose proves my great skill!" thing a rest. Its not workin' for ya.

he's not whining about it

all he's doing is seeing what people over here think
thats not wrong

and he answers ur fukin questions and u just twist it to serve ur own ends

seriously

dont u realise that no one likes you or respects any of the opinions u put forth assuming u actually bother to do that when u take time off from harassing ppl

[RonH]

if you read, I am saying it is proof I have learned form real teachers, becasue someone who learns form a video cannot get it that good, especially not that good AND that low at the same time.

Robots could. What comes to mind is the Terminator. You are one, aren't you? Just admit it. :D

[unkokusai]

dont u realise that no one likes you or respects any of the opinions u put forth assuming u actually bother to do that when u take time off from harassing ppl



Oh no! Don't hurt my feelings!

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Second, one still photograph is "proof" of absolutely nothing. In any case, YOU seem more hung up on your 'video learning' experience than anyone over there was.


Actually it proves a lot. Look at the body structure, and the alignment. It's obvious I had to have had a good teacher just to know to do it like that. Also, it is clear that I have to have trained really hard for a long time just to be able to DO that stance correctly. Most people just cheat and arch thier backs because they cant do it right.

And lastly, Only the Dragonlist dweebs keep bringing that whole thing up. No one here ever cares, and I don't think enough of it to bring it up myself. It hasn't been discussed here (my primary home btw) in so many years I can't even remember anymore. It's only the idiots at DL that have some sort of obsession with it.

The funny part is I bet every one of those guys owns a book, or video of some sort, and I am sure more than one of them has worked a form out from book or video at some point.

I think thier obsession with it has more to do with their own insecurities. Maybe thier teachers suck, and they can't do a deep cat stance that good so they feel some sort of twisted need to shoot me down over it?

[unkokusai]

Second, one still photograph is "proof" of absolutely nothing. In any case, YOU seem more hung up on your 'video learning' experience than anyone over there was.


Actually it proves a lot. Look at the body structure, and the alignment. It's obvious I had to have had a good teacher just to know to do it like that. Also, it is clear that I have to have trained really hard for a long time just to be able to DO that stance correctly.



LOL! And you wonder why people don't take you seriously over there? Come on...

[unkokusai]

[

I think thier obsession with it has more to do with their own insecurities. Maybe thier teachers suck, and they can't do a deep cat stance that good so they feel some sort of twisted need to shoot me down over it?



LOL! And that's what you ran over here to cry about. Your little feelings got hurt and you had to find someplace where you could sooth your injured pride instead of standing up for yourself (without the "you stupid!" distractions) over there.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Ok, I know I am trying to use logic with the village idiot, but let me ask you this, does that picture not show someone who has been actually taught by a real teacher/s and worked really hard?

Or does it show someone who sits on thier ass watching cheap Chinese VCD's of forms all day?

[unkokusai]

It doesn't "prove" one or the other. Its a single still photograph.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

LOL! And that's what you ran over here to cry about. Your little feelings got hurt and you had to find someplace where you could sooth your injured pride instead of standing up for yourself (without the "you stupid!" distractions) over there.

Reply]
LOL!! you are becoming really entertaining now!! Your standing up for yourself comment might actually have some teeth, except that I have been posting over there earlier today. So ummm how do you see that as running over here to cry now?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

It doesn't "prove" one or the other. Its a single still photograph.

Reply]
The pic shows a really difficult stance, done really, really well!!

How did I learn to do the stance properly Hmmmm????? :D

[KC Elbows]

I'm pretty sure the entirety of modern bayonet methods were based off of spear techniques, whether eastern(China) or Western(the U.S.). I could be mistaken, but I don't think so.

Additionally, the only thing geekier than RD's cat stance argument is following him across the internet to argue about it.

[unkokusai]

LOL! And that's what you ran over here to cry about. Your little feelings got hurt and you had to find someplace where you could sooth your injured pride instead of standing up for yourself (without the "you stupid!" distractions) over there.

Reply]
LOL!! you are becoming really entertaining now!! Your standing up for yourself comment might actually have some teeth, except that I have been posting over there earlier today. So ummm how do you see that as running over here to cry now?



What are you missing? You can continue to post on other topics, or even continue to lose that argument, but you still keep your little security blanket going over here.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I'm pretty sure the entirety of modern bayonet methods were based off of spear techniques, whether eastern(China) or Western(the U.S.). I could be mistaken, but I don't think so.

Additionally, the only thing geekier than RD's cat stance argument is following him across the internet to argue about it.

Reply]
LOL!!! What brought you out for once?

How have you been?

[unkokusai]

It doesn't "prove" one or the other. Its a single still photograph.

Reply]
The pic shows a really difficult stance, done really, really well!!

How did I learn to do the stance properly Hmmmm????? :D



Its great that you really, really love yourself, but see previous comments re one still photo...:rolleyes:

[KC Elbows]

I'm pretty sure the entirety of modern bayonet methods were based off of spear techniques, whether eastern(China) or Western(the U.S.). I could be mistaken, but I don't think so.

Additionally, the only thing geekier than RD's cat stance argument is following him across the internet to argue about it.

Reply]
LOL!!! What brought you out for once?

How have you been?

Actually, quite good. Spent the summer in Henan, trained sanshou, ate good food, etc.

Mostly been browsing forums for a long time, I only post here and there.

[RonH]

It doesn't "prove" one or the other. Its a single still photograph.

Reply]
The pic shows a really difficult stance, done really, really well!!

How did I learn to do the stance properly Hmmmm????? :D

You don't need to learn how to do the stance. Just get some crates or whatever and balance in a tough position. Use tough material to help keep your back straight that's tucked under your shirt. At the same time, you have braces on the side away from the camera keeping you up, while you lean to your left a little to give your muscles a break. Then, you take the crates away and get a camera and set it to take a picture every few seconds on a tripod and you try for days at a time till you got one that can be passed off as authentic.

And some people think I'm a poser. It's how I can spot the lies so easily. I do it myself!! :p :rolleyes:

[B-Rad]

Ok, I know I am trying to use logic with the village idiot, but let me ask you this, does that picture not show someone who has been actually taught by a real teacher/s and worked really hard?
It shows you probably worked hard... but you are seriously underestimating the ability of people to learn static postures from video/photos :p BTW, I thought most of your CMA training was through video (after leaving a phony teacher, and then learning from someone else who learned from video). You talked about if for years, and often defended the ability of someone to learn from video correspondence... how long have you been with a live teacher?

[golden arhat]

You don't need to learn how to do the stance. Just get some crates or whatever and balance in a tough position. Use tough material to help keep your back straight that's tucked under your shirt. At the same time, you have braces on the side away from the camera keeping you up, while you lean to your left a little to give your muscles a break. Then, you take the crates away and get a camera and set it to take a picture every few seconds on a tripod and you try for days at a time till you got one that can be passed off as authentic.

And some people think I'm a poser. It's how I can spot the lies so easily. I do it myself!! :p :rolleyes:

look

seriously


u arent funny


at all


please dont make jokes

theyre really terrible


seriously

stop


ur cred is tarnished enuff already

for our sakes


stop

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

It shows you probably worked hard... but you are seriously underestimating the ability of people to learn static postures from video/photos BTW, I thought most of your CMA training was through video (after leaving a phony teacher, and then learning from someone else who learned from video). You talked about if for years, and often defended the ability of someone to learn from video correspondence... how long have you been with a live teacher?

Reply]
Correct, and I still do believe you can learn a lot from videos, BUT the details shown in my pic were something I was only able to get from live teachings.

