To K.I.S.S or not to K.I.S.S?

[Minghequan]

To K.I.S.S or not to K.I.S.S?

I have been giving the matter of our syllabus and Taolu (forms) some considerable thought over the past few days.

Traditional Chinese Martial Arts were simple, direct and to the point. The writings of respected Chinese Martial Arts historians as Brian L. Kennedy, Ma Mingda, Wong Yuen-Ming, Kong Lee, Andrew D. Morris and others point strongly to this being so.

The "Expansionist" path is to add more techniques, more drill, more forms etc, collect heaps of cool stuff and teach more to maintain the student's interests for as long is possible. This is a commercial approach. The disadvantages is that with more to learn, the students are less likely to be able to apply or understand in any real depth that which they have learned.

Traditional Chinese Martial Arts are in essence "Reductionist" in approach, following the K.I.S.S. Principle as touted in the West ("Keep. It. Simple. Stupid"). This approach can also have its problems as it can lead to the professional school of martial arts not having enough "padding" in their syllabus to keep the students interested and returning for more. Such students fail to see the depth within this approach in technique, forms, concepts and principles.

Taking the middle road seems to be for many the best option. I am however, a purist at heart when it comes to the spirit of the Chinese Martial Arts. So to me, a reductionist or so-called simple approach seems the way to go. Teach a student well, not just load them up with technique after technique, form after form. Chinese Martial Arts are like a very thin yet deep line.

As such, I have decided to drop Wu Xing Shou, Ershi Quan forms from the syllabus. I also feel that a simplified approach to Baihe Ba Shou should be considered and looked upon for the future. In the main, the most important form for developing a Crane Body and Crane Mind is BaBulian embodying the SanZhan (3 Battles) principle.

Traditional, history tells us that each form was considered to be a tradition in itself. We do not need hundreds of forms to embody the Crane Spirit. A minimalist approach which embodies great depth over and above quantity is what is sought.

This is the way it was in Fuzhou. Great Master dropped the practice of Hua Ba Bu form because it was an outgrowth of BaBulian Form except for slightly differing footwork.

This is important to me as though I love the art for the art I also want it to be practical and applicable, after all that was and is its primary function.

Real Chinese Martial arts were not fancy. That came later with the Shaolin Temple Myth and many "martial artists" being actual street performers so the more elaborate the form and demonstration, the more money they made from their performances and "teachings".

I also don't believe in "stacking" the art with more and more complex things just to keep students around longer to draw more money out of them (We are a non-profit, private and community based group).

What are your thoughts? which approach is better?

[ShaolinDan]

Nobody becomes a great musician by playing 'Hot Cross Buns' over and over again.

I think what is simple changes with one's skill level. I also think the best way to improve skill is to challenge oneself.

So while I think K.I.S.S. is a good rule for actual combat (or a live concert) I don't actually think it's the best way to train.

Of course, there must be balance...you've still got to save time to practice some things 10,000 times...but really that doesn't take as long as people seem to think. (10 times a day for three years really isn't asking that much)

[SPJ]

both are necessary.

1. expansion or derivation, variation of the same theme

there are 7 colors in the rainbow, things are more lively with colors, than just black and white. fighting is like weather or random and chaotic, if we may adapt by variation or mutation, the fittest solution will solve problems at hand or survive.

2. keep it simple and straightforward.

narrowing down or focusing.

there are ga zillions of derivatives for throws. vary entry, vary holding, ---

I narrow them down to 30 throws, that I practice most of the time.

well actually, I even narrow down to 6 throws.

--

:)

[bawang]

Nobody becomes a great musician by playing 'Hot Cross Buns' over and over again.

I think what is simple changes with one's skill level. I also think the best way to improve skill is to challenge oneself.

So while I think K.I.S.S. is a good rule for actual combat (or a live concert) I don't actually think it's the best way to train.

