Internalists Fight more

[MightyB]

I see a lot of misplaced bashing of internalists - Fact is - I believe if you really look at it, internalists fight more. For example, look at Mike Patterson's teams in the 90's.

http://www.hsing-i.com/school_awards/index.html

[Subitai]

Wow, if you click on the Tournament Link

http://www.hsing-i.com/pics/KuoshuCollagePub.wmv

It comes up ONLY in Windows Media Player and NOT in a YouTube format. Therefore it's obviously and hoax of some sort.

To think that Kung Fu could be used for Lei Tai Fighting is absolutely re-DQ-lous!
:rolleyes:

[Frost]

two points
1)some internals fight more, over in SE asia they seem to be involved alot more in full contact stuff atleast in the 80's and 90's, these days im not to sure....here in the west not so much only a few groups seem to be fghting
2) also what are you including in the term internals? tai chi, bagua, SPM, bak mei, when does a style stop being external? is wing chun internal?

[Hardwork108]

two points
1)some internals fight more, over in SE asia they seem to be involved alot more in full contact stuff atleast in the 80's and 90's, these days im not to sure....here in the west not so much only a few groups seem to be fghting
2) also what are you including in the term internals? tai chi, bagua, SPM, bak mei, when does a style stop being external? is wing chun internal?

All kung fu styles will have both internal and external elements (Yin and Yang balance). The styles that emphasis the Internals to greater extent are classified as Internals. I believe that Wing Chun when practiced correctly is Internal. That is how I have practiced it, but that does not meant that the external conditioning did not sometimes exhaust one to death, either, but again the emphasis was on Internal.

Also, there is no ONE way of practicing Internals. Different styles will have different approaches and "engines". This is a great area for research for those who are genuinely interested in exploring the TCMAs further.....

[MightyB]

two points
1)some internals fight more, over in SE asia they seem to be involved alot more in full contact stuff atleast in the 80's and 90's, these days im not to sure....here in the west not so much only a few groups seem to be fghting
2) also what are you including in the term internals? tai chi, bagua, SPM, bak mei, when does a style stop being external? is wing chun internal?

I started the thread to point out that what's traditionally classified as "internal" get a bad rap when they seem to fight more that what's traditionally classified as "external" TCMA.

For example - Chen Bing of Tai Chi.

[SimonM]

Notwithstanding the "internal," "external" dichotomy (please don't get me started on that,) all I will say is that, regardless of style, if you fight more you will be a better fighter.

Considering that my main critique of many of the "internal" players is the refusal to test what they claim by fighting, if they aren't refusing to do that I got no beef with them.

[lkfmdc]

I am the one who originally put up Patterson's students fighting, in fact I've done it THREE TIMES

I'm surprised the so called traditional kung fu crowd here hasn't broken their arms patting themselves on the back congratulating themselves on "internal" people fighting (while not actually doing it themselves!)

THE FACT REMAINS - what in his clips looks uniquely "internal"? answer NOTHING

What in those clips looks uniquely "kung fu", answer again NOTHING

What you have is some well conditioned guys punching, kicking, kneeing and throwing

Which is what CMA should be focusing on anyway, as opposed to trying to look like bad kung fu theatre

[MightyB]

I am the one who originally put up Patterson's students fighting, in fact I've done it THREE TIMES

I'm surprised the so called traditional kung fu crowd here hasn't broken their arms patting themselves on the back congratulating themselves on "internal" people fighting (while not actually doing it themselves!)

THE FACT REMAINS - what in his clips looks uniquely "internal"? answer NOTHING

What in those clips looks uniquely "kung fu", answer again NOTHING

What you have is some well conditioned guys punching, kicking, kneeing and throwing

Which is what CMA should be focusing on anyway, as opposed to trying to look like bad kung fu theatre

Well, if you think about it - Yi Quan tends to want to be absolutely formless, just internal power and then beat the h3ll out of each other, so they're not going to be overly concerned with any one technique.

[lkfmdc]

Well, if you think about it - Yi Quan tends to want to be absolutely formless, just internal power and then beat the h3ll out of each other, so they're not going to be overly concerned with any one technique.

According to Patterson, he trained his fighters in Taiji, Hsing Yi and Bagua = all systems with definite technique (as well OF COURSE as theory)

He also says they did NO (ZERO) CROSS TRAINING

I actually have no issue with that claim, because I do believe those systems have all those punches, kicks and throws

[Mike Patterson]

According to Patterson, he trained his fighters in Taiji, Hsing Yi and Bagua = all systems with definite technique (as well OF COURSE as theory)

He also says they did NO (ZERO) CROSS TRAINING

I actually have no issue with that claim, because I do believe those systems have all those punches, kicks and throws


Of course these systems have all those "punches, kicks and throws". What chinese system doesn't? There are only so many things that can be done with a hand or a foot. What makes these systems their own is the methods of power generation, tactical overlays, footwork, etc. as is true in any "system". It is the core components that tie all the parts together and make it work.

Beyond this, I think there is a major disconnect in the way most people train their kungfu in American today. Meaning that they train form but not essence. And they do not train essence for fighting at all. At least most don't.

Beyond that, actual fighting is not film making. You rarely get to see the "picture perfect technique". When you do, that is a true kodak moment. Mostly, and especially for the first several years of full contact competition, you see a developing use of principle in the evolving fighter. It is only after many years, when they become more calm in such a circumstance, that you may actually see more from them.

