cheung bo lineage

[bennyvt]

just bought some videos off ebay. Actual combat in traditional yong chun quan. It is by mai yaoming. Does anyone know anything about him. Every thing in manderin so its a biu hard to tell if its is cheung bo stuff

[reneritchie]

Cheung Bo taught Sum Nung who then learned from Yuen Kay-San and later taught Cheung Bo's seventh son.

Modern Cheung Bo WCK is Cheung Chut's version of Sum Nung WCK, though marketed by Mok as a separate system.

Cheung Bo was a Hung Ga fighter who, after being defeated by a nationalist army doctor named Wai Yiu-Ming (who reportedly knew some of Fung Siu-Ching's system), switched to Wing Chun.

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=11

[bennyvt]

thanx heaps if anyone i thought you would know. My teacher bill meet some guys from that lineage at th vtaa conference and one of the guys looked similar. I was wondering if the sifu was a good representation of the lineage.

[chusauli]

thanx heaps if anyone i thought you would know. My teacher bill meet some guys from that lineage at th vtaa conference and one of the guys looked similar. I was wondering if the sifu was a good representation of the lineage.

That sifu is the lineage.

Might I interject - really who cares about lineage? This is all mind made attempts at categorization and comparison. People who have skill, have skill. All this lineage stuff really makes divisions in people.

Its not a question if his lineage is any good; it is a matter if that person is good.

[Yoshiyahu]

That sifu is the lineage.

Might I interject - really who cares about lineage? This is all mind made attempts at categorization and comparison. People who have skill, have skill. All this lineage stuff really makes divisions in people.

Its not a question if his lineage is any good; it is a matter if that person is good.

Thats so true...i have to agree with you there...

[bennyvt]

i meant that i know the story of cheung bo i was wondering he that guy was a good example of what they did or is he just some student that learnt a bit. I like to look at everyones ideas and i find it gives another way of looking at it. We all know people that have done three lessons and call them gm. I meant nothing about his lineage only if he was that lineage and how good compared to others of his lineage.

[clam61]

That sifu is the lineage.

Might I interject - really who cares about lineage? This is all mind made attempts at categorization and comparison. People who have skill, have skill. All this lineage stuff really makes divisions in people.

Its not a question if his lineage is any good; it is a matter if that person is good.

not true. different lineages teach and stress different things. although the individual matters, so does what he is taught.

[Yoshiyahu]

not true. different lineages teach and stress different things. although the individual matters, so does what he is taught.

So the differences of Lineage would you say that could make or break a WC fighter?

[chusauli]

not true. different lineages teach and stress different things. although the individual matters, so does what he is taught.

So Fedor Emilianko is a lousy fighter by your definition? :)

If a person is good, he's good. All a lineage can tell you is if a person has some access to "good" information, but then YMMV - did they train it, are they conditioned, does he know how to use his body, can they faat ging, etc?

As far as WCK lineages, its a small spread - many make a big deal about a few small things.

[clam61]

So the differences of Lineage would you say that could make or break a WC fighter?

not necessarily make or break...but it has a difference.

not all techniques, styles, etc. are the same. there are major differences between certain lineages.

[clam61]

So Fedor Emilianko is a lousy fighter by your definition? :)

i dont know who that is...i assume its some fighter who is not a WC practitioner?
i didnt say that you cant fight good if you are not studying ______ style so i dont know what you are talkng about.



If a person is good, he's good. All a lineage can tell you is if a person has some access to "good" information, but then YMMV - did they train it, are they conditioned, does he know how to use his body, can they faat ging, etc?


yes i agree YMMV...but OBVIOUSLY style matters. do you think that Fedor whateverhisnameis studying at United Studios of Self Defense could be just as good?



As far as WCK lineages, its a small spread - many make a big deal about a few small things.

whats a small thing that people make a big deal of?

[t_niehoff]

i dont know who that is...i assume its some fighter who is not a WC practitioner?
i didnt say that you cant fight good if you are not studying ______ style so i dont know what you are talkng about.

yes i agree YMMV...but OBVIOUSLY style matters. do you think that Fedor whateverhisnameis studying at United Studios of Self Defense could be just as good?

whats a small thing that people make a big deal of?

In my view, one of the major problems with "style" is that people mistakenly believe that you will fight with your style. You don't. What all functional martial arts do is take the SAME FUNDAMENTALS of fighting skills but with different focus, different emphasis, different etc. and provide a means of training those fundamentals. There is only stand-up/free-movement, clinch/inside/attached fighitng, and ground; the fundamentals of each range/stage are those things anyone who fights at that range NEEDS to do. So if your art provides you with the fundamentals, it really doesn't matter what the art is. But what does matter is HOW you train (and with whom).