As for how long I have had a teacher, I have allways had live teachers. I generally train with guys in small groups, and not at schools, but I have pretty much allways had real people to learn from. I just don't really talk about it that much because to do so means bringing names in to the forum, and that often gets me in trouble off the forum, so i just don't discuss the real people I learn from.

Also, I am not really a style specific person. i do my Tai tzu, and work with various people who can help respective attributes for my Tai Tzu. For example, I have one guy who taught me the really old traditional form, and another local guy I go to for structure an mechanical coaching, and another for push hands, and another for more hands on app work.

I combined all that together around the Tai Tzu forms i know and built the curriculum i teach now.

Pretty much all the forms I originally learned from the books, I have forgotten now anyway. I still use books and video as sources though. Right now my big interest is in Old Time Strong Man training and body weight only conditioning methods. So all my book study is in that area at this time.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Actually, quite good. Spent the summer in Henan, trained sanshou, ate good food, etc

Reply]
WOW, that sounds like fun? Were you at one of the big schools there? How did you fund that anyway?

[KC Elbows]

Actually, quite good. Spent the summer in Henan, trained sanshou, ate good food, etc

Reply]
WOW, that sounds like fun? Were you at one of the big schools there? How did you fund that anyway?

I wasn't there to study kung fu, it was business related, plus an opportunity to practice my mandarin. The sanshou guys were all people I befriended, or friends of friends, who wanted to train me, free of charge, as a show of friendship.

You may now be jealous.

[unkokusai]

I generally train with guys in small groups, and not at schools, but I have pretty much allways had real people to learn from. I just don't really talk about it that much because to do so means bringing names in to the forum, and that often gets me in trouble off the forum, so i just don't discuss the real people I learn from.

Also, I am not really a style specific person. i do my Tai tzu, and work with various people who can help respective attributes for my Tai Tzu. For example, I have one guy who taught me the really old traditional form, and another local guy I go to for structure an mechanical coaching, and another for push hands, and another for more hands on app work.

I combined all that together around the Tai Tzu forms i know and built the curriculum i teach now.


Oh man...........................:rolleyes:



That sort of fits the image, doesn't it?

[RonH]

look
seriously
u arent funny
at all
please dont make jokes
theyre really terrible
seriously
stop
ur cred is tarnished enuff already
for our sakes
stop

I'm very funny. I just have a limited amount of reference material to work with. And, if you're talking about the credibility I have with a select group of people on this board, it isn't my problem you lot didn't want to listen to what I was saying. But, it's no skin off my nose.

[ittokaos]

Military Styles? We are talking military styles right? Because I thought that we were dicussing military styles. Considering the title is "military styles question".

So, military styles right? Yes? Awesome.

If I am correct Hsing Yi was used in the Sino-Japanese War. It was in Gene's article on Hsingyi Dadao(which was pretty sweet) which was about how we over look the use of swords in military when they were used as close as a few decades ago(ww2 ish).

Also, kung fu is still being taught to several (US) military units around the country. Krav Maga is basically kung fu when you look at it and break it apart. Muay thai is pretty close to leopard style. the kung fu is there you just have to look for it. Military styles being filled with fluff? Nah. It's just the way you look at it. If you are using only the forms to go by, of course it's going to look that way the the untrained eye, but if you see the true essence of the style you can see it used for military purposes.

I suppose that the majority of military styles would have many weapon sets (Hsing yi traditionally tesches the weapons first and empty hand second). For today's purposes knife and gun sets would have to be used to give it that miltary feel. Krav Maga does that very well.

I hope this helps and moves the discussion back to the topic,

WF

[Mr Punch]

Also, kung fu is still being taught to several (US) military units around the country. Which ones?
Krav Maga is basically kung fu when you look at it and break it apart. No, it isn't. That's the whole point: when you take it apart it is many other arts taken apart and stripped down to the basics, so to imply kungfu has no fluff because krav maga has no fluff is pish.
Muay thai is pretty close to leopard style.That's why Leopard style is so famous! :rolleyes: And your point is? Thai is not a military art per se.
the kung fu is there you just have to look for it.Nope. It isn't. It's like that old gag that because Chuck Liddel does XYZ punch and it looks like the XYZ punch from kung fu that kung fu is therefore in the UFC...! :rolleyes:

[bodhitree]

Oh man...........................:rolleyes:



That sort of fits the image, doesn't it?


I'll second that and raise you a "King of the LARPers" award.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Nope. It isn't. It's like that old gag that because Chuck Liddel does XYZ punch and it looks like the XYZ punch from kung fu that kung fu is therefore in the UFC...!

Reply]
Um Liddel DOES use Kung Fu punches!! Heck, one of his trade marks is right out of the Shaolin 32 posture Tai Tzu form!

[Mr Punch]

You're a very silly boy.

[golden arhat]

just because a punch or 2 is shared between mma and kung fu


a punch doesnt belong to kung fu ya know

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

What he is doing is rather unique, it's not your standard boxing punch....it's something unique to Kung Fu, and maybe some Kempo lines...which probably got it form Long fist in the first place.

What is that punch doing in my old Long Fist form if it's not Kung Fu then? Did Chuck go back in time and show them UFC clips on Youtube?

[CFT]

I think golden arhat is trying to say: "a punch is a punch, a kick is a kick".

[golden arhat]

he was never taught kung fu

he may have just figured it out

it doesnt mean he is using kung fu

it simply means he's punching someone

its called mixed martial arts for a reason ya know

[golden arhat]

I think golden arhat is trying to say: "a punch is a punch, a kick is a kick".

thats the one

cheers :D

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

it doesnt mean he is using kung fu

Reply]
If he is using a Kung Fu technique, he is doing Kung Fu. He runs in Kempo circles right? I know they have some Chinese influences. Maybe someone he has come in contact with is a Long Fist player, and he picked it up informally from them, but he IS doing a signature Chinese punch. All the details are correct.

[golden arhat]

it doesnt mean he is using kung fu

Reply]
If he is using a Kung Fu technique, he is doing Kung Fu. He runs in Kempo circles right? I know they have some Chinese influences. Maybe someone he has come in contact with is a Long Fist player, and he picked it up informally from them, but he IS doing a signature Chinese punch. All the details are correct.

i have never seen that punch used in kempo
ever

and i thoroughly doubt that he learned it from a long fist player

come on do u honestly expect him to socialise with cma guys ?

especially being the prize fighter that he is


he doesnt use kung fu he uses mixed martial arts

one punch that may be related to cma doesnt make him a cma'ist

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I am not saying he's a CMA, just that when he uses that punch, he's using Kung Fu. I don't know ANYONE else that uses it outside of Long Fist.

come on do u honestly expect him to socialise with cma guys ?

especially being the prize fighter that he is

Reply]
I have news for you, MMA guys don't care who they socialise with, or where their techniques come form, so long as they work.

All the MMA VS TMA thing is just form the fans on the forums. I don't see it extending to the actual fighters, many of which come form heavy TMA backgrounds.

[banditshaw]

it doesnt mean he is using kung fu

Reply]
If he is using a Kung Fu technique, he is doing Kung Fu. He runs in Kempo circles right? I know they have some Chinese influences. Maybe someone he has come in contact with is a Long Fist player, and he picked it up informally from them, but he IS doing a signature Chinese punch. All the details are correct.

I hate to break this to ya but your reaching on this one.
All the basics stripped down are the same. Their methods of delivery may differ but all in all it's the same.
Ok we know Chuck has a Kempo background. You really think his punch comes from longfist? Are you trolling for responses ?

