Why the Right Lead?

[MightyB]

Seriously, why does the TCMA fighting stance favor a right lead?

Yeah yeah I read the Bruce Lee TM theory- but it doesn't seem to be the best option once you start to ad real sparring to your curriculem... especially the straight up hardcore TCMA fighting stance which has that baby almost all the way extended. It's an easy bridge- lacks power- and takes your left almost completely out of play making a person too much of a one dimensional striker.

So why? :confused:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Why would it almost take your left out of play?
No more than the right is take out in an orthodox stance.

[MightyB]

Old school TCMA IMO closes the gate too much-- the right hand- waist- hips- pelvis- chest- etc. are extended too much . The rationale is that the stance closes off your center line and protects the groin- true to a point... but it also blocks your left- you could respond with a left to an attack- but there's an awful lot of distance to cross to strike your opponent.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Old school TCMA IMO closes the gate too much-- the right hand- waist- hips- pelvis- chest- etc. are extended too much . The rationale is that the stance closes off your center line and protects the groin- true to a point... but it also blocks your left- you could respond with a left to an attack- but there's an awful lot of distance to cross to strike your opponent.

Wich old school TCMA advocate such a closed and ill advised stance?

[MightyB]

if you're already right handed- the tendency will be to stay with the right hand- I mean it's your strong hand- the Bruce Lee TM thing. But that's why old school matches on youtube look like to doosh bags poking each other with nuth'n but weak rights even when they're right handed.

[MightyB]

Wich old school TCMA advocate such a closed and ill advised stance?

pick any style and watch it's open-handed forms- well- wing chun might be an exception.

[sanjuro_ronin]

pick any style and watch it's open-handed forms- well- wing chun might be an exception.

Hmmm, are you saying that ant TCMA, or at least the vast majority, fight off a right side lead that is so "closed" that the left side gets almost zero play?

[MightyB]

Hmmm, are you saying that ant TCMA, or at least the vast majority, fight off a right side lead that is so "closed" that the left side gets almost zero play?

that's my opinion.

One of the markers of a northern system is that when a northerner holds a spear or staff- they lead left. When you hold a sword- dao or gim- you lead left. The stances- all of them- are the same for weapons and empty hands. There is some thinking that the weapons came first- before empty hands- so why the migration to a right lead?

-

[diego]

that's my opinion.

One of the markers of a northern system is that when a northerner holds a spear or staff- they lead left. When you hold a sword- dao or gim- you lead left. The stances- all of them- are the same for weapons and empty hands. There is some thinking that the weapons came first- before empty hands- so why the migration to a right lead?

-

Greater control when hitting his PPoint with a foot long missile!?...

I'm okay boxing with the left jab right cross, but if I switch it I own a Nice Right lead...in a real fight with the basic understanding of Hop Gar footwork I'm going to use my strongest weapon to impact with which is my right as I'm right-handed...when I do ratchet work or bang a hammer I prefer the right hand....

[g-bells]

don't know about it not being effective, but if your right handed and you use the strong/power side forward stance, both of your best weapons are placed closest towards the OP and more likely will be successfull. I have no trouble eluding from this stance either

[MSphinx]

I think the right lead is a bit outdated. Having your strong side closest to your opponent isn't always a good idea, especially if you face off against an opponent trained in limb destruction. If you lose your power side, you're pretty much done for.

[diego]

I think the right lead is a bit outdated. Having your strong side closest to your opponent isn't always a good idea, especially if you face off against an opponent trained in limb destruction. If you lose your power side, you're pretty much done for.

but realistically against a bsketball player built like a nfl champ all I could rely on is hopefully tapping his chin with a jab...I'd prefer to use my strongest hit option.

[MSphinx]

but realistically against a bsketball player built like a nfl champ all I could rely on is hopefully tapping his chin with a jab...I'd prefer to use my strongest hit option.

That's a good point. I do see where you're coming from; a strong lead would most likely be better if you want to open your strikes powerfully.

Disclaimer: I practice Muay Thai so I have to deal with a lot of attacks to my lead (low kicks of dooooooooom). This is how I formed my opinion.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I train both sides equally, though I prefer an orthodox stance from my time in boxing and MT, but the "false lead" is also a great option.

I don't have issues with a strong side lead ( prefer the term dominate side), IF I can still get my other side into the action, silly to limit the arsenal when your opponent doesn't.