Of course, there must be balance...you've still got to save time to practice some things 10,000 times...but really that doesn't take as long as people seem to think. (10 times a day for three years really isn't asking that much)

playing piano isnt the same thing as punching a man in the face.

its stupid how kung fu people keep comparing fighting to rediculous stuff like playing guitar, nuclear physics, colonscopy etc.

[ShaolinDan]

:) Punching a man in the face isn't the same thing as kung fu, either. :)

[bawang]

no, punching a man isnt the spirit of kung fu. killing a man is the spirit of kung fu. thats why suburban tighty whitys will never understand, nor can ever be truly part of chinese martial arts.

[ShaolinDan]

yes, no tighty whiteys, of course not...only real boxers here. :p

[KC Elbows]

Whose form is hot cross buns?

[ShaolinDan]

Whose form is hot cross buns?

Well, I think my friend was learning it in Karate....

[KC Elbows]

Knowing and understanding the form and entraining the reactions that make you do the style's approach in fighting are equal in importance. To do even two styles and get them and keep them entrained, considering most kung fu styles have a lot more techniques to entrain than something like boxing, is a fair chunk of time. Too many forms makes training unmanageable.

[ShaolinDan]

See, I know this isn't the 'popular' opinion, but still I don't think I agree. After spending some time learning 'fancy' forms that I didn't really care too much about learning, I've been able to learn simpler forms very easily.
besides...it's not the forms that matter, it's the techniques they contain...these will overlap a lot. If you train punching combos, you might not have too many punches, but you will have lots of different sequences to do them in...ultimately the goal is to be able to do what's necessary, when it's necessary...to do this you have to train the variations.

Honestly, the guys with the best kung fu I've seen have had a tremendous amount of material under their belts...

[ShaolinDan]

the more you learn, the easier it becomes to learn more. This is what I think, but hey, to each their own.

[Lucas]

personally i prefer things to be minimal based on required neccessity. i would rather do the same 4 combos on my heavy bag for the month than learn a new form. i would rather throw someone with the same 4 throws in a month than learn a new form. i would rather spar and do two man drills every day for a month than learn a new form.

i would rather become at least moderately profecient one thing before moving onto the next.

i agree that 'simple' is dependant on your state of understanding and experience. from that mindset i think it is good to learn something once you have a base foundation which will make what you are going to learn easier in the sense that your foundation has properly led you to that point.

thats not to say not to challenge yourself, but i think the best place for challenge is in application of what you know you can do via sparring or proper drills.

buti also think many people become 'jaded' on learning forms after doing that for just so long...at a point many people no longer care to learn more forms.

[David Jamieson]

playing piano isnt the same thing as punching a man in the face.

its stupid how kung fu people keep comparing fighting to rediculous stuff like playing guitar, nuclear physics, colonscopy etc.

The analogy usually has nothing to do with kung fu and everything to do with understanding the learning process behind a discipline.

In that respect, there is no difference between the two except outcomes.

piano outcome is being able to play hot cross buns
kung fu outcome is that you may reasonably handle yourself in a physical confrontation.

and now: hot cross buns (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SRLvD8gANc)

[YouKnowWho]

A teacher should always ask his student whether he wants to be a "fighter" or a "future teacher". If a student wants to be a fighter, the teacher will only teach that student those moves that will fit into his body type. If the student wants to be a future teacher, the teacher will teach him everything.

[Lucas]

A teacher should always ask his student whether he wants to be a "fighter" or a "future teacher". If a student wants to be a fighter, the teacher will only teach that student those moves that will fit into his body type. If the student wants to be a future teacher, the teacher will teach him everything.

i agree with that. also i think another option sometimes is law enforcement, or security.

[Darthlawyer]

First of all, when anyone states that any particular motto is applicable to all of Chinese martial arts, they are missing out on the basic feature that distinguishes CMA from other martial arts: there are far too many styles and theories and forms to possibly say that ALL CMA believes the "KISS" motto.

In fact, I'd say most martial theory I'm familiar with indicates that in actual fighting, particularly with someone actually trained in martial arts, you start with basic techniques to test the other fighter. However, if that fighter is proficient in defending against simple techniques, you gradually increase the complexity.