I mean I could say "hey look chuck is doing a CLF wheel punch" I would still say that sounds ridiculous as well, even if it looks the same.
After reading the Dlist posts it's not surprising you got that reaction. I don't know you from Adam but you did kind of come across as a bit of an ass.
Nothing personal, just an casual observation.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

If he's doing the punch, he's doing the punch. If it's something specific to Long Fist, and he's doing it, then he's doing it.

It does not matter where he got it from, he is still doing it.

[Shaolinlueb]

If he's doing the punch, he's doing the punch. If it's something specific to Long Fist, and he's doing it, then he's doing it.

It does not matter where he got it from, he is still doing it.


a punch is a punch. everyone does it. whether its specific to longfist or tae kwan do or karate is a stupid arguement.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Lidell is doing a type of hook that is very specific to Chinese Long fist though. His over hand strike is also VERY specifily Chinese Long Fist. Infact, his over hand can almost said to define Longfist principals.

These are techniques not really seen anywhere else.

He's not doing a boxer's hook, his fist is facing the other way, so the point of his knuckle is leading. It's right out of one of my Tai Tzu long Fist forms, only there it's done as a double strike. You see it in Tai Chi all the time too, but it's not very common anywhere else.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Isn't there a youtube video of Chuck teaching his "brand" of hooks and over hand strikes ?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Yes, I saw it. That is what made me realize he's doing Kung Fu.

What he was showing looked exactly like a Kung fu lesson.

Even the way he stays on his feet, and strikes down from a standing position when his opponent is on the ground, is typical Chinese thinking.

He has a VERY Chinese fighting method.

[Lucas]

RD. part of the problem in this discussion, also is the fact that how many people discussing this with you are even remote experts on longfist material?

to see and understand what is long fist, you must have studied long fist for some time.

it would be like me trying to see a signature savate punch/kick although i have never studied it.

i would only be pretending to know if it is or is not savate.

ie, if you dont know longfist, how will you know if a certain technique actually draws its roots from traditional longfist dating thousands of years ago...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes, I saw it. That is what made me realize he's doing Kung Fu.

What he was showing looked exactly like a Kung fu lesson.

Even the way he stays on his feet, and strikes down from a standing position when his opponent is on the ground, is typical Chinese thinking.

He has a VERY Chinese fighting method.

Allow me a quick example, a while back I posted a drill on the punching bag that I do to show "short power", I was told by some that it was a fine example of Xing-i punching.
I have never done Xing-i in my life, never even seen it outside youtube.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Hmm, good point. Although Long Fist is so popular, I would think most people on this forum know at least the basics of it....enough to instantly recognize Lidell is doing it at least.

[ittokaos]

Liddel looks like he is using Hop gar.

Mr. punch, u r correct in saying that the arguement that kung fu has no fluff b/c krav maga has no fluff is pish(i don't know what that means) but that isn't what i said(at least I don't think I did). What i meant was that krav maga carries on the spirit and techniques of kung fu and uses them in a military setting. If you were to break down the techniques one by one you would see that they all come from kung fu. "The Burst" is a technique used in Wing Chun, Hung Gar, etc... The various small locks are basic Chin Na. I have seen the use of Eagle Claw and tiger Claw in various techniques. All (or most0 the techniques that Krav Maga uses were taken from other styles that mostly came from kung fu.

The kung fu is there. You just have to look.

The thai use a form of H2H that is an offshoot of muay thai and changed to suit military purposes. not too knowledgeable about that though.

The us uses Choy li Fut ,wing chun, and a form of tai chi. I don't really know where tho. I heard it from a military buddy. I'll ask when I see him again.


i hope this helps

WF

[sanjuro_ronin]

Hmm, good point. Although Long Fist is so popular, I would think most people on this forum know at least the basics of it....enough to instantly recognize Lidell is doing it at least.

I think you missed my point, Chuck isn't doing longfist, unless he says it is and he has trained in it, YOU are seeing him do something that reminds you of longfist.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJlVS_IxP4

Look at the second half of tis clip, from :40 on

He's throwing Muy Tai Round Kicks a lot here. The clip has nothing to do with my point, it was just bizzar.

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXJlVS_IxP4

Look at the second half of tis clip, from :40 on

He's throwing Muy Tai Round Kicks a lot here. The clip has nothing to do with my point, it was just bizzar.

LOL !

Chuck is the man !

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqf42bsTXnY&mode=related&search=

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqf42bsTXnY&mode=related&search=

Looks like Hop gar to me.....:D

Dude, its a looping overhand right, I was taught that in boxing, though not a wide in the beginning, I assume Chuck is doing the overly wide thing for so they can understand that you must be "relaxed" and "club" the guy, rather than a typical right cross type of thing.

As for it being long fist, until chuck says he got if from long fist, it isn't long fist.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

What if he got it form his Kempo experiences? Somewhere in his Kempo past it could very well have come form Long Fist, and he would not even know it becasue Kempo history is so complicated and confusing.

[sanjuro_ronin]

What if he got it form his Kempo experiences? Somewhere in his Kempo past it could very well have come form Long Fist, and he would not even know it becasue Kempo history is so complicated and confusing.

Perhaps, I am wondering if it's a type of "shovel hook", kempo has them, as well as looping over heads with the thumb down...

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

That is what I am thinking. Knowing what little I do know about Kempo history, there is a long fist influence on the modern American Kempo.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That is what I am thinking. Knowing what little I do know about Kempo history, there is a long fist influence on the modern American Kempo.

American keNpo is one thing, KeMpo is another, but that is a different thread.

Fact is, IF Chuck got it from his original keN/Mpo and IF that system got it from Long fist, it means what ?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

It means he's using Kung Fu techniques in the UFC...and they work, which is contrary to popular belief.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It means he's using Kung Fu techniques in the UFC...and they work, which is contrary to popular belief.

Ok then...The RNC is originally ( as introduced to the west via the east) a Judo move, from JJ, from probably a CMA influence, so...

[SifuAbel]

This is coming from a more deep seated place than style.

Its more about the double standard of whats acceptable. Style bias.

Chuck does a similar punch that is identical to the one done in another style.

Whether or not its from long fist is irrelevant. They are exactly the same.

Yet chuck's version is acceptable while the same exact technique will be seen as folly coming from the non-sanctioned styles.

We all put on our pants the same way. Throw the pants up in the air and do a double back flip into them before they touch the ground. Don't you? Am i right? :D

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Ok then...The RNC is originally ( as introduced to the west via the east) a Judo move, from JJ, from probably a CMA influence, so...

Reply]
That one is not very unique though. Lots of styles have it. It probably comes from ancient Greco /Roman if you go back far enough.

[Sal Canzonieri]

9 pages of blah blah blah

First: " the best way to get back at your enemies is to not answer them"

Second: Pure ignorance of martial arts history and even what most long fist (and other CMA arts are at their foundation).

Before the age of the gun, ALL military skills involved mastery of the Sword, Knife, and Spear. (Staff was for monks and old people). They were for middle and long range engagement.

THEY CAME FIRST - the empty hand stuff came as a result of "what happens if you drop your weapon".
And lo and behold if you drop your weapon and engage in close range combat, you used the SAME movements as in your weapon drills EXCEPT the applications were now used for CHIN-NA, and takedowns. THE VERY SAME MOVEMENTS.

Eventually over the centuries the "favorite" techniques since they were the most effective and efficient techniques (or else the practitioner would have died!) were preserved and eventually taught to others.

People (for example Emperor Zhao Kuang Yin, among many) put these best practices techniques into an order that made it easier to remember and to use, hence "forms" came into existence DURING PEACE TIME (early Sung Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Mid and later Qing Dynasty).

Military based arts do not have fluff, fluff makes you die.