[Pacman]

In my view, one of the major problems with "style" is that people mistakenly believe that you will fight with your style. You don't. What all functional martial arts do is take the SAME FUNDAMENTALS of fighting skills but with different focus, different emphasis, different etc. and provide a means of training those fundamentals. There is only stand-up/free-movement

Not all styles teach the same fundamentals. For example, one of the main focuses of Wing Chun is relaxation. Only through proper relaxation of the body can you achieve the greatest speed and power. Only through proper relaxation of the mind can you react the quickest.

I guarantee you that on a whole other MAs do not touch upon this.


I can think of a concrete example of what clam61 is talking about regarding different styles teaching different things that are of significance.

In YM lineages bong sau, tan sau etc etc are done differently than in YKS lineages--the wrist is not bent to create a hook. You can't stick to your opponent--as a result a lot of people think sticky hands is completely useless or not practical

[LSWCTN1]

In YM lineages bong sau, tan sau etc etc are done differently than in YKS lineages--the wrist is not bent to create a hook. You can't stick to your opponent--as a result a lot of people think sticky hands is completely useless or not practical

i see your new and already making friends :D

there is good and bad in each and every lineage, however i think you may have over generalised a little too far here!

In the YM/Gulao Lee Shing lineage that i started out in the bong is done with the fingers spearing forward (and the elbow at eye level...)

In the WSL/Ng Chun Hong lineage i am now a part of the bong is done still with three angles, but with elbow parralel to shoulder and almost 'limp' wristed. ie: no tension and with different 'dynamics'

the tan sao in my WSL/Ng Chun Hong lineage is always done with the wrist bent. always. the movement you describe (with the arm and hand in one shape) is still done, but its not tan sau to us ;) they have different dynamics and create a different effect when they crash through

by the way, i believe William Cheung has a neat way of dealing with said bong sau! perhaps some of the TWC guys can pick up from here

anyway, welcome - and all the best!

[Mr Punch]

Not all styles teach the same fundamentals. For example, one of the main focuses of Wing Chun is relaxation. Only through proper relaxation of the body can you achieve the greatest speed and power. Only through proper relaxation of the mind can you react the quickest.

I guarantee you that on a whole other MAs do not touch upon this.Your guarantee appears to be only a guarantee of nonsense wherever you pop up. Most karate schools at high levels have plenty of drills that focus on relaxation, my boxing coach was constantly on at me to relax and had plenty of drills to help, ditto kendo, aikido, jujutsu... not only physical drills but it's not like meditation (whether moving or static) is strange to a lot of martial ways.

[JPinAZ]

...What all functional martial arts do is take the SAME FUNDAMENTALS of fighting skills but with different focus, different emphasis, different etc. and provide a means of training those fundamentals.....


For better understanding of what you mean, what are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take?

[t_niehoff]

For better understanding of what you mean, what are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take?

For better understanding, go train some functional martial arts.

[Yoshiyahu]

For better understanding, go train some functional martial arts.

Besides Brazilian Jiujitsu and Muay Thai what are some other Functional Martial Arts to you????

[t_niehoff]

Besides Brazilian Jiujitsu and Muay Thai what are some other Functional Martial Arts to you????

A functional martial art is one with functional training methods (the sport model essentially). Some arts, like judo, sambo, wrestling, boxing, savate, kickboxing, etc. have embraced that training approach.

[JPinAZ]

For better understanding, go train some functional martial arts.

Still didn't answer the question: What are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take? You said it, not me.

FWIW, there's no such thing as functional/non-functional MA's. (maybe training methods, but not the arts themselves)
A persons ability to demonstrate skill created by training in a given MA is what is functional or non-functional - not the art itself. If a karate guy beat an MMA guy, would it be said that Karate was more functional, or the fighter's abilities given the circumstances?

[t_niehoff]

Still didn't answer the question: What are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take? You said it, not me.


I did give you an answer -- I said you need to go practice and/or train with some functional martial artists. If you do that, you'll see what I'm talking about. If you don't do it, you'll never know. You wanted a "better understanding" of what I was talking about. Understanding only comes from experience.