[g-bells]

let me clear up my post a little:

I do also train both sides forward because you may not always be able to get into your perfered stance. To say it's outdated,IMHO, is wrong. I'd rather have my best weapons at my disposal and closest to the target than have my poer side back were it is alot easier to be picked off,blocked,parried or countered

[sanjuro_ronin]

One can wonder why is it then that in pro fighting venues, you don't see more "dominate side leads" ?

[Mas Judt]

Frankly, you can develop either and make it work.

most 'pro-venues' get their handwork from boxing or muay thai which is predominantly taught as left lead. Largely because the handwork in boxing is all about setting up for the 'bomb.'

Having taught both sport stuff and CQC, a lot of the sport evolution is not alays good for the street - and vice versa. Although an absence of resistant partner training is a big gap too.

There is no perfect answer. I use a right lead and never met a boxer I could not shut down using the strategies of my method. (Not to say I never got hit or am superman.)

I know boxers that can put most TMA types into sleepy land. Just show them how to shut down kicks and basic throws and the control of spatial relationships boxing develops is very formidable.

But the idea that a left lead is 'the truth' because you find it in 'pro' combat sport arenas is laughable.

[Black Jack II]

Some historical boxing methods did not use any lead.

More of a square guard, that used either hand and elbows for protection, kinda like typical silat bone shields.

[lkfmdc]

Some historical boxing methods did not use any lead.

More of a square guard, that used either hand and elbows for protection, kinda like typical silat bone shields.

the boxing lead is related to the history of fencing (and many men did BOTH)

original fencing had "switching leads", however once one school established the single lead and thrust the others either got killed (yes, literally) or switch to single lead. Boxing subsequently adopted single lead based upon this

As an interesting note, they say (impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt) that ancient greek boxing was right forward, with the left used to block and the right used to strike. In some ways it sounds like a lot of CMA usage

[Black Jack II]

the boxing lead is related to the history of fencing (and many men did BOTH)

True dat.

Daniel Mendoza, the father of scientific boxing method, had a squared off guard.

Here is a picture, he is on the left. The manuel below is some of his ideas and methods on boxing at the time.


http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/Mendoza/

[MightyB]

I believe that fencing, like what we call TCMA, are gentlemen arts. Yes- people got killed using them in duels, but they had rules, traditions, etc. They weren't battlefield arts- they came from them- but they aren't the same.

You see- fencing is for gentlemen- it has an etiquette- a protocol that is observed- a skilled man with a rapier was at a disadvantage facing a skilled brawler with a short sword and buckler.

I think what we call TCMA is like that- yes it has deadly techniques, but it has an etiquette.

I think real Jujitsu and Shuai Chaio are closer to what battlefield arts really looked like- I think we get the right lead from them cuz when I think about it, you lead with an open stance that favors your dominant hand in wrestling, judo, jiu-jitsu, sambo, shuai chaio, etc.

So it's not the dominant lead that I'm not liking- it's the closed gentlemen's (fencer) stance that bugs me. I prefer a more square or open stance. It doesn't matter if it's right or left- but I'm starting to see that there probably is an advantage for a striker to lead with the left.

[g-bells]

One can wonder why is it then that in pro fighting venues, you don't see more "dominate side leads" ?

because in boxing you are more likely to be exchanging blow and having your power side back to throw more power shots , but i want to end a fight asap , not sit there an exchange, and not give them a chance to show what type of fighter they are

[sanjuro_ronin]

because in boxing you are more likely to be exchanging blow and having your power side back to throw more power shots , but i want to end a fight asap , not sit there an exchange, and not give them a chance to show what type of fighter they are

Pro fighting is not just Boxing...

RE: the fencing analogy.
Having done "some" while in the homeland (Spanish School and some Italian) I was exposed to the pros and cons of the dominate side lead and, of course, taught to use both.
The FMA have the "false lead" which gives you the "best of both worlds" to an extent.
I used to drive my boxing coaches crazy cause I would switch from orthodox to south paw in the middle of a fight.

Most weapon arts advocate the dominate side lead, probably how that got into the empty hand aspect of it.

Developing solid incapaciting power form both leads is the way to go.

[Shaolinlueb]

I have never lead with my right, my left cross is so weak. I have always lead with left in the year i have been training. my right cross is nice

[Shaolinlueb]

I believe that fencing, like what we call TCMA, are gentlemen arts.


tcma wasnt looked upon as a gentlemens art until the late 1800's early 1900's. before it was for the poor people. rich people had better things to do then get hit.

[lkfmdc]

Based upon both my research and practical experience, it doesn't matter which lead you use as far as "power" or "dominant" or "boxing" etc as much as "HOW DOES YOUR OPPONENT STAND?"

