Is complex and advanced necessarily better

[Frost]

chusauli 04-12-2011 06:04 PM

Hung Ga is a great training method and is a complex advanced art, but few have the ability to teach it as a fighting art, so it remains largely, a performance art for health or cultural relic.

The torso methods, methods of issuing force, dissolving of force through the stance, closing in, sticking, controlling all require long term teaching and practice to develop a person.

If a person pays attention to Lien Gung and mainly strengthens himself, concentrates on the Kiu Sao and how to enter and control, they will be better than average people in terms of power, and probably stronger than most martial artists.

The danger in Hung Ga is locking into looks, performance, showmanship.

This post from Robert is I think worthy of a new thread, and it not aimed specifically at hung gar OR Robert but rather the points he raises

What exactly makes a style a complex and advanced art and what arts are we comparing it to that we feel are simple and straight forward, and is complex and advanced necessarily better?

Another question I have is how can something be a great training method if in the next sentence we say few have the ability to teach it properly as a fighting style (I have heard the same said by people on the wing chun forum about their art) ? Isn’t the whole point of a great training method that it is easy to learn and produces good people and works for the majority of people learning it?

My final question is if the torso methods, force issuing methods dissolving methods etc take that long to learn, how on earth did people survive long enough to actually keep the art alive? I have a hard time believing that when these arts were needed in order to help people actually survive in hostile time’s arts that took a long time to learn were that useful or survived

To be honest when I read advanced, complex, difficult to learn and takes a long time I wonder if
A) its worth learning and
B) is this necessarily true or simply an excuse to hide bad teaching or an inferior art,

any thoughts?

[JamesC]

Most of the southern stuff is too complicated for me. When you start getting into all the bridges, animals, and stuff, it doesn't work for me.

I have always found that the less i have to think while fighting the better. That's just me though.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The simple answer is that it depends.
It depends on what you are training for.
It depends on what your goals are.
It depends on how far you want to take any given MA.
IT depends on what the advanced and complex is.

Sometimes the advanced is something that can give you an edge because it is different, it presents a puzzle to the opponent that he has no solution or limited solutions for.
Sometimes the advanced and complex is just a big freaking wast of time.
Other times it is what makes the system 100% effective as opposed to just "good enough".
Most will say that boxing is simple and basic but boxing can be very advanced and complex as well, it depends on what level you are and where you are taking it and IF you need it to be more than just "good enough".

[Iron_Eagle_76]

I think the question that needs to be asked is how effective can an individual person make it.

Often in Kung Fu you have intricate techniques and details that teachers or practioners make more complicated than they really are. You strike with the fist (different postures), open hand, and elbow. You can break this variety down into Dragon's Knuckle, Crane's Head, Monkey Paw, Leopard Paw, Phoneix Eye, ect, ect., but in the end it is a strike with the forementioned part of the body. Ask yourself can you do this technique in sparring or fighting. Is it a technique better suited for striking from a distance or striking from clinch.

These are the kinds of questions one needs to break down "advanced" techniques. Advanced to me means being able to pull off this technique in several scenirios, not just one. Jab, Cross, Hook, Uppercut are the strikes found in boxing, however the ability to strike with these four punches in a range of scenirios takes years of practice and experience. Kung Fu is no different.

[lkfmdc]

advanced doesn't mean "complex"

I can use the jab very simply

I have a lot of "advanced" ways to use a jab

Complex means having a lot of moving parts, and stages, none of which works in a real fight

the use of angles, slipping, intercepting, countering, etc are all advanced and used all the time

[TenTigers]

one of the things I like about Hung-Ga is that on its most basic level, crashing, slamming, element punches, grab and punch, it is easy to learn, and highly effective.
Many people leave it at that, and are fine with it. Others enjoy the pursuit of the more subtle aspects and skillsets-which is fine too.

[TenTigers]

let's also keep in mind that most practitioners, unless they are professional fighters, do not train all day, every day.
"High level" skill in anything, can be achieved in a short time, but not by weekend warriors.
Steve Vai locked himself in his bedroom and practiced ten hours a day. So did Joe Satriani, Zakk Wylde, and anyone else who became a Guitar God.
It's called, "woodshedding."
How many of us can devote the time required for "high level skill?"
So, I am content to be able to have decent chops, and go to blues jams at the local roadhouse, and enjoy a night of playing with good musicians. I know I will never play Carnegie Hall.
I also know I can fight and defend myself and my loved ones, and enjoy my training, and play and share with other Martial Artists. I will never fight GSP.

Old musician joke:
A guy walks up to a street sax player in NYC and asks for directions.
"How do you get to Carnegie Hall?"
"Practice, Man. Practice!"