Also, NO sets of any style (except modern fake styles) have "fluff".
Only people with LITTLE KNOWLEDGE or EXPERIENCE to understand sets fully would think that a movement in a set is fluff.

Hence, these people have don't know the NATURAL applications to the moves, and then label a style or form as "crap that won't work".

[cjurakpt]

This is coming from a more deep seated place than style.

Its more about the double standard of whats acceptable. Style bias.

Chuck does a similar punch that is identical to the one done in another style.

Whether or not its from long fist is irrelevant. They are exactly the same.

Yet chuck's version is acceptable while the same exact technique will be seen as folly coming from the non-sanctioned styles.

We all put on our pants the same way. Throw the pants up in the air and do a double back flip into them before they touch the ground. Don't you? Am i right? :D
fine, get a guy who is admittedly CMA to go into the same venue as Liddel and use the same techniques except from a CMA platform, and then it will be deemed acceptable; of course, the big argument "CMA is not designed for the ring" is the get-out-of-jail-free card for that, which is fine, but then don't biotch about it if public opinon is biased towards that which is publically demonstrated in a repeatable, consistent manner (which is basically what Ross and others are doing with San Da, so maybe in a few years some of it will trickle up to UFC)

[Lucas]

Also, NO sets of any style (except modern fake styles) have "fluff".
Only people with LITTLE KNOWLEDGE or EXPERIENCE to understand sets fully would think that a movement in a set is fluff.

Hence, these people have don't know the NATURAL applications to the moves, and then label a style or form as "crap that won't work".

to this i will agree, but on the other side of this blade we have guys who actually ARE fluff, and will pose this same excuse.

i think what we, as TCMAists, need to do is find all the fluff factories we can and challenge them all to death matches.

[Sal Canzonieri]

I do all my weapons sets also empty handed.

I do all my empty hand sets with staff, double sword, or double knives.

The applications then JUMP out at you, if you have insight.

ALL Shaolin sets can be done with the staff.
Almost all sets can be done with double knives or double swords.
If not they can be done with a spear or a dagger.

Makes a giant leap to understand this.

(Also the application - one of - to the Shaolin classic ending is to ward off a incoming kick to the torso and roll off a strike to the head - duh! No fluff in this movement, I assure you.)

[SifuAbel]

fine, get a guy who is admittedly CMA to go into the same venue as Liddel and use the same techniques except from a CMA platform, and then it will be deemed acceptable; of course, the big argument "CMA is not designed for the ring" is the get-out-of-jail-free card for that, which is fine, but then don't biotch about it if public opinon is biased towards that which is publically demonstrated in a repeatable, consistent manner (which is basically what Ross and others are doing with San Da, so maybe in a few years some of it will trickle up to UFC)

No, thats bull****. A punch is a punch.

[Sal Canzonieri]

to this i will agree, but on the other side of this blade we have guys who actually ARE fluff, and will pose this same excuse.

i think what we, as TCMAists, need to do is find all the fluff factories we can and challenge them all to death matches.

Agreed, I have done my share of beating down karate and fake KF people during the late 70s-80s.

[Sal Canzonieri]

No, thats bull****. A punch is a punch.

The straight punch in long fist with bow stance is a throw as well.

[Sal Canzonieri]

fine, get a guy who is admittedly CMA to go into the same venue as Liddel and use the same techniques except from a CMA platform, and then it will be deemed acceptable; of course, the big argument "CMA is not designed for the ring" is the get-out-of-jail-free card for that, which is fine, but then don't biotch about it if public opinon is biased towards that which is publically demonstrated in a repeatable, consistent manner (which is basically what Ross and others are doing with San Da, so maybe in a few years some of it will trickle up to UFC)

Didn't Sugar Ray Leonard and George Foreman in their later year in the ring learn Xing Yi to help them be more efficient?
The answer is yes. They have said this in TV interviews I have watched.
So, CMA is useful in the ring.

[ittokaos]

Good points as always Sal!

BTW My Sifu and his Sifu used to watch Mike tyson fights and marvel at how good his SPM was. They say that the reason he started losing was he forgot his old style of fighting and got into some bad habits. Don't know if he trained in SPM tho. Funny huh?

[cjurakpt]

[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;794285]
it depends - realistically, military weapons training and use revolved around a multitude of issues: economic and social rank of the individual being a big one - it had a huge impact on what sort of armor/weaponry you wore/had (some armies were BYO stuff, others supplied you), also where you actually where in the field, so that changes what you knew / needed to know a lot; also, was the army conscript or regular also impacted what you learned/did; and don't forget, the law of conservation of manpower always dictated engaging troops a minima - hence the preference of long range weaponry (archery, balistics,etc.) and/or the use of fortification basd equipment - both offensive and defensive; also pike users formed an important part of military engagements pre-firearms and even post up to a point - remember that the "gun" goes back into middle ages with the first use of gunpowder, and the idea of a personal firearm has been evolving steadily since then;

so the point is that personal H2H training was probably not evenly distributed; also,
to train the average Joe to fight H2H with skill would not have necessarilly been very time or cost effective, especially if he were conscript - regular army would get it, but not to the detriment of training in manuevering, managing equipment, undersanding communications as needed - there's a lot more to soldiering than mano a mano - mostly it was training you how not to loose your sh1t at the first sign of combat and to run away (again, more for conscripts, I'd say, but also regulars)

I think that like during any age, people are impressed by something that was used by "the military" - you see it all the time advertised these days, who's to say it wasn't the same back then? a retired army officers opens up a KF school in the late 1300's because that's all he knows, and bills what he teaches as being "authentic military" style - people eat it up and after 800 years, who remembers what really was the deal...

I mean, the thing about training empty hand techs that are based on weapons use and being effective - that's just crazy: there is no indication that the skill sets are similar enough to simply take away the implement and still have valid technique without significant modification; I mean, the use of an implement radically changes the way you fight - take a guy weighing 100 lbs. more than the opponent and H2H he'll usually win; give them both a blade and the ground is leveled significantly in the weight differential area - that's because even though the movements between a jab with the fist and a thrust with the knife look the same, the parameters necessary for the knife to be succesful require a lot less physical strength than the jab,and don't need to be as accurate on target to damage the opponent - so to train a jab as a "empty-hand knife thrust" is implausible, because you need a lot more behind the jab than the knife thrust for it to work: for example, the jab is a lead opening technique that typically is used to set up combos/finishing moves; do the same movement with a knife and it may be the only thing you need to win

but if you're a retired army guy, and you don't have much empty hand stuff but don't want to teach weapons to the average joe on the street right away, you take your weapons stuff and do the movements without them, and bingo - instant empty hand system...

[cjurakpt]

No, thats bull****. A punch is a punch.

I agree a punch is a punch - in fact, that's the point MMA has been making by divorcing speific techniques from all the style-based background noise; indeed, by that argument, why bother to talk at all anymore about specific style then in the first place? why bother to defend TCMA or any other non-MMA approach? may as well drop the whole style-identification pespective and just train techniques; then you wouldn't have to worry about someone being a sell-out - it's all just evolution

[ittokaos]

Well it all started out as a punch or a kick and not a style so, wouldn't be de-evolving instead of evolving.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Also, NO sets of any style (except modern fake styles) have "fluff".
Only people with LITTLE KNOWLEDGE or EXPERIENCE to understand sets fully would think that a movement in a set is fluff.

Reply]
THIS was my original point!!! At least some one gets it!!! :)

[Knifefighter]

The straight punch in long fist with bow stance is a throw as well.

LOL @ a punch also being a throw. That's exactly what is wrong with the TMA approach.