In boxing, the south paw is considered a "jinx" because 99% of the people fight orthodox and so a south paw is lined up "unmatched"

But going back to CMA, most fought right side forward, so all "south paws" were really "matched leads"

I don't agree with switching because you are vulnerable in the transition. A fighting stance is like a fortress. Switching leads is like having two fortresses and running out of one to run into another. Once you get in there and lock the doors again, fine, while you're running not so much so

Today, MOST fighters use orthodox so your chances of setting up "matched leads' increase dramatically is you are also orthodox

From an instructor's viewpoint, there are also reasons to run a school where everyone is "orthodox" but I won't get into that here

[the Preacher]

I don't agree with switching because you are vulnerable in the transition.
MENDOZA'S TREATISE, WITH HIS SIX LESSONS
The first principle to be established in Boxing (says he) is to be perfectly a master of the equilibrium of the body, so as to be able to change from a right to a left handed position; to advance or retreat striking or parrying; and throw the body either forward or backward without difficulty or embarrassment.


:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

MENDOZA'S TREATISE, WITH HIS SIX LESSONS
The first principle to be established in Boxing (says he) is to be perfectly a master of the equilibrium of the body, so as to be able to change from a right to a left handed position; to advance or retreat striking or parrying; and throw the body either forward or backward without difficulty or embarrassment.


:D

Any yet, the best coaches will yell your ears off if they see you do it.

[the Preacher]

........ best coaches...........



???????????????????????????

:D

[lkfmdc]

Boxing has evolved "just a bit" since 1795...... :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

???????????????????????????

:D

Dundee, Stewart, Rooney, etc, etc

[SDJerry]

Ok, I haven't seen this posted so here is my two cents.

Leading with your dominant hand puts your dominant side up front and makes it vulnerable. If you have equal ability with both sides then that's not really a big deal HOWEVER if you are like most people your left is much more uncoordinated.

By relying solely on your right hand to block what's coming in and attack, using the left only every now and then, you never train or improve your left hand. So what happens if you take a hard knock to your front leg or shin???? You're automatically going to switch stance to protect your injured leg. Now what do you got in front??? The left side that you dont' train :D

Protect your dominant side and use it for power.

[the Preacher]

Boxing has evolved "just a bit" since 1795...... :rolleyes:


Dundee, Stewart, Rooney, etc, etc



those trainers are from the "Old School"


so where's the evolution

[Mike Sheng]

Southpaws are harder to fight as well if you haven't trained to fight against them.Bruce Lee was a natural right hander so it made a lot of sense for him to stand rightside forward. He wanted to shut his opponent down quickly and soon as possible.I couldn't get a lot of fights because of my southpawness.What coach is going to put his boy in the ring that going to mess up his whole plan.It may not be so true now some 20 years later.So my plan was to fight left side then switch the last round to southpaw.(worked like a charm:D)

[sanjuro_ronin]

those trainers are from the "Old School"


so where's the evolution

And all of them preached against "switch hitters".

[Black Jack II]

Boxing has evolved "just a bit" since 1795......

Of course.

But just so I get this right, your saying your methods are better than the man who introduced modern movement into Western Boxing and basically invented the straight left.

Interesting...:cool:

[Lucas]

From a kungfu/self defense stand point (im not a pro sport fighter, dont plan to be) I have always been of the mindset to train both sides for each technique, and to spar from both sides. As well as changing stance when opportunities present themselves.

The couple of forms that I do practice, I do on both sides. My first kungfu teacher once told me "I teach you rigth side, you teach yourself left side"

My understanding, and from past experience, is that from a self defense stand point, you dont always have a ref to let you "square off" with your opponent. Sometimes you just get jumped and better not have a wet noodle for a left arm.

That doesnt mean to say that fighting from a constant form is not prefered in many/most situations.

[lkfmdc]

Of course.

But just so I get this right, your saying your methods are better than the man who introduced modern movement into Western Boxing and basically invented the straight left.

Interesting...:cool:

my methods? Hardly "my method", more the method every single boxing coach in the world currently uses (and has for over 100 years), not to mention 95% of the Muay Thai coaches :rolleyes:

[Lucas]

it seems similar to sword (axe, hammer what have you) and shield or sword and offhand (for defense / parry / counter etc.)

[lkfmdc]

Here's another reason why you don't train both sides......

If you train all your techniques on both sides, you are cutting your practice time in half. IE, if I just train orthodox I always train left jab. If I switch back and forth, half the time I am working a left jab, half the time a right jab. That may not seem like such a big deal, but what about other techniques like throws? You set up your entries, your "off balances" and your throws all based upon your stance.

