Traditional Chop Suey

[TenTigers]

If you consider yourself a Traditionalist in terms of TCMA, then what are your opinions of people who add things, techniques, or methods, or different ways of performing the same technique, garnered from other systems?

If you do Hung-Ga,or Choy Li Fut, and see a Hop=Ga guy doing his punches differently, and you adopt that into your training and your forms, are you "flavoring" your Gung-Fu, or tainting it?
If you see a system like Muay Thai throw their roundhouse, and you like that particular tool, are you bastidizing your art by adding it into your system?

I know some JKD guys like to say,"I'm using a savate kick, into a kali destruction, into a wing chun trap, into a silat lock...."
Could you just as well say, 'I'm using a (your style here)kick, into a destruction...etc?"
How is it different?
Now, there will always be exceptions-people who make up their own styles from moves they have seen in movies, or tournaments, and are only mimicking, and trying to appear as if what they are doing is TCMA-we've all seen them.
Ah, but where is the line drawn?

ok, this seems controversal enough to go a few pages....;)
Let's see what happens.

[Ben Gash]

It's the traditional way. The skill is synthesising new material into your existing framework, so that you have a cohesive system. At the end of the day, most of us just teach "us", the style that got us to this point is somewhat incidental, it's a matrix for teaching "us".

[Jimbo]

I personally do not consider myself a traditional CMA-ist. I consider my style as CLF. But prior to that I had trained 7-Star N. Mantis for many years. And before that, had trained nearly a decade in karate, (kenpo and TKD), and some judo. Although I long ago stopped training those other styles, when I moved on I did not suddenly drop everything that fit my body and worked for me. Things get adjusted and adapted, such as certain Mantis principles. My side and roundhouse kicks essentially haven't changed much since the karate days of my youth. Therefore, as one example, my side kick looks different from many practitioners who come from what might be called a "pure" kung fu background. Yet I don't consider it a karate or TKD or northern/southern kung fu side kick; just a side kick.

This is much different from simply collecting a bunch of styles or techniques. That had never been my intention. Ultimately you discover what you enjoy the most and what works best for you. When training CLF, I do my best to do as I was taught. But you end up actually using your own personal style anyway. Even within different schools of the same system (and within same schools) you see personal variations in the way people spar or do the same forms, due to differences in physique, experience, demeanor, age, etc. Yet they are still doing the same system.

Also, I'm not really sure what traditional CMA means. Is CLF, for example, practiced now as it was in the 1800s? I don't know. I'm sure a lot was added and refined between then and now. Originally, CLF had few forms; now it has dozens. Mixing and combining martial arts or m.a. principles isn't anything new. Mantis and CLF were examples of "MMA" of their day. That doesn't mean it's necessarily good to just randomly add together a bunch of techniques or variations at a whim, though. As far as forms go, at this point I prefer to concentrate on only a relative few.

Another reason I don't think of myself as a traditionalist...and this thought only applies to myself...is that traditionally, only Chinese were taught kung fu, and I am not Chinese. So back in the really old days, I would not have even been considered for instruction.

As far as if someone wants to add a Thai round kick into their training, I suppose if it works for them and seems to fit their style, I really can't criticize that. But I might add that if they are a teacher who's handing down a kung fu system that is traditional, it might behoove him or her to still give the students the option of doing the round kick the way the original style does it, too (that is, if the style has a round kick, etc.).

[TenTigers]

ok, I edited it slightly, see if this changes anything.

[JGTevo]

I don't consider myself a traditional CMAist either... but here's my opinion.

Personally I think to not pursue endless knowledge is detrimental to your development as a martial artist.

"Tainting" a martial art should not be adding or removing from a system. No, I believe it is when an instructor adds things that he does not understand to a system, or when he forgets or fails to fully understand a technique which he teaches.

For instance, when muay thai became popular, I saw instructor's from various schools adding in knees to their styles, knees which were sold off as 'Effective" but lacked any understanding of how a proper knee is thrown. I've seen roundhouses, jabs, hooks and crosses thrown with such extreme lack of understanding that I want to smack people upside their head for doing such ridiculousness.

But when it comes to adding and removing things... martial arts is a personal journey.. there is no end to how much you can learn, experiment, improve and understand. As a teacher, well if you teach Wing Chun, teach Wing chun. If you teach Wing Chun and your own collection of experience, teach it as such. No need to lie about it. Eddie Bravo teaches his own flavor of BJJ, tells people its his own flavor of BJJ, still respects his Master and what he teaches very much, and it's worked out great for him.

[GeneChing]

See our 2008 September/October issue (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=780): Old School Street Fighter: Master Hoy Lee, The Father of American Jow Gar. Jow Gar is traditional MMA. When you read the article, you'll know why.