Based upon that principal, I'd ask: Do you want to defend yourself from untrained fighters, or do you want to be capable of fighting against great fighters?

Honestly, most people do not get into fights in their adult lives, let alone with another trained martial artist. So, its probably an academic question. Personally, its my intention (as I consider myself a beginner, though I've got experience in a number of non-CMA combat techniques) to learn many forms, but to also specialize in one particular type. I believe that many martial artists find one type of the art that expresses an idea that they find important. Its an art, a martial one, but it is art.

If you really want to keep it simple, really simple, well, then learn kickboxing. Its simplicity: learn a few techniques and practice the heck out of them. I totally respect that. Personally, I went from learning kickboxing to learning kung fu, because there is a beauty in the diverse methods that I enjoy discovering and learning to apply and perform.

[YouKnowWho]

Great Master dropped the practice of Hua Ba Bu form because it was an outgrowth of BaBulian Form except for slightly differing footwork.

There are forms that help you to grow "tall". There are forms that help you to grow "fat". You can go through your grade school 6 times (grow fat), you still won't get your PhD degree. Many teachers designed forms in such a way that they can keep their students as long as they can. Those forms that can only make you to grow "fat" should be removed from the TCMA training.

[YouKnowWho]

which approach is better?

Even without all those TCMA forms, we still have the following basic training.

1. ~10 hand strikes - jab, cross, hook, upper cut, back fist, hammer fist, side fist, palm edge, palm heel, back hook, ...
2. ~10 elbow strikes - forward elbow, downward elbow, upward elbow, backward elbow, double side elbow, ...
3. ~10 knee strikes - side knee, upward knee, flying knee, knee lift, ...
4. ~20 kicks - front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, hook kick, back kick, jump kick, spin kick, ...
5. ~50 locks - wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, head lock, ankle lock, knee lock, spine lock, ...
6. ~400 throws - hip throw, leg twist, leg lift, leg break, single leg, double legs, foot sweep, ...
7. ~n ground skills - ...

Plus all different kind of entering strategy, set up, defense, counters, equipment training, combos, ...

This already will take anybody lifetime training without any "form". There will be no style that we are talking about here, but one "TCMA combat system". We just can't make it simpler than this.

[Scott R. Brown]

playing piano isnt the same thing as punching a man in the face.

its stupid how kung fu people keep comparing fighting to rediculous stuff like playing guitar, nuclear physics, colonscopy etc.

Kung Fu is like a colonoscopy, they both hurt when you get it stuck to you........er.....INTO you!

[IronWeasel]

playing piano isnt the same thing as punching a man in the face.

its stupid how kung fu people keep comparing fighting to rediculous stuff like playing guitar, nuclear physics, colonscopy etc.

Dude...you need your own show!



:D

[lkfmdc]

Most people would be shocked to know what real kung fu looked like "back in the day"....

When it actually had a practical, daily application, it was much more stripped down and there was a lot less "filler"

[Scott R. Brown]

Most people would be shocked to know what real kung fu looked like "back in the day"....

When it actually had a practical, daily application, it was much more stripped down and there was a lot less "filler"

And a lot more like brawling. Real fighting is dirty. You don't fight to look good or for honor, but to win......anyway possible!

[Lucas]

what someone with 15 to 20 years of experience in one style may consider simple, a beginner to intermediate may consider advanced. 'simple' is really just a state of mind in conjunction with actual experience.

for example, when i was studying contemp wushu, many of the techniques were considered a simple thing to learn for one of my fellow students who had an extensive background in circus tumbling, acrobatics and ballet. Its a beautiful thing to watch someone break out a nice jumping 360 outside crescent on their first try. it may have been 'empty' but the form was nice, adding power and intent can come a little bit more with each try.

its all about ones perspective on what is simple and what is difficult. to someone who has never even thrown a punch, even the basics are difficult...eventually the basics become simple and more advanced principles are more easily understood, and so forth.

saying one enjoys advancement in simplicity is not to say they will never move beyond the basics, but more to say that they prefer to move forward in a specifically structured manner of development, and as such to 'master' one thing before moving onto the next.

if we use mathematics as an analogy, when you finally figure out addition and subtraction, multiplication and division seem much more simple, then eventually calculus and trigonometry become 'simple'. its the same concept.