[Black Jack II]

my methods? Hardly "my method", more the method every single boxing coach in the world currently uses (and has for over 100 years), not to mention 95% of the Muay Thai coaches

Got it.

Just checking to see if you were trying to start your own mythos.:D

[diego]

Here's another reason why you don't train both sides......

If you train all your techniques on both sides, you are cutting your practice time in half. IE, if I just train orthodox I always train left jab. If I switch back and forth, half the time I am working a left jab, half the time a right jab. That may not seem like such a big deal, but what about other techniques like throws? You set up your entries, your "off balances" and your throws all based upon your stance.

on the street you are not going to throw someone larger, stronger, faster than you... self defense and ring fighting is two faces one coin, Ambidexterity is key....if you got a big fight coming up in a month yeah you shouldn't cut your training time in half...but on the street if your strong side is injured, like say you have a broken left hand you better be good with the other side.

[andyhaas]

Here's another reason why you don't train both sides......

If you train all your techniques on both sides, you are cutting your practice time in half. IE, if I just train orthodox I always train left jab. If I switch back and forth, half the time I am working a left jab, half the time a right jab. That may not seem like such a big deal, but what about other techniques like throws? You set up your entries, your "off balances" and your throws all based upon your stance.

??? Bagua never practices on only one side at least w/barehand forms. Training on one side is kindof lame. What if you get your weapon taken out, then what do you do? When I did karate we used to just train techs on one side for tourneys, then when you get your arm or leg taken out or something what do you do then? You can't spar and you have to forfeit.

[the Preacher]

traditional Chinese martial arts
trains both sides

if you only train one side
you will only be half as able



but then again this could be "lama pie training"
kind of like some peoples "iron palm" training
train only one hand
but forget the rest of the body


to train only one side
or only one part
is a "beginners style".








:D

[Lama Pai Sifu]

traditional Chinese martial arts
trains both sides

if you only train one side
you will only be half as able



but then again this could be "lama pie training"
kind of like some peoples "iron palm" training
train only one hand
but forget the rest of the body


to train only one side
or only one part
is a "beginners style".

:D

You obviously don't have experience with TCMA. TCMA is 'right side' dominant, period.

Some styles have even developed 'left-handed' forms, i.e., Hung Fut, to help compensate for the natural imbalance.

Doesn't mean we don't use both hands, but the majority of tech goes to the right hand. You are a liar and a tool. Why do you bother, Kemo Martin??

Are you still preaching your anti-semitism? Still typing racial slurs...like you did about Jews before??

People like you deserve to get banned. How you are getting away with another account when you actually admitted your were kemo...is beyond me.

I hope you get everything in life that you deserve.

[the Preacher]

You obviously don't have experience with TCMA. TCMA is 'right side' dominant, period.

Some styles have even developed 'left-handed' forms, i.e., Hung Fut, to help compensate for the natural imbalance.

Doesn't mean we don't use both hands, but the majority of tech goes to the right hand. You are a liar and a tool. Why do you bother, Kemo Martin??

Are you still preaching your anti-semitism? Still typing racial slurs...like you did about Jews before??

People like you deserve to get banned. How you are getting away with another account when you actually admitted your were kemo...is beyond me.

I hope you get everything in life that you deserve.

thanks but,
you have really quite a "loser" mentality
and are "traditionally" wrong

hahahahahaha
:D

[Yum Cha]

This is a puzzling thread to me.

TCMA being explained using Boxing and Muy Thai??

References to battlefield arts and hand to hand? Battlefields are used by armies, armies use weapons. If you are disarmed, you do what you can till you grab another weapon. Its been a brazillion years since neanderathal picked up the jawbone of an a$$ and went to battle against invading apes. The apes might have been fighting hand to hand, but hey, I wasn't there.

I do however see the sense of the discussion from a point of view on engadgement. As usual, Ross has good solid info, but not really vintage TCMA.

I agree, most TCMA has a bias towards one side or another, but not all necessarily the same - for example traditional PM has a left lead that grabs or bridges and a big right, but, a good player learns to fight with both hands, but not in mirror image, some special stuff for right, other for left. Grab hit, grab again with the hitting hand, hit with the hand that had previously grabbed, and keep alternating until you can just keep hitting...

Personally, being a bigger boy, I like to go in squared. The point made about transitioning is exactly my mindset. I make them transition and take the opening.

By shifting squared to right to left or back again usually makes the opponent do the same.

I think of the Karate side on attack as being the right lead that Mr B is talking about, and likewise I don't equate that with TCMA.