FWIW, there's no such thing as functional/non-functional MA's. (maybe training methods, but not the arts themselves)
A persons ability to demonstrate skill created by training in a given MA is what is functional or non-functional - not the art itself. If a karate guy beat an MMA guy, would it be said that Karate was more functional, or the fighter's abilities given the circumstances?

You are, not surprisingly, confused. You are confusing (among other things) training methodology with the fighting approach itself.

Functional martial arts are those arts which have adopted sport-specific training methods: they do in practice/training those things they will do in fighting as they will do them (same context, same resistances, etc). In other words, their practice "looks" just like their target activity -- since they are practicing their target activity. This training approach has (over the past 100 years) proved itself to be vastly superior to the traditional martial art training model.

While the training method and the fighting approach are two separate things (you could, for instance, train western boxing like a TMA), the training method will affect the art. Sport specific (functional) training will weed out inferior technique and only those things that continue to work under realistic conditions will be retained or developed. Whereas the TMA training model doesn't do this and promotes fantasy.

[Pacman]

Your guarantee appears to be only a guarantee of nonsense wherever you pop up. Most karate schools at high levels have plenty of drills that focus on relaxation, my boxing coach was constantly on at me to relax and had plenty of drills to help, ditto kendo, aikido, jujutsu... not only physical drills but it's not like meditation (whether moving or static) is strange to a lot of martial ways.

im sure your karate sensei told you to relax (i trained in karate too), but the emphasis and training i guarantee is not to the extent of WC.

the WC and Tai Chi emphasis on relaxation vs karate is quite different

you know how you can tell? look at any boxing match today. watch any UFC fight. they are all very tense

im not saying this or that is not effective, im just pointing out a difference

[Pacman]

A functional martial art is one with functional training methods (the sport model essentially). Some arts, like judo, sambo, wrestling, boxing, savate, kickboxing, etc. have embraced that training approach.

the sad thing is that t_niehoff really believes he has a supreme understanding of it all.

[JPinAZ]

sadder, he's so full of himself (and BS) he can't answer a straight fwd question.

[t_niehoff]

the sad thing is that t_niehoff really believes he has a supreme understanding of it all.

I don't know about "supreme understanding" but I am smart enough to learn from people who do know what they are talking about -- people who really train fighters, people who really have developed good fighting skills, etc. And I'm smart enough to know who NOT to listen to -- people who give themselves "titles" but can't do it, people who believe they "know" WCK but couldn't beat low level fighters, etc.

[t_niehoff]

im sure your karate sensei told you to relax (i trained in karate too), but the emphasis and training i guarantee is not to the extent of WC.

the WC and Tai Chi emphasis on relaxation vs karate is quite different

you know how you can tell? look at any boxing match today. watch any UFC fight. they are all very tense

im not saying this or that is not effective, im just pointing out a difference

What you are talking about with "emphasis on relaxation" is the emphasis in "practice" by people who can't fight worth beans.

UFC fighters and boxers are not tense. You can't perform any athletic activity at any significant level being tense. And UFC fighters perform at high levels of athleticism. That you believe they "look" tense only indicates to me that you have never really fought, and so don't know what it really entails (although I'm sure you believe in theory how it should look). I'm not talking about what most people call "sparring", which is essentially playfighting at low-to-moderate intensity. I'm talking about fighting, where your opponent is going 100% all out trying to knock you out, take you down, smash you, submit you, etc. Regardless of your"style" when that happens, it will "look" like MMA.

[t_niehoff]

sadder, he's so full of himself (and BS) he can't answer a straight fwd question.

I answered your question. The problem is you are so used to being spoon fed theoretical nonsense, that you have come to believe this is how questions are answered.

[Pacman]

What you are talking about with "emphasis on relaxation" is the emphasis in "practice" by people who can't fight worth beans.


no thats not


UFC fighters and boxers are not tense. You can't perform any athletic activity at any significant level being tense.

their level of tenseness is subjective. to you they are sufficiently relaxed. IME, they are not.