[cjurakpt]

LOL @ a punch also being a throw. That's exactly what is wrong with the TMA approach.

yeah - I mean, you can look at just about any movement, like a reverse punch in bow stance, and say it is "such and such" - ok, great - THEN what? to say you have it isn't the same as being able to do it; what exactly is the advantage conferred by having supposedly multiple layers of applications in a form? to me, it seems more about "look how clever this construct is" and that it automatically makes or even gives the potential for a TCMA guy to be a better fighter; I don't know - the whole thing about uncovering moves - it just seems like a waste of time - and lord knows I've done it - used to really "investigate" what was going on - up to a point it's fun and cool, but TBH - it doesn't yield any more comprehensive knowledge than sytems without that sort of convention - and there the students don't waste time mining forms for hidden techniques; again, I don't see why that particular construct is desirable to being with - you certainly arn't getting automatic transfer of training from practicing a move as a punch that you later go on and apply as a throw - i'ts a completely different set of parameters that share some similarities in the out appearance, but in functional context require totally different sets of muscle firing patterns, which is basically determined by the loads involved in a given task...

[Sal Canzonieri]

LOL @ a punch also being a throw. That's exactly what is wrong with the TMA approach.

No, that what's GREAT about TCMA, I can be as versatile as necessary.

I have been in MANY fights, many, I grew in Newark NJ during the 1960s and 1970s, I had to fight to survive just to get to school or to the store and back.
You learn fast what works and what doesn't.
I came to TCMA WITH this knowledge and experience and applications were readily obvious and I made the teachers WORK to show reality in the movements.

I am friends with a few people who were martial artists and now are police officers. Also, I take private lessons today and there are policemen, jail guards, bodyguards, and law enforcement trainers in my classes. They all use TCMA to be more efficient and effective and they always point out what is necessary for a law enforcer to do the movements so that it will keep them alive.

ALL of them have said to me that the way the law is around here (NJ / NY) if you hit back you are 'attacking the attacker' and a vigilante in the eyes of the law and you will get a BIGGER fine and jail time than even the attacker!

All of the them have said that what is great about TCMA is that what looks like a punch or a kick is a fast takedown in application.

IN order to not be arrested for assaulting your attacker, you have only the right to stop the fight without fighting the attacker, which means taking down the opponent and neutralizing their attack.
So, a punch is NOT a punch only.

Unless you are in a controlled sportslike environment, on the street punching an opponent will prolong the attack. It is not self defense, it does not stop the attack.
In a punch fight, the LUCKIEST person wins (many factors are interacting: speed, ability, knowledge, power, strength, age, weight, aggression, etc, etc, etc., that change the odds with each moment, hence the luckier person wins).


AND< all the OLD shaolin monks that I have knowledge of have always said that what looks like a punch or a kick in a form is really a takedown and they do their forms with this application in mind.

What looks like you are stepping and punching in a form like this is a scissoring move that trips their supporting leg and cuts the opponent in half at the waist so that they immediately lose their balance (hard or soft up to you), ans down they go in one swift movement.
THAT's real TCMA, everything else is baloney.
Barely anyone will teach the true applications to TCMA forms.

Sure you can use the move as a punch, but if you know only that, I guarantee that someone well trained who knows how to maneuver your attack to scissor you will beat you fast.

Of course you don't do this in a boxing match, in a sport like MMA, and so on, you do it in self defense situations.
Anyone can do this, unlike MMA where only the gladiator hardened person can do it. The average old, young, female, etc person can do TCMA, not so with Boxing or MMA sport.

Always people like you compare apples and watermelons, TCMA is a self defense art that deals with an ambush.
MMA and Boxing is a sport like art, they are not the same thing at all.

They are based on different parameters, different necessities.

[Sal Canzonieri]

yeah - I mean, you can look at just about any movement, like a reverse punch in bow stance, and say it is "such and such" - ok, great - THEN what? to say you have it isn't the same as being able to do it; what exactly is the advantage conferred by having supposedly multiple layers of applications in a form? to me, it seems more about "look how clever this construct is" and that it automatically makes or even gives the potential for a TCMA guy to be a better fighter; I don't know - the whole thing about uncovering moves - it just seems like a waste of time - and lord knows I've done it - used to really "investigate" what was going on - up to a point it's fun and cool, but TBH - it doesn't yield any more comprehensive knowledge than sytems without that sort of convention - and there the students don't waste time mining forms for hidden techniques; again, I don't see why that particular construct is desirable to being with - you certainly arn't getting automatic transfer of training from practicing a move as a punch that you later go on and apply as a throw - i'ts a completely different set of parameters that share some similarities in the out appearance, but in functional context require totally different sets of muscle firing patterns, which is basically determined by the loads involved in a given task...

Look, you didn't train right, that's the deal.

And a throw is not a takedown.

I move EXACTLY as if I did the full on punching movement, but the end result I applied it to was to takedown the opponent.
A throw is not a takedown, it is a throw, and you move like you are throwing.

A takedown is a RESULT of your movement.
ANY movement in any form operates at four levels at once, to be used as necessary to the force required at the time:

1. Punch or kick
OR
2. Joint lock
OR
3. Takedown
OR
4. weapon in hand

I have shown people how to use their forms from any style: Karate, TKD, Kempo, KF, etc, etc., and shown them how, by not changing anything in the actual movement of the form they are executing, they can takedown the opponent (upset their balance so that they fall fast and hard) as the result of their movement.

ALSO, movements in a form work in groups, to do a takedown, what looks like 3 seperate punching moves in a form is ONE fast movement that results in a takedown.

I learned this on the streets and I learned this in TCMA classes.
When I visited a school that did not know this, I would leave, to stay there would be wasting my time.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Good points as always Sal!

BTW My Sifu and his Sifu used to watch Mike tyson fights and marvel at how good his SPM was. They say that the reason he started losing was he forgot his old style of fighting and got into some bad habits. Don't know if he trained in SPM tho. Funny huh?

He stopped training and started partying.
And, I think that some fights were thrown.

By the way, the week after he lost his title the first time, I was at a light in NYC in front of Bentley's, the was a bus in front of my car.

I heard people screaming on the left, and saw that Tyson had like five guys on his back trying to hold him back. He ducked and then lifted and they all feel over.
He ran to the bus in front of me and punched a big dent in the side.

THEN he went up to my car and smiled at me and so fast he punched my window with the side of his hand, a glancing blow with his pinky, and the window just fell straight into the car instead of shattering!
We looked at each other in shock and then everyone started screaming "drive, drive, drive" and I drove around the bus and out of there!

[cjurakpt]

Look, you didn't train right, that's the deal.
LOL - great argument - I disagree with you, so obviously I didn't train right - try something more original next time, and maybe actually have a clue about what I've done and with whom - you;re not the only person around who's trained with the "old guys" you know...
guess what, I learned the same type of approach, and am well aware of how to "interpret" foms in the way you describe; what I am saying is, why bother? just train the techniques, why spend all the time "figuring out" what you are doing? like it or not, skill in techniques are context specific - if you train the move in and of itself, it does not automatically confer skill - you have to train it in a striking context and in a takedown context to have proficiency in either, regardless of if the move looks the same doing it in a form


And a throw is not a takedown.
throw / takedown, whatever - semantics - you find both in forms that are supposedly just punches/kicks - the difference is that for the takedowns it's usually a step through versus the throw involves a body turn (like at the end of aroad in a form, you turn and face 180 deg in oppo direction and hit some sort of pose - that's typically the throw; whatever)


I move EXACTLY as if I did the full on punching movement, but the end result I applied it to was to takedown the opponent.
you may move the same, but the parameters of what you are trying to do are different, plain and simple