[wenshu]

Most people would be shocked to know what real kung fu looked like "back in the day"....


moar stabby

http://www.clusterflock.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/stabby.gif

[YouKnowWho]

Keep. It. Simple. ...
What's the most effective way to deal with

- punch (any punch)? If you can prevent your opponent from shifting weight from his back leg to his front leg, he can't punch you (because his arm can't reach you).

- kick (any kick)? If you can catch your opponent's kicking leg and then sweep/hook/block his standing leg, he won't be able to kick you (because he has no legs left).

How many skills do you need in order to achieve that? If you can develop skills to handle both, you can handle all punches and kicks in the striking world. What can be more simple than that?

If we look at TCMA as "problem solving", we won't have "style boundary" in mine (my style is better than your style). We can train whatever that will be needed to achieve our goal. To me, this is the most simple and direct approach.

[Lucas]

If we look at TCMA as "problem solving", we won't have "style boundary" in mine (my style is better than your style). We can train whatever that will be needed to achieve our goal. To me, this is the most simple and direct approach.

I agree 100% ...although a lot of 'traditional' people dont like to think like that. but to me i believe this mind set is the truly traditional for people thinking about fighting.

i think style vs style can be a fun game, but it is only a game. when you are faced with a conflict no one cares if you know crane or tiger, no one cares if you know wing chun, or taiji. the only care is who wins. this is why the best fighters have always cross trained. to find the 'solutions' to the equations...some math problems have different methods of solving the problem, but the simplest and most direct will be the easiest to use without too much thinking.

[Eric Olson]

I think kung fu back in the day was more boring but more functional. It probably looked more like the internal arts (Taiji, Bagua, Xingyi) than the flashy jumping around wushu of today.

EO

[Jimbo]

This same issue always pops up, not only in CMA, but whenever the MA lose (or become distracted from) their functional motivator. The same could be seen in jujutsu by the late 1800s. Many of the jujutsu systems had devolved into too many techniques, and many of the techniques had become too elaborate/impractical for actual combat. You can bet that when the samurai were involved in actual battles (which ended in the early 1600s), that whatever empty-handed jujutsu techniques they used were simple and lacked the formal rituals and over-complex movements. Judo was basically jujutsu updated and streamlined to emphasize live, resisting training in a safer, though still rough, manner, using only those tech's which would work to those ends.

Comparing modern performance wushu to the really old, combat-oriented CMA is the same as comparing the type of XMA 'karate' athletic routines sometimes shown on ESPN to the old Okinawan masters who fought often, like Choki Motobu, for example. I'm sure nothing about Motobu's form or technique would visually wow anyone watching nowadays, but the difference in the effectiveness of his skills would have been immense. I mention Motobu simply because he was recent enough that there's photographic images of him to get a glimpse/idea of how he may have moved, and his aim was purely for functionality.

Much of what is referred to as traditional CMA now probably lies somewhere in-between these two extremes.

[YouKnowWho]

many of the techniques had become too elaborate/impractical for actual combat.

This kind of problem could happen to any MA style. An old teacher taught his students some "new moves that had never been tested in combat". The teacher might "assume" those moves should work. Instead of removed it, some students passed it down.

This is the problem when you learn from any "old" TCMA teacher who no longer be able to show you the combat application in person but solo forms only.

[bawang]

there is nothing wrong with performance. the difference is in the past performance was manly

this is manly
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTA4OTkyNjg=.html

[jesper]

there is nothing wrong with performance. the difference is in the past performance was manly

this is manly
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTA4OTkyNjg=.html

does he have a digesting problem ?