[David Jamieson]

In my view point "advanced" is about ability to use.

It's one thing to know how to make a fist and hit, it's another thing to do it, do it accurately and do it with power.

That's advanced.

In tcma, the advanced is also considered ability to express.

More difficult martial expressions to execute are considered advanced material for the student though, to be fair and in keeping context with the OP.

so front snap kick = beginner
Tornado kick = intermediate
Jump, handstand to splits, pop up and tornado kick front and reverse = advanced. :) Being able to use that with a high percentage? Totally and astronomically advanced! lol

[Drake]

Steve Vai is a BEAST.

[David Jamieson]

Steve Vai is a BEAST.

He's also a natural and possessed by a demon.

[TenTigers]

In my view point "advanced" is about ability to use.

It's one thing to know how to make a fist and hit, it's another thing to do it, do it accurately and do it with power.

That's advanced.

In tcma, the advanced is also considered ability to express.

More difficult martial expressions to execute are considered advanced material for the student though, to be fair and in keeping context with the OP.

so front snap kick = beginner
Tornado kick = intermediate
Jump, handstand to splits, pop up and tornado kick front and reverse = advanced. :) Being able to use that with a high percentage? Totally and astronomically advanced! lol
to add to that-
a front snap kick =beginner
front snap kick intercepting the opponent's intent and movement, shutting him down on the half-beat=advanced.
Advanced technique is often just a refinement of the original skill. Nothing is new, just refined. Distance, timing, speed. Perception, reaction, etc. These all come with the investment of time and practice=Gung-Fu.

[once ronin]

Complex only if your learning format is missing parts.

Complex only if there is alot of parts to be work on before learning forms.

Simple to learn when you have all parts and then to learn forms.

[chusauli]

Complexity and Advanced is necessary, or else we will always be at the same low level.

As for better? What is better? Basics are best. Advanced is basics applies in variation or set up in a hidden way.

If it doesn't get preserved, we will have lost it, then have to re-engineer it in future generations.

If we can't make it work for ourselves now, maybe we're not advanced enough to do it, or have not trained realistically enough in drilling it, or are too obvious trying to apply it.

As for fighting, you can learn core essentials in a short period of time and mostly train that for fighting, spar under all circumstances and apply a few go-to tools. Then spend the rest of your life perfecting the allegedly complex.

[Lucas]

Complexity can be an inhibitor in any endeavor if you cannot make sense and use of what you are doing in a 'natural' fashion. In training, working on complex strategies, or applications is ok, that's how we push our self many times. In actual application outside of a strictly learning and developing environment complex is something that does not come into play much after a fashion, it does, but only in the eye of the beholder. what i mean is that while it may seem complex to your or your opponent (the person not doing what ever it is that appears to be complex), what you are doing in your fight will be what comes out naturally due to your training. Perspectives change with experience. Everyone has 'advanced' material in their core set of tools. You may try for some advanced thing or other yet with a very basic enter and be shut down, or set that left right left jab cross hook with some fancy feet and weaving and floor your opponent.

I think more important is being able to use what you train interchangeably.

so to me, that answer is really yes and no at the same time.

[Darthlawyer]

It also depends on who you plan to fight. There's an old saying that says, "Don't fear the 1000 of kicks someone has practiced once, fear the 1 kick someone has practiced 1000 times." However, I disagree with this statement. If I know that someone will only throw a front snap kick off of their right leg when its behind them in a bow stance, I know that I can focus on defending against only hand techniques unless they are in a left forward bowstance. If I know how to defend against that one technique, I can defeat that person, if all other things are equal.

The more complex a "style" of fighting is, i.e.: the more variety of maneuvers available to a fighter, the less predictable that fighter is. Being able to anticipate an opponent's likely steps makes up for deficits in speed and power.

That being said, the more complex a style is, the longer it would take to become proficient in enough techniques to actually be able to apply them martially.

The question becomes, as previously stated: why do you want to study MA? There also is an added question of WHEN do you want to hit the apex of your abilities. If you want to learn to fight quickly, learn a few moves (like a western kickboxer, or even western boxing). You can become proficient in the majority of the techniques more quickly. This is not to say that you can't get any better after a short period of time. You can still get better, but I'd say the returns would greatly diminish. If you want to become a great fighter, but have a long timeline for your goal, you could learn a more complex form.

Personally, my system has multiple forms with multiple theories. We have a sparring form that is designed to teach a beginner basic self-defense techniques in a matter of a few months. You probably wont be winning against accomplished martial artists of similar abilities, but you will be better at fighting or self defense in a quicker period. After learning that basic set, we continue to learn multiple "complex" forms and styles, anything from tiger to crane to drunken.