[mickey]

Greetings,

I saw Guru Dan Inosanto doing the style breakdown in response to an attack on video. I did not realize that this was the "language" of the JKD people. When I saw Guru Inosanto do this, I got a lucid of Bruce doing the demo a little differently. He said, "This guy is going to attack me. Now, watch how I kick his a$$."

In response to the initial post, most TCMA are divided into two basic categories: progressive and conservative. There is some overlapping. For me, there is no difference between the two.


mickey

[GreenCloudCLF]

If you do Hung-Ga,or Choy Li Fut, and see a Hop=Ga guy doing his punches differently, and you adopt that into your training and your forms, are you "flavoring" your Gung-Fu, or tainting it?


Heehee. He said "taint"

[Shaolinlueb]

traditionalists that act like their teachers word is never wrong and that their teacher is god i just roll my eyes at and are close minded and not worth even discussing kung fu with cause its not their way so its wrong. and usually when i watch them their kung fu is sub par.

[TenTigers]

traditionalists that act like their teachers word is never wrong and that their teacher is god i just roll my eyes at and are close minded and not worth even discussing kung fu with cause its not their way so its wrong. and usually when i watch them their kung fu is sub par.

ain't that the truth!

[Shaolinlueb]

ain't that the truth!

ten whats up man? long time no talk. but you know what I am talking about right?

DMX!! remember that guy? ha.

[wind draft]

Why does it matter? I think it's cool if you can do all that.....Add a technique here and there.

Sure, people can be good at it all... If they're only techniques and not the whole system.

A person can only move so much in many different ways.. So if it works for you, it works for you.. My kung fu style originated from Choy Lay Fut. But has lots of flavoring from my grandmaster likes.

I can end up having my own style because of the way I like to do things.. But isn't that the unique aspect of it and why martial arts is so great? The difference and different in varieties of styles, systems, and technique; but yet how they are all so similar in many ways?

[SteveLau]

To supplement what I said before on similar topic, include foreign techniques into your art is not necessary wrong. Ultimately, whether it is good to do so depends on the why, how, and end result. For example, mixing this and that randomly by putting them in an electric blender is not good.


Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

[firepalm]

Although it gets some criticism for not being so called 'traditional' I personally like what many of the private 'Shaolin' schools, and other such private clubs in China, are doing. Once you get past the monk thing and all that, I think they have become pretty progressiveng while still retaining that certain Kung Fu CMA flavour. Many of these clubs will still employ a traditional syllabus of some sort and then have their people train extensively in other things such as Sanshou, Wrestling, Modern Wushu, acrobatics, etc... and I believe as result a superior athlete. And a better athlete is a better martial artist.

Some schools here in the West are now employing similar approaches and I think it is a good thing because that means they are producing a better martial artists as opposed to simply trying carry forward some sort of antiquated tradition.

I was at a CLF dinner function recently and several different clubs, that all originated from GM Wong Ha, performed. Each know were distinctly different in their approach but one in particular drew some criticism from some of the old guard for having what some felt was a 'wushu' flavour. And while it was true that club had many of it's CLF students cross training in wushu what they presented was purely CLF. I countered to a few of the critics that it wasn't so much the wushu tainting but just these martial artist were better athletes. Truth be known the majority of the other clubs looked liked their people had their feet stuck in mud and moved at about the pace of middle aged Tai Chi practitioner. :eek:

If it improves the martial artist then add it in!

[SteveLau]

So besides the not so good types of mix-and-match style development mentioned by Tentigers, let's talk about the serious type. IMHO, some are based on valid reasons, but some are not.


For example, invalid reasons can be

- the current system is not complete
- put the best of every style into one container
- to retain what one has learnt



Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

[TenTigers]

I was actually putting out feelers, trying to see where people's heads were at.

I have, in the past, shared my explorations into various interpetations of Hung-Ga techniques on another southern fist board(which shall remain nameless).

I also recieved alot of flak from this.

Mostly coming from people who felt they were big, know-it-alls, higher up on the Hung Family totem pole, because their Sifu was so-and-so.

They would respond with all sorts of drek,
such as"Hung-Ga has different engines," (wtf is an engine in Gung-Fu?)
or "We don't play it that way, so it's not real Hung-Ga.."
(yeah, Homey don't play dat!)

The bottom line is, after speaking with people who are far more qualified, I made a (not so startling) discovery-

Back in the day, Sifus used to get together on a regular basis and compare and exchange techniques.
If someone had a technique or skill that you liked, you simply asked him for it, and it went into your repitoire.
There was no "Oh, we don't do it like that," type of mentality.
Absorb what is useful.(sound familiar?)

That is how Gung-Fu grows,develops, and evolves.

It is only recently, especially with westerners,
who are so concerned with their so-called purity of their system,
trying to be more traditional and more Chinese than the Chinese- that evolution in TCMA has come to a screeching halt.