WC has that closed center squared off approach, CLF and PM seem to favour a left lead....

Unfortuantely, it seems this is a discussion of kickboxing techniques being framed as TCMA, once again.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Of course by giving your strong side lead you are also putting your dominate weapons at a greater risk of being "defanged"...

half a dozen of one, 6 of the other...

[lkfmdc]

As usual, Ross has good solid info, but not really vintage TCMA.



I hate to do this to you, really I do. Let's be blunt, what annoys a lot of people on here is that when I point out the defects in TCMA, I'm not a BJJ guy who has never been exposed to "the real stuff".

I spent 16 years with a very respected sifu, I was adopted into his system, I am a full instructor under him. I have a pretty diverse TCMA background. I've also studied with a lot of other respected Sifu.

It's easy to brush off someone who has only done "strip mall kung fu".... having someone who was once strongly associated with the tradition pointing out what it is lacking is like a church official questioning dogma

I've said it before. ONE, most of what we call "kung fu" is NOT "battlefield" fighting. Battlefield fighting was shields, spears, swords, lances and ARMOUR! Most TCMA is military arts that filtered down to the common person as these skills became LESS RELEVANT to real battlefield combat. Much of TCMA relates to gang activities, bodyguarding, personal challenges, etc....

TWO: TCMA has a context. It was originaly designed to fight the methods that were around it at the time, with their characteristics and preconceptions

When everyone is fighting "south paw", then there is no "orthodox stance". Most TCMA presupposes bridging and trapping strategies. Virtually no TCMA method understood "ground fighting" in the way it is understood today

If you want to talk about effectiveness, you need to be up to date and look at what the world around you is doing.

If you want to do "traditional" for the sake of culture and history, that's fine of course, but it makes you rather similar to men who dress up in cival war uniforms and re-enact the battles of the 1860's. It's fun and all, but we don't send those guys off to today's modern wars, nor do we wage modern wars with the weapons of the past

[the Preacher]

............

Virtually no TCMA method understood "ground fighting" in the way it is understood today..............


you believe that?


i don't


:D

[KC Elbows]

Boxing has evolved "just a bit" since 1795...... :rolleyes:

Do you think a modern boxer would beat Mendoza using the rules from Mendoza's time?

I would suggest if they could, it is more likely from better knowledge of conditioning than that every adjustment made in boxing was refinement of technique.

[lkfmdc]

Do you think a modern boxer would beat Mendoza using the rules from Mendoza's time?

I would suggest if they could, it is more likely from better knowledge of conditioning than that every adjustment made in boxing was refinement of technique.

You can still get film of turn-of-the-century boxing, then compare it to today's boxing. You will likely be horrified by the wild swing and lack of defense even of some of the "greats" of the past

[cjurakpt]

the boxing lead is related to the history of fencing (and many men did BOTH)

original fencing had "switching leads", however once one school established the single lead and thrust the others either got killed (yes, literally) or switch to single lead. Boxing subsequently adopted single lead based upon this

this was essentially the French versus Italian / Spanish school thing: as thrust technique became more precise and refined, it obviated the need for circular foot work, and was much more efficient than slashing / cutting; since armor wasn't an issue anymore, you could be effective this way; also, in re: to what someone posted about "etiquette" - I'm surmising that you could "win" a gentleman's duel by sticking someone just enough to draw blood (as opposed to running them through, which obviously happened as well), which was probably preferable to slashing them open with a long cut - just a conjecture...

a great example of historical dueling in the European tradition can be seen by watching the ~1977 Ridley Scott film "The Duelists" staring Harvey Keitel and Keith Carrdine - gives a good overview of a variety of H2H fighting styles with different types of blades

[cjurakpt]

you believe that?


i don't


:D

but then again, you are an idiot...

[Lucas]

I know this is off the topic, but it seems we may have a bit of knowledge on this thread in regards to western fencing.

How closely related is the (pre sport) science of western fencing (bladed rapier) in relation to the Chinese Jian. They seem like similar weapons which may need a similar amount of mastership to weild effectively in actual combat.

[lkfmdc]

Western fencing went through stages.... early methods, mostly for battlefield, were "hack and slash" and more similar to Dahn Do. By the Renaissance, fencing became a personal method both for defense and honor. No armour. "Combination blades" (thrust and cut: similar to Jian) fairly quickly gave way to just thrust blades ultimately, hardly even blades really. The ultimately became tappered shafts with very sharp points, cabable of killing you with a single run through.