Personally, I aspire to master the drunken immortal system. Why? Because I find it interesting and challenging. I can see that it will be drastically inefficient to learn it for combat purposes. My body type, lack of flexibility, and other issues make it highly unlikely that I will be good at it for many years. However, I am not likely to get in a fight or need self defense. My goal is challenging my body to do things that I can't currently do. Its like climbing a mountain with the only justification being "it is there." I'm sure I could be a better fighter in less time, but for me Kung Fu is about a lifestyle. Its about devoting time to practice something just to see how well you can do it, if you continue to do it over and over for a looooooooong time. Why? Because when I started I couldn't do Kung Fu. Now I can (sorta). And I find that (that I can now do things that I couldn't before ) awesome.

[brothernumber9]

IMO, fundamental education, and the teacher make an art complex.
Fundamental education, in that a person has learned enough, not necessarily and not even primarily in martial arts, but in life experience, that they can make intelligent logical correlations of what is grounded in worldly reality and what is fluff, or at least more so than not. It can become more apparent after being in the TMA community for a while, meaning being aware of other schools/styles/training out there, and observing.

The teacher, if they make it complex, it will be complex, especially if the student lacks fundamental education, or is gullible enough to become entrapped in the hocus pocus and all the Carradine-esque confucian like statements.

When I first started training, I came upon VHS videos of Hai Deng doing a one finger handstand against a wall, and poking holes in sand bags. I saw "monks" licking glowing red hot iron shovels and showing visibly impressive feats of flexiblity, and what looked like the ability to resist damage from wooden and metal attacks. I read stories of Wang Ziping growing a tree, and as it grew, jumping over it daily until he could jump over a seven foot tall tree, and defeating russian a Russian strong man with his kung fu. I thought if I could learn the "secret" , I would be "the deadly".
After a few months when I got into sparring at the school, both my Sifu and the chief sparring instructor let me know that there was no "d3adly". Just to keep training and improving.
Down the line, I discovered there was plenty of fluff in what I was learning, probably even more so now than then. But there was also some really good solid "simple" things that were and are taught, and although fighting can be attributed a lot to the individual, it still says something about the system if a bunch of individuals succeed well under the same training. So either, the place just attracted already decent fighters, or the training/teaching/learning had something to do with it as well. I believe it was the latter.

Although an already long post here, I'll continue to the next point.
I still think it is plausible for there to be a great training method, but very few with the ability to teach it properly. For something to be considered great is really subjective, and can be independent of how well one or some can teach it. There is also the possibilty that something is at or not far from it's inception, so it could be logical that there wouldn't be many to teach it, and of those few, it is certainly reasonable that a minority may actually be able to teach it (communicate it) well.

[YouKnowWho]

1 is better than 1,2, and 1,2 is better than 1,2,3. If you can use

- double legs to take your opponent down in 1 step that will be the best.
- single leg to get your opponent's leading leg, and then hook his back leg to take him down in 2 steps that will be the next best.

Simple is alway better. You can kill twice as mang enemies within a certain amount of time.

[nospam]

There's no quick or right answer, but your questions raise a larger problem with gung fu in general. In my estimation, many hard styles have become just as protracted as soft or internal styles. Historically, hard or external styles were the quickest road to self-defense. They didn't involve the lengthy study of body harmonization through slowed movement and breath work as found in internal styles; rather, they focused on physical conditioning (muscular and bone) and sparring. Brute force is quicker and easier to cultivate than redirecting and reapplying an opponent's energy.

The focus today has shifted from martial application to martial art. Gung fu has tumbled down the dark green Fujian mountain slopes and along the way every dam style has picked up taolu after taolu after taolu (exercise sets or forms). Forms were once a minor tool masters used to pass down concepts and techniques of a lineage and to an extent, work on physical conditioning. Time was spent more on martial application through drilling of technique and sparring. Today forms are a major tool and for many teachers' have totally replaced martial application outside of static demonstration of possible application. There are the obvious reasons for this, and if this is what you're looking for then this type of 'complex' system is better or best suited to you. Granted, you will always be in a state of 'getting better' and 'taking away a lesson or two in your ever-lasting losses to those more athletic or more intent on learning martial application, but your teacher will be forever encouraging as you pay your way through the martial rainbow of never ending achievement.