And UFC fighters perform at high levels of athleticism. That you believe they "look" tense only indicates to me that you have never really fought, and so don't know what it really entails (although I'm sure you believe in theory how it should look). I'm not talking about what most people call "sparring", which is essentially playfighting at low-to-moderate intensity. I'm talking about fighting, where your opponent is going 100% all out trying to knock you out, take you down, smash you, submit you, etc. Regardless of your"style" when that happens, it will "look" like MMA.

you keep saying that everything will look like MMA. if we are talking about standup fighting, then that translates to "every standup fighter will end up looking like a boxer or kickboxer". this is ridiculous. obviously you live in the MMA world and can't look outside.

from your opinions on sparring vs all out fighting i can tell the way that you train. you think that by going into a ring with pads and gloves and then having two people try to knock each other's heads off is the ultimate in training. i wouldnt be surprised if you are a decent fighter. anyone who trains like that consistently will be able to stand toe to toe against most average people. im sure you could win through the use of brute strength and toughness.

but if you ever want to excel past being 'raging bull', then you will have to change your thinking.

i see in your posts you often claim that you are a fighter with lots of experience...and then you also claim that every other poster who disagrees with you is a fighter with no experience who trains with other inexperienced people.

you use this as a tactic to try to bolster your own credibility and to also diminish others opinions. yoshiyahu's posts revealed you as a fraud.

im sure you will claim i have no experience fighting.

[t_niehoff]

their level of tenseness is subjective. to you they are sufficiently relaxed. IME, they are not.


It's not subjective at all. The whole tenseness-relaxation "issue" is really nonsense. It's not a matter of tenseness or relaxation; it is, rather, a matter of familiarity. When you see good, successful athletes doing something, they are doing it "correctly". And you can't do it successfully if you are too tense or too relaxed.



you keep saying that everything will look like MMA. if we are talking about standup fighting, then that translates to "every standup fighter will end up looking like a boxer or kickboxer". this is ridiculous. obviously you live in the MMA world and can't look outside.


People can do and get away with all kinds of crap against scrubs. But beating a scrub is like beating on a ten year old -- it's not really a fight. A fight is where you are both going 100% and you are being hard-pressed (which you don't get from a scrub or a ten year old). Will charging in with chain punching work against scrubs and ten years olds? Sure. Go try it out at a muay thai gym or a MMA gym or a boxing gym where they will fight you.

When you are really hard-pressed, the fight will look like MMA. If you don't believe me, go fight with some competent fighters and you'll see.



from your opinions on sparring vs all out fighting i can tell the way that you train. you think that by going into a ring with pads and gloves and then having two people try to knock each other's heads off is the ultimate in training. i wouldnt be surprised if you are a decent fighter. anyone who trains like that consistently will be able to stand toe to toe against most average people. im sure you could win through the use of brute strength and toughness.

but if you ever want to excel past being 'raging bull', then you will have to change your thinking.


If you want to develop fighting skill, you need to train like a fighter. To do that, look at how good PROVEN fighters train. They all train the same way, just modified to suit their own discipline. That way is the functional, sport-specific model of training (where your training looks like your fighting). They make sparring the core -- not necessarily what they spend the most time doing, however -- of their training. Why? Because you train most effectively by practicing what you are trying to develop (doing it as you are really going to do it). You don't develop fighting skills by not fighting.

That has nothing to do with being a"raging bull" or standing toe-to-toe. You don't develop fighting skill outside of fighting.



i see in your posts you often claim that you are a fighter with lots of experience...and then you also claim that every other poster who disagrees with you is a fighter with no experience who trains with other inexperienced people.

you use this as a tactic to try to bolster your own credibility and to also diminish others opinions. yoshiyahu's posts revealed you as a fraud.

im sure you will claim i have no experience fighting.

I hear lots of opinions on this forum about WCK and how things should be done. What I don't hear are people saying they are doing them against competent fighters. For example, I hear some people say WCK works on the ground. What I don't hear -- or see -- is about how they have gone to a mma school or bjj school and were able to make their WCK work. People will say that they block and strike at the same time. Well, we never hear of these people saying they do that at a boxing gym or a mma gym or a muay thai gym. See where I'm going?

I point this out not to bolster my credibiltiy -- and credibility shouldn't be an issue since you should never take ANYONE'S word for anything -- but to point out that most people have beliefs not based on solid evidence or reasoning supported by solid evidence but on theory and hearsay and stories. My constant refrain has been to go see for yourself.

As far as yoshiyahu is concerned, I know much, much more about him, his sifu, his group, etc. than you do. I didn't like the way he "approached" me, I didn't like the tactics he used in our off-forum discussions, and the things he said only reinforced my views of his whole group -- a group that I REALLY don't want to have anything to do with. Because of all that, I tried to blowhim off. How you interpret that I don't really care.

[JPinAZ]

I answered your question. The problem is you are so used to being spoon fed theoretical nonsense, that you have come to believe this is how questions are answered.

No, you dodged it like every other time people ask you to go into any detail regarding what you spew out here. Then you tried to make it about me, again trying to hide the fact you really don't have an answer?