Always bear in mind: If your Gung-Fu is not growing and evolving, then it is stagnant, and dead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Kevin Huang]

Virtually all kung fu is "traditional chop suey", as are the people that practice them.

There hardly exist any styles or practitioners that have not drawn from other influences.

Personally, I don't concern myself with the term "traditional". I concern myself with whether or not my technique is effective.

Those who are resistant to modern methods stand an excellent chance of being defeated by them.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Virtually all kung fu is "traditional chop suey", as are the people that practice them.

There hardly exist any styles or practitioners that have not drawn from other influences.

Personally, I don't concern myself with the term "traditional". I concern myself with whether or not my technique is effective.

Those who are resistant to modern methods stand an excellent chance of being defeated by them.

Super post. KH says it all right there. Especially the last sentence. Werd.

[SteveLau]

Virtually all kung fu is "traditional chop suey", as are the people that practice them.

by Kevin Huang

This is generally true. Sometime ago, I had some resentment towards the mixing methodology in martial art development. But very soon, I dropped the thought. Because as I look into Hung Gar which I have been training, it also has mixed with other systems to become what it is now. The art which one trains in the later part of his training is not always transmitted all from one sifu nor one style. Again, the resulting art that one trains from such mix and match methodoloy can be good or not so. That is the question we should face.



Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

[Kevin Huang]

"Good" is subjective.

[SteveLau]

"Good" is subjective? In the topic we are discussing, "good" is objective. We need to provide reason to back up our view. It is not like when we like the taste of orange and not that of papaya.



Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

[Kevin Huang]

What YOU don't think is "good" can still hurt you badly in a real fight, as so many martial artists who've considered themselves "objective" have painfully discovered over the centuries.

[GeneChing]

I just couldn't resist tty-ing this here thread with this for 2016 CNY (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?69208-Chinese-New-Year-2016-Year-of-the-MONKEY). ;) It's somewhat on topic.


A Very Brief History of Chinese Food in America (http://time.com/4211871/chinese-food-history/?xid=homepage)
Emelyn Rude Feb. 8, 2016

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/restaurant.jpeg?quality=75&strip=color&w=767
Underwood Archives / Getty Images
A Chinese restaurant in San Francisco, circa 1880.

The food eaten at Lunar New Year festivities in the U.S. has come a long way in the last 150 years

In the early hours of Monday morning, fireworks rang out across the globe to mark the beginning of the Chinese Lunar New Year. In China, the festival week begins with a bountiful New Year’s Eve dinner with extended family. To ensure a prosperous year ahead, celebrants typically feast upon auspicious fare such as dumplings, rice cakes, fish and “longevity noodles.” Snacking on tangerines is also thought to bring good luck.

In the United States, the Chinese diaspora celebrates too with parades, firecrackers and, of course, delicious food. Among the largest Spring Festival celebrations in the country is the one held every year in San Francisco, the city with the biggest and oldest Chinatown in the United States. It was here that Americans were first introduced to what is now one of their favorite cuisines—but the delicious food that might be eaten during this week’s festival had a long and often difficult time getting there.

In 1849, the rumors of gold nuggets that drew thousands of East Coast get-rich-quick hopefuls out to California during the Gold Rush also resonated across the Pacific with the merchants of Canton in South China. For centuries, the rich Chinese port city had been a center of international trade and commerce, and its entrepreneurial classes immediately saw the opportunity that glittered in the San Francisco Bay. The first Chinese immigrants to this region of the United States went into the lucrative business of providing services for the miners as traders, grocers, merchants and restaurant owners. This initial group of migrants encouraged later waves of Chinese emigrants eager to mine the hills themselves or become pioneer agricultural laborers. All of these workers were undoubtedly also hungry for good Chinese cooking that reminded them of land they had left behind.

By the mid-19th century, the United States had what could be called a fledgling restaurant culture at best, while much of China had had many centuries worth of experience in hospitality. Needless to say, those who frequented the earliest Chinese restaurants in San Francisco were impressed by the establishments’ cleanliness and professionalism. “The best restaurants,” as one patron recalled, “were kept by Chinese and the poorest and dearest by Americans.” Distinguished by what one 1850 article described as “long three-cornered flags of yellow silk” that were typically hung outside, Chinese-owned eating houses were known to serve some of the best food in the city. Their cheap prices also made their appeal to young and hungry 49-ers of all backgrounds undeniable.

But even while hordes of eaters chowed down at so-called “chow chow houses,” the early American relationship with Chinese immigrants themselves was much less palatable. The group was already conspicuous for their foreign dress and contrasting language, and as gold resources declined, anti-Chinese sentiment grew. In spite of how admirable many Californians found the work ethic of Chinese laborers, this immigrant group was increasingly scapegoated for declining wages and fewer job opportunities. Eventually, that sentiment became law. Harsh legislation against Chinese immigrants to the United States began with California’s mining tax against foreigners and the effort in 1852 to restrict the “introduction of Chinese and other Asiatics,” and it culminated in 1882 with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned all Chinese laborers from entering the United States. The act would not be repealed until 1943.