It's hard to find teachers that are good at both passing their art and training good fighters using a style's fighting concepts. My lineage of Bak Sing has synthesized our forms to mirror how we fight using our style at the various levels of progression. All our secrets are there in the most basic of forms we teach, but without the legend and understanding that comes through putting in the hard work, and self discovery with gentle leading, it will always remain basic and the secrets forever lost. There is methodology that needs to be followed to open the next stage, and every style differs (plug in 30+ forms here), but once a practitioner is able to read their style's legend and converse in their own style, the application is Gung Fu wide regardless of style. The difference only being in the belief structure of ones' martial art.

We all walk a common road to a final destination that honestly shouldn't take longer than 2 years to attain with solid and consistent work/study. Just like with any physical activity, the answers are in the basics or foundation of skills we were all trained in. It may take another 10 years down that road to truly master all aspects, but in Today's society a teacher does not have 10 years with a student, nor should an adult student need 10 years with a teacher.

nospam
:cool:

[hskwarrior]

double spaces man! i have to go get me reading spectacles to read that novel you just wrote bruddah :eek:

[wenshu]

Isn’t the whole point of a great training method that it is easy to learn and produces good people and works for the majority of people learning it?

No.


My final question is if the torso methods, force issuing methods dissolving methods etc take that long to learn, how on earth did people survive long enough to actually keep the art alive? I have a hard time believing that when these arts were needed in order to help people actually survive in hostile time’s arts that took a long time to learn were that useful or survived

To be honest when I read advanced, complex, difficult to learn and takes a long time I wonder if
A) its worth learning and
B) is this necessarily true or simply an excuse to hide bad teaching or an inferior art,

any thoughts?
______


Grappling wise the technical arena is huge, just on the ground and just on your back you have to learn how to use the guard in its various guises : full, open, closed, spider, butterfly half, quarter, upside down etc you have to learn how to escape mount in all its variations: low high fat boy, grapevine etc. And then there’s side control: conventional, sit through, reverse sit through, modified scarf, and normal scarf. Then there are other positions such as knee on belly. That’s not including learning both submissions and submission defence which is a huge area in its self. Add to this new position and submission come along, quarter guard, 50/50 guard DARC choke, gater roll, rubber guard, etc and you can see how technical grappling is. Its simply a wider area of skills than striking

[Frost]

No.


______


And your point is?

Grappling can be as complex or easy as you want to make it, depending as Ronin said on how far you want to take the art and it is hugely technical but technical doesn’t mean the same as complex does it?


But lets say for a moment it is complex, its not advanced nor difficult to learn people pick the basics up in a matter of months and can compete straight away so its hardly an excuse for bad teaching or an inferior art

So grappling is technical and can be seen as complex but its also its easy to learn has a high percentage of workable techniques works great for most people and you can find lots of examples of it working in competition and real life

[Iron_Eagle_76]

Personally I believe in range fighting. Close this distance, strike, clinch, throw, submit or working combinations of these particular ranges. One thing I noticed is when I began training more in clinch and Shuai principles many techniques became more applicable than from throwing at a distance. But I am more of a striker so I always fall back to that.

I still believe that not focusing on range fighting hurts many Kung Fu styles and practioners. Only focusing on A instead of A, B, and C limits oneself to all aspects of how these techniques they learn can be applied.

[lkfmdc]

Personally I believe in range fighting.


The modern world has disproven most ideas of "range"

Or, rather, it is much more simple

There is

(1) Kickboxing (watch you know who go nuts! LOL) - detached kicking, punching, striking etc

(2) Wrestling / Clinching / in fighting

(3) Da ground

The obsessive compulsive attempt to disect into a thousand pieces "range" hinders practical application

[Iron_Eagle_76]

The modern world has disproven most ideas of "range"

Or, rather, it is much more simple

There is

(1) Kickboxing (watch you know who go nuts! LOL) - detached kicking, punching, striking etc

(2) Wrestling / Clinching / in fighting

(3) Da ground

The obsessive compulsive attempt to disect into a thousand pieces "range" hinders practical application

Actually this is pretty spot on to what I meant by "range", so maybe you thought I meant something else.:confused: That being said, A, B, and C as I put it are pretty much your 1, 2, and 3.:D

[TenTigers]

agree-Bruce Lee's method of dividing ranges into kicking, striking, trapping, grappling, is innacurate. He doesn't take into account that you can strike from "kicking range," and kick from "striking range," depending on yuor tool development. IMHO, if you are close enough to not simply connect, but penetrate yuor opponent with a kick, you are usually within striking range as well. Long range kicks, such as low kick to the front leg are the exception, rather than the rule.
I prefer to say hitting range, to include most strikes and kicks.
(yeah, yeah, I know. A kick is a strike. po-tay-to, po-tah-to...)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually, "range" does come into paly when we consider HOW to do any of the things just mentioned (Strike, clinch, grapple, ground work).
Kicking from kicking range ( optimum) and kicking from punching range and kicking from clinching range and kicking on the ground require different biomechanics.
Same goes for punching and any type of strikes.
And to a further extent, grappling is the same.
Grappling a kick from its "optimum" range requires a different approach then grappling a kick from the clinch.