In attempt to further productive conersation, I'll ask it a third time. What specifically are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take? The ones you mentioned here.

I assume you speak from at least some experience of your own. Since you brought it up, you should be able to give at least one example. So far, you haven't given any - it's really a simple question.

[Pacman]

No, you dodged it like every other time people ask you to go into any detail regarding what you spew out here. Then you tried to make it about me, again trying to hide the fact you really don't have an answer?

In attempt to further productive conersation, I'll ask it a third time. What specifically are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take? The ones you mentioned here.

I assume you speak from at least some experience of your own. Since you brought it up, you should be able to give at least one example. So far, you haven't given any - it's really a simple question.


fundamentals are Muay Thai and Brazilian Jujitsu

[t_niehoff]

No, you dodged it like every other time people ask you to go into any detail regarding what you spew out here. Then you tried to make it about me, again trying to hide the fact you really don't have an answer?


I've already given you a detailed answer. I can only assume you are bright enough to understand it.

To repeat it:

"Functional martial arts are those arts which have adopted sport-specific training methods: they do in practice/training those things they will do in fighting as they will do them (same context, same resistances, etc). In other words, their practice "looks" just like their target activity -- since they are practicing their target activity. This training approach has (over the past 100 years) proved itself to be vastly superior to the traditional martial art training model.

While the training method and the fighting approach are two separate things (you could, for instance, train western boxing like a TMA), the training method will affect the art. Sport specific (functional) training will weed out inferior technique and only those things that continue to work under realistic conditions will be retained or developed. Whereas the TMA training model doesn't do this and promotes fantasy."

Try reading it, then thinking about it. I know you're not used to really thinking about things, but try. You might find it a useful activity.

You wanted to know "For better understanding of what you mean, what are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take?" I'm not going to give you a list of every fundamental. But, if you look at the functional martial arts as I defined it above, you'll see that they all share the same fundamentals in stand-up, clinch, and ground. In other words, all functional ground arts share the same fundamentals, all functional stand-up striking arts share the same fundamentals, etc. Why? Because when you really DO IT (fight as part of your training), you find those things that really work under the really high pressure of fighting. And they are the same few things. You can practice all kinds of funny walks but when you run full-out and fast and hard as you can, everybody does pretty much the same thing. And it's not only how our body works, but also you are facing the same problems. So, since our bodies function in very limited ways under high levels of stress and we are facing the same problems, it follows that you get the same fundamental answers. All functional methods share those same things that work well under the pressures of fighting.

Now, when people aren't fighting as part of their training, and so aren't having to deal with those pressures, they begin to adopt various things -- theory, techniques, concepts, etc. -- that simply won't work. They can do them when not hard-pressed, when not fighting, and assume that when and if they ever need to, they can "ramp it up". It doesn't work that way. But since they are not fighting, they begin to fantasize, speculate, and imagine "the most effective, efficient, and practical" ways of doing things. And that's when they begin to "look" and sound differently.

If you went and trained BJJ, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc. or with practitioners of those arts, for example, you'd see there is only ground grappling, and all those arts share the fundamentals of ground grappling, with the various arts just emphasize them differently. It's the same wtih good stand-up and with good clinch.



In attempt to further productive conersation, I'll ask it a third time. What specifically are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take? The ones you mentioned here.

I assume you speak from at least some experience of your own. Since you brought it up, you should be able to give at least one example. So far, you haven't given any - it's really a simple question.

I only speak from experience. And I've given you an answer.

[JPinAZ]

I'm not going to give you a list of every fundamental. But, if you look at the functional martial arts as I defined it above, you'll see...

You haven't even listed one (or can't).. Then you say yet again to look elsewhere... :rolleyes:


I only speak from experience. And I've given you an answer.

Who's experience? Obviously not your own since you always point somewhere else. And you're right you have given me an answer, but still not to the original question. Good talk

[t_niehoff]

You haven't even listed one (or can't).. Then you say yet again to look elsewhere... :rolleyes:


You must be a moron. Either that or you just have no reading comprehension skills. I told you what makes/defines a functional martial art -- and, not only that, I listed some: "If you went and trained BJJ, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc. or with practitioners of those arts, for example, you'd see there is only ground grappling, and all those arts share the fundamentals . . . . "

Seriously, how f##king stupid can you be?