[cjurakpt]

The ultimately became tappered shafts with very sharp points, cabable of killing you with a single run through.

and culminating in the late 20th century device known as the "pointed stick"...

[lkfmdc]

and culminating in the late 20th century device known as the "pointed stick"...

which we will get to, LATER

right now, bananna's, ok, have at me, with all you've got!

[Yum Cha]

I hate to do this to you, really I do. Let's be blunt, what annoys a lot of people on here is that when I point out the defects in TCMA, I'm not a BJJ guy who has never been exposed to "the real stuff".
--
If you want to talk about effectiveness, you need to be up to date and look at what the world around you is doing.
--
If you want to do "traditional" for the sake of culture and history, that's fine of course, but it makes you rather similar to men who dress up in cival war uniforms and re-enact the battles of the 1860's. It's fun and all, but we don't send those guys off to today's modern wars, nor do we wage modern wars with the weapons of the past


Ross,
Know this about me, I listen. I try to learn. And, I have respect for what you do, how you do it and your understanding. You can be a goose, but it takes one to know one.

And, I understand your background with CTS. I'm sure we'd be mates if we shared the same patch. I read you slag TCMA with one post, praise it with another, I know the score, its all just chat and chatter.

And the talk about battlefield KF wasn't you anyway.

But, we have ideological differences, in that bit about using old techniques in modern conflicts. Mainstream, popular, profitable, those justifications just don't float for me. You can recognise exceptional with the justification of average.

Please correct me if I misunderstand, but you advocate that modern techniques are applicable to modern conflicts, modern opponents, and have evolved beyond the 'old ways' due to pressure testing in mma and technical evolution. And you can make that observation because you have been exposed to both. Is that fair?

My opinion is that people simply find the old techniques to difficult to execute and shift to more popular "modern techniques" (what I off-handedly call generic kickboxing because I know it gets a rise here and there), which are optimised for modern sport fighting, and give the impression of effectiveness within a small, controlled, yet tough parameter. That it replaces skill for fitness to overcome.

As I've told you, I've got my sport fighting stripes as well, faded though they may be. I trained as a kid fighting GI's in Europe, who simply wouldn't accept a kid of 14 who wouldn't yeild. In the 35 years in between, I probably picked up a few skills, I'd hope. So, I trust you take my point of view with a small measure of consideration as well.

I contend that if you can make across that bridge of practice and comittment to the TCMA skills, and learn to apply those traditional skills - at lease as far as Pak Mei is concerned. You have usable skills that are very effective in a wide range of situations.

You may even get a shot at exceptionals skills. And, that is not to say exceptional skills don't exist elsewhere as well.

Unfortunately it a bit of, "if you don't know already, you wouldn't understand." My motivation is not to blow my own horn, but to give the young guys a bit of support in their own choices, should they decide not to go modern, but to search within the traditional for their answers. There is a reward, not a dead end, as many contend.

Thats why I don't agree with your metaphore about raging modern war with weapons of the past. I think it is simply an issue of how quickly you can train up a fighter, not the theoretical maximum level of skill either can obtain.

Likewise, too many people simply overlook or simply dismiss the multi-fasceted nature of a study of TCMA as opposed to ring fighting.

The longevity of participation as well.

As a control, lets examine your perspective and that of your brothers, Lama Pai Sifu and cjurakpt (a brother, right? I don't want to be out of line here, I'm just speculating). Their paths are different to yours?

Out of curiosity, which of the three of you is the better fighter - personally? I get the sneaking suspicion its LPS, with all respect. You probably train better San Da fighters though, correct?

Has he got some surprises up his sleeve?

[lkfmdc]

Please correct me if I misunderstand, but you advocate that modern techniques are applicable to modern conflicts, modern opponents, and have evolved beyond the 'old ways' due to pressure testing in mma and technical evolution. And you can make that observation because you have been exposed to both. Is that fair?



Not exactly. I advocate modern perspective and modern training methods

I don't believe in forms. I believe in heavy bag, focus mitts, kick shields, Thai pads, etc

I believe that you train with realistic drills. IE you box, you kickbox, you clinch, you wrestle, you roll.

Push hands as they do in Chen village is "alive" but far too much push hands is artificial, based on unrealistic assumptions about fighting and fake ideas about "power" and using "chi"

Anything the pre-supposes an opponent is going to use YOUR method, will use theory like bridging, etc is unrealistic, stuff like Chi Sao where you assume someone is going to square up with you, cross hands, never break contact, never throw head shots, etc

I recently suggested something on another thread. Get a buddy who has NO TRAINING, put a set of boxing gloves on him and tell him to throw punches at you as hard as he can, then TEST your defense. See what happens.....