And, despite the success of early Chinese restaurants in California, that food became a focal point of many an anti-Chinese argument. Prejudiced American groups were quick to label the growing numbers of Chinatowns in cities throughout the country as “nuisances,” largely because of what was termed the unpleasant “stench” of Chinese kitchens, and many 19th century editorialists earnestly asked “Do the Chinese Eat Rats?” Even the United States’ Congress served up such rhetoric; in an 1879 speech Senator James G. Blaine of Maine declared, “You cannot work a man who must have beef and bread, and would prefer beef, alongside a man who can live on rice.” Such would necessarily “bring down the beef-and-bread man to the rice standard.” Blaine, unsurprisingly, was among the earliest supporters of the Chinese Exclusion Act.

In spite of the racist backlash, good food was still good food. The turn of the 20th century saw the emergence of Chop Suey joints as hip and affordable places for young urbanites to spend a night out. Like most popular Chinese dishes in the United States, this particular mélange of meat, egg and vegetable wasn’t actually Chinese. In the 1920s American eaters were shocked when they learned that “the average native of any city in China knows nothing of chop suey.” Writer Jennifer 8. Lee calls this dish the biggest culinary prank one culture has ever pulled on another; translated from the original Chinese, Chop Suey means “Odds & Ends,” more colloquially known as “leftovers.”

Regardless of its dubious authenticity, such adaptation of Chinese cooking to American palates was a key element in the proliferation and popularization of Chinese cuisine in the United States. Throughout the early 20th century, “Chinese” dishes became sweeter, boneless, and more heavily deep-fried. Broccoli, a vegetable unheard of in China, started appearing on menus and fortune cookies, a sweet originally thought to be from Japan, finished off a “typical” Chinese meal.

It wasn’t until the 1960s and 1970s that the United States got its first taste of “authentic” Chinese cuisine. Up until that time, the dishes that most Americans were calling “Chinese food” were still largely derived from Cantonese cuisine, which is just one of eight of the broader regional cuisines of the Middle Kingdom. The liberalization of American immigration policy in 1965 brought new arrivals from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the Mainland, who in turn brought with them the foods they had enjoyed in areas like Hunan, Sichuan, Taipei and Shanghai.

During these tasty decades, the United States experienced a renaissance in good Chinese eats, particularly in cities with large Chinese populations like New York and San Francisco. In 1967, the fine-dining Sichuan restaurant Shun Lee Palace became the first Chinese eatery to receive a four-star review from the New York Times. In the years that followed, many more skilled Chinese chefs began immigrating to the ever-more receptive and lucrative United States.

The growing obsession with all things Chinese was fueled in large part by President Richard Nixon’s famous 1972 visit to Beijing, the first time an American President had visited China since its 1949 Revolution. Demand for Chinese food, of whatever form, exploded overnight, with amazed eaters seeking out the Peking duck and multi-course Chinese feasts they had just witnessed the President eating on TV. Chinese restaurants proliferated in towns big and small.

Today, according to the Chinese American Restaurant Association, there are over 45,000 Chinese restaurants currently in operation across the United States. This number is greater than all the McDonald’s, KFCs, Pizza Huts, Taco Bells and Wendy’s combined. When asked to rank their favorite types of restaurants, Chinese places almost always come out on top. On every day of the Lunar calendar, it seems there’s nothing quite as all-American some good Chinese food.

Emelyn Rude is a food historian and the author of Tastes Like Chicken, available in August of 2016.

[David Jamieson]

Just because it's a necro thread, I'm going to give a response to TT's original query!

It's all good.

Good workout? Check.
Enjoyable? Check.
Not boring? Check.
Weapons! Check!

All good. The Kung Fu I've learned is basically all shaolin. The styles that I've learned although called "Black Tiger" are simply Shaolin Kung Fu.
No big deal and I don't feel bad about not knowing the 10 contemporary sets, (although I do like the big and little red fist sets).

I do standard boxing training as well and will do some wrestling and such too. This year is folding fencing back into the work out! Woot! Love me some fencing!

It's all good. Get too over specialized and it starts working like incest and you wind up with a retarded system. IE one that doesn't progress, grow, and becomes a living anachronism. Kung Fu practice in general, without the strategy and tactics of firearms has already done that to a degree.
So, take what is useful as they say. :)

[Cataphract]

Hirokazu Kanazawa (10th Dan Shotokan Karate) said somewhere, he couldn't do his Karate if he didn't practice TaiChi. Can't find the place atm.

Styles usually don't come out of the blue. Pretty much everything is a blend to start with. Also I can't believe any of the old masters would have said: "That punch works better than mine, but I don't punch that way. It's just not traditional enough."