Who's experience? Obviously not your own since you always point somewhere else. And you're right you have given me an answer, but still not to the original question. Good talk

Another moronic comment. I speak from my own experience, but I also refer to the experience of others who are more experienced than I (like proven fight trainers, sport science experts, etc.) -- and tell people to seek out genuine experience themselves.

[Wayfaring]

For better understanding of what you mean, what are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take?

For the purpose of furthering discussion we could look at these as:

1) Striking - using hands, feet, knees, elbows, shoulders, skull, etc. to inflict damage upon an opponent.

2) Footwork - movement to control distance, facing, and target availability in some fashion w/r to an opponent.

3) Takedowns - technique to move an opponent from a standing or kneeling position to the ground. I'm including standing clinch work in this category.

4) Groundwork - techniques on the ground to either attack an opponent or defend to return to feet.

Fundamentals would be a combination of one, more, or all of the above.

Also, to further discussion I will highlight that JP has trained in western boxing - only reason I'm bringing it up is to clear up unfounded assumptions.

[t_niehoff]

For the purpose of furthering discussion we could look at these as:

1) Striking - using hands, feet, knees, elbows, shoulders, skull, etc. to inflict damage upon an opponent.

2) Footwork - movement to control distance, facing, and target availability in some fashion w/r to an opponent.

3) Takedowns - technique to move an opponent from a standing or kneeling position to the ground. I'm including standing clinch work in this category.

4) Groundwork - techniques on the ground to either attack an opponent or defend to return to feet.

Fundamentals would be a combination of one, more, or all of the above.

Also, to further discussion I will highlight that JP has trained in western boxing - only reason I'm bringing it up is to clear up unfounded assumptions.

That's not what I am talking about. If you read my posts, that would be clear.

Having done some training in boxing doesn't necessarily mean anything. That's like saying someone once took a science class. So what?

[Wayfaring]

That's not what I am talking about. If you read my posts, that would be clear.


I read them. I was still unclear on whether you meant fundamentals in the context we're talking about them as actual fighting techniques or whether you were referring to the fundamentals meaning the methods of training.

I mean, you're talking a lot about 'fundamentals in clinch', 'fundamentals in striking', etc. but you never get down to actually saying what these fundamentals are other than all functional arts share them and saying you have to go train them to find out. I train them and I don't know what you're talking about. I'm sure if we were fighting / sparring / etc. these would all come out, but instead we're talking on the internet so we kind of have to spell things out more.

[t_niehoff]

I read them. I was still unclear on whether you meant fundamentals in the context we're talking about them as actual fighting techniques or whether you were referring to the fundamentals meaning the methods of training.

I am talking about the fundamental movements, skills, etc. of fighting. On the ground, you will see the same movements (bridging, shrimping, etc.), same skills (pinning, passing the guard, etc.), same etc. across all functional ground methods (bjj, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc.). Those functional fighting arts all have the same fundamentals because they are all fighting as part of their training -- and by fighting, they have found those movements, skills, etc. that are NECESSARY (it's fundamental if it is necessary) to successfully fight on the ground. It is a finite set. It's the same for the clinch and stand-up.

By training functionally -- that is making fighting the core of your training -- your art becomes functional, and all those things that don't "work" in fighting (when going at 100%) are left behind. Thus functional martial arts, like BJJ, judo, boxing, muay thai, etc. all come with functional training. The arts that don't fight as the core of their training, like the TCMAs, aren't functional.

[Yoshiyahu]

What about TCMA's that incoporate hard sparring in their curriculm?



I am talking about the fundamental movements, skills, etc. of fighting. On the ground, you will see the same movements (bridging, shrimping, etc.), same skills (pinning, passing the guard, etc.), same etc. across all functional ground methods (bjj, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc.). Those functional fighting arts all have the same fundamentals because they are all fighting as part of their training -- and by fighting, they have found those movements, skills, etc. that are NECESSARY (it's fundamental if it is necessary) to successfully fight on the ground. It is a finite set. It's the same for the clinch and stand-up.

By training functionally -- that is making fighting the core of your training -- your art becomes functional, and all those things that don't "work" in fighting (when going at 100%) are left behind. Thus functional martial arts, like BJJ, judo, boxing, muay thai, etc. all come with functional training. The arts that don't fight as the core of their training, like the TCMAs, aren't functional.

[JPinAZ]

I told you what makes/defines a functional martial art -- and, not only that, I listed some: "If you went and trained BJJ, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc. or with practitioners of those arts, for example, you'd see there is only ground grappling, and all those arts share the fundamentals . . . . "

The question, for the FOURTH TIME was: "what are these 'same fundamentals' all functional martial arts take?"