I have shown people how to use their forms from any style: Karate, TKD, Kempo, KF, etc, etc., and shown them how, by not changing anything in the actual movement of the form they are executing, they can takedown the opponent (upset their balance so that they fall fast and hard) as the result of their movement.
yeah, it's always fun to see a TKD BB's face when you explain what that "down block" at the end of the line in bassai really "means" or a karateka's when you show that the opening sequence of naihanchi kata is either a series of joint locks and escapes / counters or a recipie for a push-hands-like drill and the second half is a series of trapping range exchanges (guess I figured that all out from my sub-standard training, hmm?); but still as "neat" as it is, just knowing it doesn't help and having it in a form doesn't either - in fact, I would argue that training forms can have the opposite effect of what you want - it has the potential to confusion that needs to be dispelled by someone else - better to just practice the techniques and variations as such from the outset and then live as soon as the person has some reasonable structure


ALSO, movements in a form work in groups, to do a takedown, what looks like 3 seperate punching moves in a form is ONE fast movement that results in a takedown.
great, but again, why practice it out of context? if your cop friends are interested in contolling people and not hitting them, that's what they need to practice - the form aspect is fine and all, but without it they wouldn't be at a disadvantage in terms of practical application of the techniques in question

[Mr Punch]

I thought you were joking when you first said Chuck was using kung fu.

You weren't apparently.

Chuck Liddell has never done kung fu. He is not doing kung fu.
it doesnt mean he is using kung fu

Reply]
If he is using a Kung Fu technique, he is doing Kung Fu. He runs in Kempo circles right? I know they have some Chinese influences. Maybe someone he has come in contact with is a Long Fist player, and he picked it up informally from them, but he IS doing a signature Chinese punch. All the details are correct.


If he's doing the punch, he's doing the punch. If it's something specific to Long Fist, and he's doing it, then he's doing it.

It does not matter where he got it from, he is still doing it.


Yes, I saw it. That is what made me realize he's doing Kung Fu.

What he was showing looked exactly like a Kung fu lesson.

Even the way he stays on his feet, and strikes down from a standing position when his opponent is on the ground, is typical Chinese thinking.

He has a VERY Chinese fighting method.It's time to call a spade a spade, and you sir, are a ****ing idiot. :D


Ok then...The RNC is originally ( as introduced to the west via the east) a Judo move, from JJ, from probably a CMA influence, so...

Reply]
That one is not very unique though. Lots of styles have it. It probably comes from ancient Greco /Roman if you go back far enough.You're now saying the RNC comes from Graeco Roman wrestling originally therefore implying that the Eastern styles got it from there? My English vocabulary is huge, but I can't find a word to describe you. :o

[Sal Canzonieri]

. . .

I think we are on the same page actually.

Yes, the old way is to practice the techniques until they are part of your body, like one learns to drive a car or bike, precisely.

The forms are just a device to memorize strings of techniques.
You don't "need" them (I happen to love doing them) to be proficient.

The techniques indeed do come first. We're saying the same thing.

[Mr Punch]

This is coming from a more deep seated place than style.

Its more about the double standard of whats acceptable. Style bias.

Chuck does a similar punch that is identical to the one done in another style.

Whether or not its from long fist is irrelevant. They are exactly the same.

Yet chuck's version is acceptable while the same exact technique will be seen as folly coming from the non-sanctioned styles.

We all put on our pants the same way. Throw the pants up in the air and do a double back flip into them before they touch the ground. Don't you? Am i right? :DYou are completely correct, except that in this case this is nothing to do with the argument. Reread over the thread to see why Chuck was brought in to the argument.

Plus, most people would argue that it's not the fact that the punch is in a 'non-sanctioned' style, just that it's in a form in a non-sanctioned style and that the style is non-sanctioned because they don't practise in a realistic manner, so nobody throws the punch against a live resisting opponent. That too, is completely irrelevant to this thread! Except in relation to when we were talking about kenjutsu techs becoming unrealistic as soon as they left the battelfield.

Do try and keep up, and don't bring your MMA vs TMA obsession BS into every thread, old chap. :p

[Mr Punch]

Liddel looks like he is using Hop gar.

Mr. punch, u r correct in saying that the arguement that kung fu has no fluff b/c krav maga has no fluff is pish(i don't know what that means) but that isn't what i said(at least I don't think I did). What i meant was that krav maga carries on the spirit and techniques of kung fu and uses them in a military setting. If you were to break down the techniques one by one you would see that they all come from kung fu. "The Burst" is a technique used in Wing Chun, Hung Gar, etc... The various small locks are basic Chin Na. I have seen the use of Eagle Claw and tiger Claw in various techniques. All (or most0 the techniques that Krav Maga uses were taken from other styles that mostly came from kung fu.Nice clarification, thank you. My point was that you were saying if you look close enough you'll find kung fu in krav maga, and that although these techs may resemble kung fu and almost identical techs are found in some kung fu styles, it doesn't mean that kung fu stylists can claim krav maga as their own.

Imi Lichtenfeld, the founder of KM, was a champion gymnast, boxer and wrestler, taught SD by his dad who was a member of the poice force in Bratislava. There is NO recorded contact with kung fu of any kind.


uses Choy li Fut ,wing chun, and a form of tai chi. I don't really know where tho. I heard it from a military buddy. I'll ask when I see him again.


i hope this helps

WFI've heard this before about many styles, but only once, for one specific special forces unit have I ever heard anything resembling evidence to back it up.

With the exception of bayonet and Hsing Yi in China, and the juukendo art in Japan there is next to no practical connection between kung fu and the military in the modern world. I am not assuming that modern military H2H is necessarily the most efficient MA in the world, nor am I assuming that all historical military arts are 'full of fluff': I am suggesting that because a TMA used be a military art is by no means any indication of its effective, now or in the past, for self defence or warfare.

Hope that's clear enough.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

but still as "neat" as it is, just knowing it doesn't help and having it in a form doesn't either - in fact, I would argue that training forms can have the opposite effect of what you want - it has the potential to confusion that needs to be dispelled by someone else - better to just practice the techniques and variations as such from the outset and then live as soon as the person has some reasonable structure

Reply]
Based on my study, it does not appear forms were for training students in the first place. They were for the teachers to help organize thier curriculum, and refine thier body mechanics.

[Sal Canzonieri]

but still as "neat" as it is, just knowing it doesn't help and having it in a form doesn't either - in fact, I would argue that training forms can have the opposite effect of what you want - it has the potential to confusion that needs to be dispelled by someone else - better to just practice the techniques and variations as such from the outset and then live as soon as the person has some reasonable structure

Reply]
Based on my study, it does not appear forms were for training students in the first place. They were for the teachers to help organize thier curriculum, and refine thier body mechanics.

Not really, Forms were created to:

The original fist Shaolin sets: to test students for graduation - to prove that you know your stuff and to prove that you went to that school. Only top students learned forms and passed and were allowed to do them. No pass: no graduation, no allowed to do forms.

Most post-Song dynasty sets: to preserve the body of techniques in a style in case it gets lost, these were given in a book to the inheritor of a style only, generation by generation.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Hmmm, ok that adds some dimension to it, but it still all boils down the the fact that students didn't do them for developing thier skills, only the top dogs did them. By the time they got the forms, they had already been pretty much fully trained and had accomplished skills.

In other words, forms were not the tool used to train skills. They were the last step in the process, maybe akin to a diploma.

It was all study of loose technique while you were learning and developing your skills.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Hmmm, ok that adds some dimension to it, but it still all boils down the the fact that students didn't do them for developing thier skills, only the top dogs did them. By the time they got the forms, they had already been pretty much fully trained and had accomplished skills.

In other words, forms were not the tool used to train skills. They were the last step in the process, maybe akin to a diploma.