My opinion is that people simply find the old techniques to difficult to execute and shift to more popular "modern techniques" (what I off-handedly call generic kickboxing because I know it gets a rise here and there), which are optimised for modern sport fighting, and give the impression of effectiveness within a small, controlled, yet tough parameter.



Strongly disagree on a number of levels. First and foremost, the idea that "it is JUST a sport" or just "give the impression of effectiveness within a small, controlled, (edit) parameter"

If I can box with a trained striker, you don't think I can defend punches on the street?

If I can keep a trained grappler/wrestler from taking me down, you don't think that I can defend a tackle on teh street

Pardon the pun, but the "cutting edge" in knife defense these days is that the clinch and wrestling skills (and "alive testing") that people do in MMA is exactly how you prepare to defend against a blade, IE you overhoodk, tie up, and most importantly TEST those skills with sparring.

Second, I again feel the entire mindset of TCMA is "off"

There are tons of useable "traditional" techniques, but they are the same ones the MMA people use (punches, elbows, knees, kicks, trips, etc)

Why is it that no matter what the format, we never seem to see the idealized movements of TCMA expressed in fighting? Why does it always look like "kickboxing"?

Have we ever seen a fight that looks like Hung Ga, Pak Mei, Tang Lang, etc???

I frequently see clips where the defenders of TCMA argue that the PRINCIPLES are there. That I agree with! TCMA is full of solid principles, I use them all the time.

But the lack of any concept of "aliveness" or "randori" in TCMA has hampered TCMA. Techniques have been developed that simply do not stand up to the test of real resistance, adrenaline, stress, and people who don't fight using the "accepted" methods.




Out of curiosity, which of the three of you is the better fighter - personally? I get the sneaking suspicion its LPS, with all respect. You probably train better San Da fighters though, correct?



Everyone is entitled to an opinion

[diego]

Not exactly. I advocate modern perspective and modern training methods

I don't believe in forms. I believe in heavy bag, focus mitts, kick shields, Thai pads, etc

I believe that you train with realistic drills. IE you box, you kickbox, you clinch, you wrestle, you roll.

Push hands as they do in Chen village is "alive" but far too much push hands is artificial, based on unrealistic assumptions about fighting and fake ideas about "power" and using "chi"

Anything the pre-supposes an opponent is going to use YOUR method, will use theory like bridging, etc is unrealistic, stuff like Chi Sao where you assume someone is going to square up with you, cross hands, never break contact, never throw head shots, etc

I recently suggested something on another thread. Get a buddy who has NO TRAINING, put a set of boxing gloves on him and tell him to throw punches at you as hard as he can, then TEST your defense. See what happens.....



Strongly disagree on a number of levels. First and foremost, the idea that "it is JUST a sport" or just "give the impression of effectiveness within a small, controlled, (edit) parameter"

If I can box with a trained striker, you don't think I can defend punches on the street?

If I can keep a trained grappler/wrestler from taking me down, you don't think that I can defend a tackle on teh street

Pardon the pun, but the "cutting edge" in knife defense these days is that the clinch and wrestling skills (and "alive testing") that people do in MMA is exactly how you prepare to defend against a blade, IE you overhoodk, tie up, and most importantly TEST those skills with sparring.

Second, I again feel the entire mindset of TCMA is "off"

There are tons of useable "traditional" techniques, but they are the same ones the MMA people use (punches, elbows, knees, kicks, trips, etc)

Why is it that no matter what the format, we never seem to see the idealized movements of TCMA expressed in fighting? Why does it always look like "kickboxing"?

Have we ever seen a fight that looks like Hung Ga, Pak Mei, Tang Lang, etc???

I frequently see clips where the defenders of TCMA argue that the PRINCIPLES are there. That I agree with! TCMA is full of solid principles, I use them all the time.

But the lack of any concept of "aliveness" or "randori" in TCMA has hampered TCMA. Techniques have been developed that simply do not stand up to the test of real resistance, adrenaline, stress, and people who don't fight using the "accepted" methods.



Everyone is entitled to an opinion

Good post Ross...imo the downfall of traditional CMA was opium and communists...those two factors promoted a lot of bull**** artistic kung fu...imagine hippies being potheads taking over karate lol...all high on lsd and mary j: http://youtube.com/watch?v=XAWFBbQa_84

and we all hate wu shu:) MMA was a blessing from bhudda for the communist hcinese, chinese have so much pride and now that all their children love mma, the parents with their pride are gonna have to promote the real gung fu to build the pride of the nation. The next 50 years should be interesting for san shou etc:)

[Yum Cha]

Funny, you'll see from my comments below we are not that far apart. I think there is a lot of misconception of what traditional training really is, being that too many have been poisoned by second class, or third class pretend Sifus...