You never listed even one of these 'fundamentals' you keep referring too until Dave joined the conversation and gave a list of his own. (thanks dave for helping clarify the question further)

Now you're saying "I told you what makes/defines a functional martial art ". I didn't ask for that, but thanks for the info. And you say I can't read... :rolleyes:


Another moronic comment. I speak from my own experience, but I also refer to the experience of others who are more experienced than I (like proven fight trainers, sport science experts, etc.) -- and tell people to seek out genuine experience themselves.

The probelm here is you assume to know something about everyone even when you haven't met them, nor know anything about thier training methods. Further, I refer to my own results through my own hard work, not talking off the sweat and tears of others. Obviously this is where we differ..

[Wayfaring]

I am talking about the fundamental movements, skills, etc. of fighting. On the ground, you will see the same movements (bridging, shrimping, etc.), same skills (pinning, passing the guard, etc.), same etc. across all functional ground methods (bjj, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc.). Those functional fighting arts all have the same fundamentals because they are all fighting as part of their training -- and by fighting, they have found those movements, skills, etc. that are NECESSARY (it's fundamental if it is necessary) to successfully fight on the ground. It is a finite set. It's the same for the clinch and stand-up.

I'm starting to understand you there. So on the ground bjj, judo, sambo, wrestling guys all have functional fundamentals. There are some marked differences - like judo guys typically don't have as good ground skills (newaza) as BJJ guys, and because of pin and standup rules in judo competitions they tend to do certain things like go to their stomachs a lot. Judo guys have better takedown throws. Sambo guys have better fundamentals attacking legs usually than bjj. Wrestlers have a more developed top game and are used to competition more but usually have sucky guards and have better takedowns. bjj guys excel in fighting off their backs usually - better guards and have fundamentals that pertain to that - like inverted guard/tornado rolls. But all of those fundamentals are developed functionally, even if they are a little different.

Clinch fundamentals kind of have 2 approaches I've seen - the greco approach and the muy thai clinch. They are kind of different in what they are trying to do - the greco approach is gearing towards the takedown, and the thai is holding to strike - like Buakaw's clinch singlehandedly changing rules for thai matches due to his skill there. I would actually say there are different fundamentals there. But both functional.

Stand-up fundamentals have elements in common too but there are varied approaches to that too, even all those developed functionally.



By training functionally -- that is making fighting the core of your training -- your art becomes functional, and all those things that don't "work" in fighting (when going at 100%) are left behind. Thus functional martial arts, like BJJ, judo, boxing, muay thai, etc. all come with functional training. The arts that don't fight as the core of their training, like the TCMAs, aren't functional.
Yes - agreed there on functional training. That's the appeal to me in functional training or the "aliveness" factor - instant feedback and training on how to adjust any technique to work against 100% resistance. I also like the conditioning element for health reasons.

I don't know if you can totally generalize all TCMA's together as non-functional. Now even in the WC world which in general has probably degraded to less functional training methods all the legends of fighting going back to the Hong Kong days - they probably did fight more. There was little legal consequence for scrapping, and it was a common occurance for someone to go into a kung fu school and challenge the teacher, or for two students from rival schools to duke it out somewhere. I'm not aware of much video available to be able to critique fighting skill though as compared to today.

I think I can paraphrase what you're saying overall too. Training functionally and alive produces a certain set of fundamentals that you can notice regardless of the art trained. Many times these are missing in people who don't train this way.

[Pacman]

I am talking about the fundamental movements, skills, etc. of fighting. On the ground, you will see the same movements (bridging, shrimping, etc.), same skills (pinning, passing the guard, etc.), same etc. across all functional ground methods (bjj, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc.). Those functional fighting arts all have the same fundamentals because they are all fighting as part of their training -- and by fighting, they have found those movements, skills, etc. that are NECESSARY (it's fundamental if it is necessary) to successfully fight on the ground. It is a finite set. It's the same for the clinch and stand-up.

By training functionally -- that is making fighting the core of your training -- your art becomes functional, and all those things that don't "work" in fighting (when going at 100%) are left behind. Thus functional martial arts, like BJJ, judo, boxing, muay thai, etc. all come with functional training. The arts that don't fight as the core of their training, like the TCMAs, aren't functional.