It was all study of loose technique while you were learning and developing your skills.

Yep, forms were the end of the line.
If you didn't know HOW to do, you didn't receive the forms, which were WHAT to do.

Forms were a memory device and a testing device.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Agreed, although I'd probably add that they were a tool for the top players to further refine and also maintain body mechanics during solo practice as well. Maybe they were not intended to be that, but they are a good tool for that purpose anyway.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Agreed, although I'd probably add that they were a tool for the top players to further refine and also maintain body mechanics during solo practice as well. Maybe they were not intended to be that, but they are a good tool for that purpose anyway.

If you didn't know this already, it would be way too late by the time you learned a form to save you.

TODAY, forms serve this purpose, because no one has the time to do techniques for months until ready to do the next one. they are a tool for all, not just top players.

But if you have not perfected the techniques, what good is learning a form that you do all wrong?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Hmmm, Good point.

I think I was leaning more towards the maintenance and final refinement aspect though. I am sure Chen Xiao Wang still does his form. You have to ask, what is he working on when he does it?

[KC Elbows]

But if you have not perfected the techniques, what good is learning a form that you do all wrong?

To muddy the waters a bit, if one has not learned the transitions the style espouses, can one perfect the techniques that depend on those transitions?

In my experience, good forms are often about good transitions as much as good technique.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Yeah, but you learn those transitions in the drills,not the forms.

[KC Elbows]

Yeah, but you learn those transitions in the drills,not the forms.

That depends on the form. A good form pairs moves with their logical complements. One can then drill this.

Also, a good internal form drills the necessary dan tien work as well.

I agree that the form is best for those who know, but I am currently leaning toward a view of forms as a continuation of detail work, not merely as documentation.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

That is my current view. I like to say they are for final refinement of the mechanics. They are the last step for when you are ready to walk the path alone, along with the things mentioned by Sal.

[Sal Canzonieri]

To muddy the waters a bit, if one has not learned the transitions the style espouses, can one perfect the techniques that depend on those transitions?

In my experience, good forms are often about good transitions as much as good technique.

True, for how forms are done today, but the techniques were done in sequences, variable sequences. Eventually certain combos became forms.

Different lineages do the combos in different order, and hence you have variation in forms from one linage to another in certain styles.

[Sal Canzonieri]

That depends on the form. A good form pairs moves with their logical complements. One can then drill this.

Also, a good internal form drills the necessary dan tien work as well.

I agree that the form is best for those who know, but I am currently leaning toward a view of forms as a continuation of detail work, not merely as documentation.

Agreed, forms become a tool in the long run.
I think that is more a modern thing (post Ming dynasty).

But, if you haven't learned the body mechanics details and so on of the techniques, all you are doing when practicing forms is reinforcing bad habits.

And, this is obvious when you see most forms done today, lousy body mechanics.

[MasterKiller]

What is the evidence forms training traditionally was done at the very end of a curriculum?

[Sal Canzonieri]

What is the evidence forms training traditionally was done at the very end of a curriculum?

From the people who did them, way back when.

Shaolin forms during the early Song were created because there were false people claiming they were trained in Shaolin so that they could get bodyguard jobs, etc. and they were beaten and people laughed at Shaolin. SO, the head military monk developed a series of sets so that people who left Shaolin could be readily identified and would have high standards, since they had to pass a test.

All the various styles that developed around the Ming dynasty and Qing have a forms book that was passed to the next in line each generation. Most style lineage holders have these books in their possession.

[MasterKiller]

From the people who did them, way back when.

Shaolin forms during the early Song were created because there were false people claiming they were trained in Shaolin so that they could get bodyguard jobs, etc. and they were beaten and people laughed at Shaolin. SO, the head military monk developed a series of sets so that people who left Shaolin could be readily identified and would have high standards, since they had to pass a test.

OK...I'm not doubting it. But other than anectdotal legends, I'm just curious if there is any actual proof or if this is just your best educated guess.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

So the evidence is contained in the books that were passed down?

[Shaolinlueb]

omg tyson does spm, chuck does long fist.

a punch is a punch. if the fighter uses a punch and it comes form a style, who said he studies that style. he might just like the punch and have no clue on the style. **** this is funny categorizing this stuff.

[golden arhat]

does anybody realise as mr punch has

that RD keeps making completely contradictory statements ? :confused:

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

What is contradictory? My premiss is that forms are the last thing, for the teachers and senior most people. Where have I contradicted myself, and said they were not?

[golden arhat]

What is contradictory? My premiss is that forms are the last thing, for the teachers and senior most people. Where have I contradicted myself, and said they were not?

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=794372&postcount=151

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I don't see the contradiction there. He does Kempo, Modern Kempo has a Chinese influence, and Lidell fights with a lot of chinese principals and uses chinese techniques.

So, since EVERYONE denies he has any Chinese influence, then one must conclude this comes to him through the Chinese influences from his Kempo.

Again, what contradictions have I posted? Seems I am just saying the same thing over, and over in a variety of ways rather than contradicting myself.

[golden arhat]

I don't see the contradiction there. He does Kempo, Modern Kempo has a Chinese influence, and Lidell fights with a lot of chinese principals and uses chinese techniques.

So, since EVERYONE denies he has any Chinese influence, then one must conclude this comes to him through the Chinese influences from his Kempo.

Again, what contradictions have I posted? Seems I am just saying the same thing over, and over in a variety of ways rather than contradicting myself.

ask him where he got it from

write him a letter he's not like such a mega celebrity that he wont write u back


he isnt using kung fu he is using mma regardless of where the technique originally come from (and it probably came from everywhere as human bodies can only do x amount of things) its still MIXED martial arts
saying kung fu works i the cage because one technique that isnt specifically chinese was used

ive found jabs in cma that doesnt mean that kung fu works all over
its also found everywhere

[KC Elbows]

he isnt using kung fu he is using mma regardless of where the technique originally come from (and it probably came from everywhere as human bodies can only do x amount of things) its still MIXED martial arts

MMA is not a style, it's a format, nothing more, the moves found in it are attributable, in pretty much every case, to a specific style that is not called mma. Since the issue being nitpicked is related to what title and what style it is attributable to or came from, and what styles may have influenced that, mma really is not an answer.

If he got it from kenpo, meaningless as this may be, there is a documented link to cma. More research than anyone on this thread is ever going to put into this MIGHT answer whether that move came from cma, but no one is going to take this that far, so it stands as a possibility and nothing more, but it is a far greater possibility that it came from kenpo OR a style of kung fu than from a competition format.

And, if you're going to say "human bodies can only do x amount of things", you may as well say "human bodies can do more things than I could potentially count".:p

[MasterKiller]

This is where Chuck's techniques come from:

http://www.thepit.tv/

School > style.

[KC Elbows]

This is where Chuck's techniques come from:

http://www.thepit.tv/

School > style.

technique>school

Where does the technique come from?

Style.

So the proper chain, as proven by mma, is technique>steroids>school>conditioning>style

paralleled by

shaven head with goatee and prison tat=japanese guy in gi

[sanjuro_ronin]

This is where Chuck's techniques come from:

http://www.thepit.tv/

School > style.

Cool, the Versa Climber, best machine in the world baby !!

[ittokaos]

It wasn't just his punches. It was his stance, body shape, footwork, and then punches that resembled SPM. I never said that he did it but my Sifu says that it kinda seemed like it.

I hope this helps,

WF

ps. great story Sal

[Sal Canzonieri]

So the evidence is contained in the books that were passed down?

Yes, that is the case.