I have always likened my Sifu to an old boxing coach, as opposed to a mystical master with mumbo jumbo philosophy and Kwai Chang Cane secrets.


Not exactly. I advocate modern perspective and modern training methods

I don't believe in forms. I believe in heavy bag, focus mitts, kick shields, Thai pads, etc

--------- Forms and pads for me.

I believe that you train with realistic drills. IE you box, you kickbox, you clinch, you wrestle, you roll.

--------- I have learned the need for grappling, I try to integrate it for the realism, but I'm trying to develop it from the trapping and barging that is part of Pak Mei. Its interesting, and getting more effective.

Push hands as they do in Chen village is "alive" but far too much push hands is artificial, based on unrealistic assumptions about fighting and fake ideas about "power" and using "chi"

------- I don't like push hands at all. Its a fun game to play, but you miss your chances to attack the man for focus on fighting the hands. Sensitivity is not an issue in my style. Touch and twitch.

Anything the pre-supposes an opponent is going to use YOUR method, will use theory like bridging, etc is unrealistic, stuff like Chi Sao where you assume someone is going to square up with you, cross hands, never break contact, never throw head shots, etc

---------- We NEVER fight assuming you are fighting another Pak Mei fighter. We parctice techniques against our own, and the boys play to try and find their brother's weaknesses, but our heavy practice is done against a padded coach throwing kickboxing.

I recently suggested something on another thread. Get a buddy who has NO TRAINING, put a set of boxing gloves on him and tell him to throw punches at you as hard as he can, then TEST your defense. See what happens.....

------ Like I said, that is exactly what we do, in a manner of speaking. Its developing.

...First and foremost, the idea that "it is JUST a sport" or just "give the impression of effectiveness within a small, controlled, (edit) parameter"

If I can box with a trained striker, you don't think I can defend punches on the street?

------ Sure

If I can keep a trained grappler/wrestler from taking me down, you don't think that I can defend a tackle on teh street

------ Sure

Pardon the pun, but the "cutting edge" in knife defense these days is that the clinch and wrestling skills (and "alive testing") that people do in MMA is exactly how you prepare to defend against a blade, IE you overhoodk, tie up, and most importantly TEST those skills with sparring.

------ So It seems, I've looked at some of that stuff too.

Second, I again feel the entire mindset of TCMA is "off"

There are tons of useable "traditional" techniques, but they are the same ones the MMA people use (punches, elbows, knees, kicks, trips, etc)

------ I totally agree. But, for example, how do you train the grapple, head butt, groin knee combo followed by the double ear box? I've yet to see it done in any sport contest, but mess with me, and that's what is coming your way...works pretty good if it gets through, and yes I can do it against a resisting opponent.

------- We also train to break elbow joints and knees, very thoroughly. But before Knife pipes up and asks for a video, isn't the point more about mindset, practice and target selection training, no matter which combinations or techniques you choose?
movements of TCMA expressed in fighting? Why does it always look like "kickboxing"?

Have we ever seen a fight that looks like Hung Ga, Pak Mei, Tang Lang, etc???

I frequently see clips where the defenders of TCMA argue that the PRINCIPLES are there. That I agree with! TCMA is full of solid principles, I use them all the time.

----- I think we all tend to give Youtube the un-earned title as "master library of everything that happens in the world" too often. Remember, with Pak Mei, Tang Lang and other arts, you allow 20 seconds to disable your opponent, and you run. With all my boys real life experience, that's how it played out. Except the guy that got caught on security video and snagged by security. Sorry, I don't have a copy.


But the lack of any concept of "aliveness" or "randori" in TCMA has hampered TCMA. Techniques have been developed that simply do not stand up to the test of real resistance, adrenaline, stress, and people who don't fight using the "accepted" methods.

------ I can agree with you that aliveness in training is important. I will agree that many traditional teachers neglect it. I suspect your teacher didn't, so perhaps a blanket statement about TCMA might be a bit off hand?



(concerning Ross and his brothers skills) Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

----- Yes, and I really haven't one, only a speculation. However, as I'm sure you'll agree, you know, they know, and of course, you have the right to keep it to yourself. My point is not to 'face' you, only to make you consider my point, and try to see my sense.



Thanks for engageing me on this topic.

Cheers