Fighting in my TCMA is extremely important, but if all you do is throw on some pads, get into a ring with someone else and try to knock each other's head off you aren't going to progress much.

therefore we do sparring drills too

anyways, you listed ground fighting "fundamentals". what are some "fundamental" movements for standup fighting?

[reneritchie]

There's a great story about Ayoob (sp?) creating his stress-fire combat shooting programs. Traditional shooting approaches required a complex 9-point body alignment that didn't hold up under the stress conditions typically faced in lethal encounters. i.e. trained shooters would miss even at incredibly short range because their arms would shake, adrenalin would dump, and they couldn't produce consistent, reliable application.

Ayoob simplified things down to a 3-point alignment, using alignment mechanics that were far more reliable under stress. The results looked very impressive.

Flashback - Kano, when vying for the position as instructor to the police forces, had to ready his team to compete against many other jujitsu coaches in Japan. Instead of teaching them "deadly" techniques they could never practice on each other with any degree of realistic resistance, he simplified. He removed anything that couldn't be trained safely, yet repeatedly and applied against an unwilling, skilled, resistive opponent. Rather than making the art "less deadly" due to missing so-called death techniques (or whatever), they attained similarly impressive results.

Flashback - Did the red junk boat actors, having to use their art to survive, attain a similar realization about simplicity and realistic, progressive, systematic training? Is that why WCK geometry is what it is? If we remove the mystic mumbo marketing jumbo and try to sweep away the return-to-complexity succeeding generations of humans often find necessary to re-impose on martial arts as they become further removed, is it possible? I think so.

Fundamentals aren't martial arts specific, nor are they specific to martial arts. Stepping back, there seems to be readily discernible patterns to those who "discovered" how to teach functional skill to large groups of people (individuals don't count -- natural ability is too easy a distraction).

When I look for a coach, I seldom if ever care what story they have or even how good they are. I look to how efficiently they can make me good. The best coaches I've found make improvement almost immediate, and can get you doing what they can do very quickly. And they all tend to use the same or at least very similar methods to do it.

[Pacman]

It's not subjective at all. The whole tenseness-relaxation "issue" is really nonsense. It's not a matter of tenseness or relaxation; it is, rather, a matter of familiarity. When you see good, successful athletes doing something, they are doing it "correctly". And you can't do it successfully if you are too tense or too relaxed.


what i am talking about has nothing to do with fimiliarity.

literally...their bodies are tensed. flexed. tightened. hardened. thats what i am talking about


If you want to develop fighting skill, you need to train like a fighter. To do that, look at how good PROVEN fighters train.

if you want to fight like your PROVEN fighters then yes train like them. but there are other ways and you discount them without even understanding them.

its really sad because you really really think you have it all figured out.

[bennyvt]

man I only asked about a video and its now a three page discussion of functionality.
No one uses fighting in their training. Everyone uses some aspect of a fight and ties to make it as real as possible. BJJ guys "roll", Boxing and mt spar, VT does chi sao etc. Each has had to make a set of theortical rules that change the exercise that they do. If you are saying that if you dont fight as part of your training then you cant fight. Then the only people that could say they can fight would be those that fight on the street all the time.
Im a strength and conditioning coach (with a emphasis on functional training)and it seems like people are just using lots of functional )catch phrases" without knowing what they are talking about.

[Pacman]

talkin about vids and getting off topic :)

since he is the self proclaimed expert around here, im curious to see t niehoff fight (not spar oh no) in a vid of some sort

[Yoshiyahu]

What Terrence is saying...

Besides static drills or unalive drills, Controlled Chi Sau.

You also atleast once a week need to fight hard. Like Bruce lee use to say in his books. You need to do some hard sparring. Whats the purpose of practicing a Martial Art with out actual Martial Combat. I mean Chi Sau teaches you sensitivity and many other things. But you start Chi Sau already in the clinch posistion. How will you fair against a boxer or kicker who is always moving trying to time his attack to gain entry an knock your head off.

You would have no experience with that. So you need to fight with people and get familiar with many different scenarios...


man I only asked about a video and its now a three page discussion of functionality.
No one uses fighting in their training. Everyone uses some aspect of a fight and ties to make it as real as possible. BJJ guys "roll", Boxing and mt spar, VT does chi sao etc. Each has had to make a set of theortical rules that change the exercise that they do. If you are saying that if you dont fight as part of your training then you cant fight. Then the only people that could say they can fight would be those that fight on the street all the time.
Im a strength and conditioning coach (with a emphasis on functional training)and it seems like people are just using lots of functional )catch phrases" without knowing what they are talking about.