[Sal Canzonieri]

OK...I'm not doubting it. But other than anectdotal legends, I'm just curious if there is any actual proof or if this is just your best educated guess.

The actual proof is the actual manuals that the lineage holders possess.
Many are in Chinese museums, many as in the hands of the families.

[Shaolinlueb]

i never said chuck didnt have any influence.

i find it hilarious you try to categorize everything into coming form a style. i think this is whats wrong with CMA. its like the chinese we got this he is our school. no he is our school. no he is ours!!

its okay to talk techniques if you are training. but come on really.

[rovere]

1. Prior to and during the Japanese war (1930's) empty hand xingyi basics were taught at the cenetral military academy at nanjing before weapon work was taught. (Perhaps because they were training officer/instructors?)

2. Even though most loved the article (as noted by a mention in the forum and elsewhere), many of the comments and connections between xingyi and dadao in Gene's article are incorrect/unsubstantiated. (To his credit, Gene did publish my letter that went through the article point by point.)

3. unarmed combat in military action is almost certainly a non-existant situation. That's why armies (like the PLA) teach improvised weaponry.

The question: I often see/hear people saying "a punch is a punch". While I understand many different styles have the same punches, I have also heard it in terms of delivering power behind the blow. Here is where I disagree. There is a great deal of difference in terms of mechanical efficiency from say a shotokan reverse punch (yakazuki? sp?) and a vertical punch with elbows close to the body such as p'eng in xingyi.

Have others on the forum also heard this second comment or is this just unique to the people I happen to come across?

[Mr Punch]

If he got it from kenpo, meaningless as this may be, there is a documented link to cma. More research than anyone on this thread is ever going to put into this MIGHT answer whether that move came from cma, but no one is going to take this that far, so it stands as a possibility and nothing more, but it is a far greater possibility that it came from kenpo OR a style of kung fu than from a competition format.

And, if you're going to say "human bodies can only do x amount of things", you may as well say "human bodies can do more things than I could potentially count".:pIt is meaningless, unless you are stating that the energy used in SPM is the same as that in kempo... I take it you're not?

It's not a principle, it's a frigging punch: a tech, which on the face of it looks the same, but in effect is as silly as saying Tyson's style comes from or even is the same as whatever the hell kung fu style just tried to lay claims on it above.

The punch may come from SPM and may still bear superficial resemblance to SPM, but the principles of the two arts are nothing similar, plus Chuck kas never done ****ing kung fu so you can't say that he's using kung fu in the ring. Full stop.

I give up.

Good post Rovere, interesting and to the point.

[sanjuro_ronin]

1. Prior to and during the Japanese war (1930's) empty hand xingyi basics were taught at the cenetral military academy at nanjing before weapon work was taught. (Perhaps because they were training officer/instructors?)

2. Even though most loved the article (as noted by a mention in the forum and elsewhere), many of the comments and connections between xingyi and dadao in Gene's article are incorrect/unsubstantiated. (To his credit, Gene did publish my letter that went through the article point by point.)

3. unarmed combat in military action is almost certainly a non-existant situation. That's why armies (like the PLA) teach improvised weaponry.

The question: I often see/hear people saying "a punch is a punch". While I understand many different styles have the same punches, I have also heard it in terms of delivering power behind the blow. Here is where I disagree. There is a great deal of difference in terms of mechanical efficiency from say a shotokan reverse punch (yakazuki? sp?) and a vertical punch with elbows close to the body such as p'eng in xingyi.

Have others on the forum also heard this second comment or is this just unique to the people I happen to come across?

Its like comparing apples and oranges, yes they are both fruits, both grow on trees, both have seeds, both have a peel and both make juice, but no one will mistake one with the other.
A punch is a punch, just like a fruit is a fruit, that doesn't mean they are all the same.
BTW, its gyaku-tzuki ( T can be optional) :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

It wasn't just his punches. It was his stance, body shape, footwork, and then punches that resembled SPM. I never said that he did it but my Sifu says that it kinda seemed like it.

I hope this helps,

WF

ps. great story Sal

Hmm Hung gar guys see he looked like a Hung Ga guy, as usual, we tend to see with OUR eyes and not anyone elses.
Fact is he boxed, pure and simple.

[street_fighter]

Why is it that when someone doesn't do KF you people try to convince everyone that they do, and when someone actually does do KF and fights with it, you try to convince everyone that they don't do KF (ie. "thats just kickboxing")???

[Sal Canzonieri]

I have yet to see one thing done in MMA that wasn't already in existence in a traditional martial art somewhere already.

Why would you think that only MMA have trained that way and do what they do?

Martial arts (organized) have been around for about 5,000 years, if not more.
Don't you think that due to the natural limitations of the human body that everything has been done already somewhere at sometime in TMA?

MMA is just gladiator training, something been down already from ancient rome to china. It's a subset of TMA by all logic.

[Sal Canzonieri]

Here's an interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6reQEPBzuk

[Lucas]

I have yet to see one thing done in MMA that wasn't already in existence in a traditional martial art somewhere already.

Why would you think that only MMA have trained that way and do what they do?

Martial arts (organized) have been around for about 5,000 years, if not more.
Don't you think that due to the natural limitations of the human body that everything has been done already somewhere at sometime in TMA?

MMA is just gladiator training, something been down already from ancient rome to china. It's a subset of TMA by all logic.

How dare you show common sense and straight forward logic. How dare you, sir!

:mad:

[Pork Chop]

Here's an interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6reQEPBzuk

oh man
i'm pretty pro-tcma
but that was bad

if it was supposed to be against a typical sport fighter you'd think they'd never tried to sweep the front foot before, or tried the pushkick to the fold in the waist (even if it could make you fall like that, what's to stop you from grabbing the leg and taking him with?), or punching to the throat, or even throwing a combo for chrissakes.

that big guy did NOT like getting hit, didn't know how to roll with a punch or how to brace for it- just fall, fall, fall.

honestly, it looks like a middle school kid teaching a boxing class.
in boxing, when you're doing the jab-parry drill from the beginning; you actually try to make contact with both the jab and the parry...

how about this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj2edVl0DTo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sca81nzr3_U (a different angle)
nice to know that high level yiquan involves making the guy flinch so you can push him on the ground 2nd grader style.

shaolinlueb
As far as kung fu people claiming sport people as their own, i don't know about that. I don't think anybody is implying tyson studied spm. They're just looking for examples.

last night i was chatting with a buddy. he was trying to explain the upperbody shape of his style's fighting stance and I was trying to explain my current preference for lower body.

The upper body he was trying to demonstrate had the hips tucked forward, but the shoulders rolled too, primed for both punching and kicking. Most kung fu stances, well at least the fukien ones had the hips forward, but the shoulders way far back. A lot of thai stances had the hips right, but the shoulders still a little too far back. Boxing stances of course had the shoulders primed, but not the hips. When he saw the dutch thai boxing stance (think it was Ramon Dekker), he's like "that's it".

That doesn't mean Dekker was training what he was doing, or that he was trying to be dekker, just that the stance dekker was hitting the pads from in the clip resembled the ideal that he was working towards.


streetfighter
awesome observation. i think it's because too many people want a hero and the guy who does fake kung fu and loses isn't easy to paint as a hero; but the boxer that wins a lot and has something that resembles what certain people do is.


rovere
i was tempted to believe the "punch is a punch" crowd until i actually spent time developing the dempsey drop step, with the help of a relative of old-time boxer martin burke (fought dempsey)- he let me know it was possible and what to listen for. the mechanics of that punch go completely against typical boxing 'corkscrew power'. Once I got it, my boxing trainer let me know there was a huge difference- a week after saying i'll never be a power puncher, he was accusing me of trying to break his arm.