BL's view of ranges gets a bit muddled because people forget that he was talking about ideal/preferred ranges for types of techniques.

One must always be aware that ANYTHING can happen from ANY range, but at the same time we also need to be aware that different ranges do require different mechanics.

[wenshu]

And your point is?

Your original premise is flawed.

[SteveLau]

Good topic. Because it is a common pit-fall in martial art.

Usually, advanced is necessary better, but not complex. First, we need to define what is advanced. To me, it means better than basic. Most field of studies get complex when they are developed further and further over time. Take Hung Gar as an example, it is now complex. But the training method is simple. And that is good training method - transmit knowledge and skill of an complex fighting art using simple method. Unfortunately, it does not always happen. It is also a common plague of traditional CMA. Perhaps that is why there is criticism saying some CMA styles are more a performing art than a fighting art.




KC
Hong Kong

[Subitai]

Both a Beginner and an Advanced person may use a simple technique.

The more advanced you get, the more simple you are in application


The difference between them is that the advanced person does all the fundamentals ALLOT better and with experience, at the right time.

[YouKnowWho]

That is why there is criticism saying some MA styles are more a performing art than a fighting art.
I don't think the "performance" has anything to do with "advance".

In the Chinese throwing art, the advance level training is to train your combo (to use one move to set up another move). Most of the time if your opponent's skill level is high, your solo move won't work. You have to borrow your opponent's force and put your hope on your 2nd move instead of your 1st move.

[taai gihk yahn]

a front snap kick =beginner
front snap kick intercepting the opponent's intent and movement, shutting him down on the half-beat=advanced.



I can use the jab very simply
I have a lot of "advanced" ways to use a jab

as BP Chan used to say, it's not the "what", it's the "how"...

[Eric Olson]

I don't think the "performance" has anything to do with "advance".

In the Chinese throwing art, the advance level training is to train your combo (to use one move to set up another move). Most of the time if your opponent's skill level is high, your solo move won't work. You have to borrow your opponent's force and put your hope on your 2nd move instead of your 1st move.

Sounds like Taij....Peng/Lu/An/Ji---->Kao/Lie/Cai/Zhou

EO

[lkfmdc]

as BP Chan used to say, it's not the "what", it's the "how"...

(sarcasm)
yeah, but what did he know about real internal
(/sarcasm)

:p

[SteveLau]

Both a Beginner and an Advanced person may use a simple technique.

The more advanced you get, the more simple you are in application


The difference between them is that the advanced person does all the fundamentals ALLOT better and with experience, at the right time.

by Subitai


You get it to the bottom of the well. Your first definition of advanced is referring to the techniques themselves. And the second definition is referring to the skill level of a student. And I agree with your words whole-heartedly.

To re-confirm my view on the topic of discussion. Advanced techniques are, but complex ones are not necessary better than the simple and basic. Subitai has more or less told us why it is so.



Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

[Hardwork108]

(sarcasm)
yeah, but what did he know about real internal
(/sarcasm)


Enough to keep some of the exercises to himself, as mentioned by you some time ago.

[Hardwork108]

There are advanced techniques in kung fu and their purpose is not for "decoration". The advanced and/or the more secret stuff are there to be used in real fight situations.

I agree that a lot of this has to do with the how of the techniques, but they need to be learned and practiced enough for one to able to pull them off with EASE. Otherwise, it is best to stick to the usual punch in the face approach, even if in the long term it may limit one.

[Drake]

as BP Chan used to say, it's not the "what", it's the "how"...

"Don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." George S. Patton

[Subitai]

"Both a Beginner and an Advanced person may use a simple technique.

The more advanced you get, the more simple you are in application

The difference between them is that the advanced person does all the fundamentals ALLOT better and with experience, at the right time."

by Subitai


You get it to the bottom of the well. Your first definition of advanced is referring to the techniques themselves. And the second definition is referring to the skill level of a student. And I agree with your words whole-heartedly.

To re-confirm my view on the topic of discussion. Advanced techniques are, but complex ones are not necessary better than the simple and basic. Subitai has more or less told us why it is so.


Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

I had been searching for something way back and noticed this.

A couple yrs late but thanks SteveLau for reaffirming my statement.

"O"