Which leads me to my second "disconnect". Most people do not train to "marry" the skills they gain through practice of their respective "art" to the actuality of the pressure of fighting. Things are different when another human being is determinde to hurt you and you are well aware of that fact.

So, what is uniquely internal in my guys and girls? The use of principle, the use of footwork, the use of tactics. Beyond that, isn't all martial arts just punches, kicks and throws? ;)

[lkfmdc]

Of course these systems have all those "punches, kicks and throws". What chinese system doesn't? There are only so many things that can be done with a hand or a foot. What makes these systems their own is the methods of power generation, tactical overlays, footwork, etc. as is true in any "system". It is the core components that tie all the parts together and make it work.

Beyond this, I think there is a major disconnect in the way most people train their kungfu in American today. Meaning that they train form but not essence. And they do not train essence for fighting at all. At least most don't.

Beyond that, actual fighting is not film making. You rarely get to see the "picture perfect technique". When you do, that is a true kodak moment. Mostly, and especially for the first several years of full contact competition, you see a developing use of principle in the evolving fighter. It is only after many years, when they become more calm in such a circumstance, that you may actually see more from them.

Which leads me to my second "disconnect". Most people do not train to "marry" the skills they gain through practice of their respective "art" to the actuality of the pressure of fighting. Things are different when another human being is determinde to hurt you and you are well aware of that fact.

So, what is uniquely internal in my guys and girls? The use of principle, the use of footwork, the use of tactics. Beyond that, isn't all martial arts just punches, kicks and throws? ;)

I agree with everything in this post

[taai gihk yahn]

Of course these systems have all those "punches, kicks and throws". What chinese system doesn't? There are only so many things that can be done with a hand or a foot. What makes these systems their own is the methods of power generation, tactical overlays, footwork, etc. as is true in any "system". It is the core components that tie all the parts together and make it work.

Beyond this, I think there is a major disconnect in the way most people train their kungfu in American today. Meaning that they train form but not essence. And they do not train essence for fighting at all. At least most don't.

Beyond that, actual fighting is not film making. You rarely get to see the "picture perfect technique". When you do, that is a true kodak moment. Mostly, and especially for the first several years of full contact competition, you see a developing use of principle in the evolving fighter. It is only after many years, when they become more calm in such a circumstance, that you may actually see more from them.

Which leads me to my second "disconnect". Most people do not train to "marry" the skills they gain through practice of their respective "art" to the actuality of the pressure of fighting. Things are different when another human being is determinde to hurt you and you are well aware of that fact.

So, what is uniquely internal in my guys and girls? The use of principle, the use of footwork, the use of tactics. Beyond that, isn't all martial arts just punches, kicks and throws? ;)

and yet when people like urself, and other legit "internal" practitioners (Tim Cartmell, Adam Hsu, etc.) make these sort of statements, u get this cry of woe from the "internal" community, who claim that they reason what u do looks that way is because u aren't doing it the right way; furthermore, they will tell u that "true internal" goes beyond such base, crude and coarse things like biomechanics, that it exists in some nether realm of pure effortlessness that cannot be appropriated by the "western" mind (which is total BS, because I can think of at least three purely "western" systems of movement that not only teach u how to create but fully describe the supposedly incomprehensible concept of "sung");

"internal" people want their fantasy-as-reality and will rationalize away anything that does not fit that fantasy;

[JamesC]

and yet when people like urself, and other legit "internal" practitioners (Tim Cartmell, Adam Hsu, etc.) make these sort of statements, u get this cry of woe from the "internal" community, who claim that they reason what u do looks that way is because u aren't doing it the right way; furthermore, they will tell u that "true internal" goes beyond such base, crude and coarse things like biomechanics, that it exists in some nether realm of pure effortlessness that cannot be appropriated by the "western" mind (which is total BS, because I can think of at least three purely "western" systems of movement that not only teach u how to create but fully describe the supposedly incomprehensible concept of "sung");

"internal" people want their fantasy-as-reality and will rationalize away anything that does not fit that fantasy;

Cue an appearance by Hendrik...

[Mike Patterson]

and yet when people like urself, and other legit "internal" practitioners (Tim Cartmell, Adam Hsu, etc.) make these sort of statements, u get this cry of woe from the "internal" community, who claim that they reason what u do looks that way is because u aren't doing it the right way; furthermore, they will tell u that "true internal" goes beyond such base, crude and coarse things like biomechanics, that it exists in some nether realm of pure effortlessness that cannot be appropriated by the "western" mind (which is total BS, because I can think of at least three purely "western" systems of movement that not only teach u how to create but fully describe the supposedly incomprehensible concept of "sung");

"internal" people want their fantasy-as-reality and will rationalize away anything that does not fit that fantasy;

:) When I first arrived in San Diego, literally fresh off the plane so to speak from Taiwan, I went to a school that advertised teaching all three "internal" arts. Since I had never been to a U.S. based school of such, I decided to go see for myself.

A polite young man greeted me and we began to chat about the arts. He began to ask me questions about what I thought regarding things like "the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, etc. etc." And I was confused. None of my teachers had ever used such words or jargon to me in my education. This seemed to make him feel superior. And more discussion ensued. Eventuall this led us to a "common ground" where he then asked me to "push hands" with him. I readily agreed, of course, as I love pushing hands with complete unknowns. We then discussed the rules of play and commenced to link arms.

When I touched him, he was utterly and completely soft. No linkage what-so-ever. No connection to the ground. He was literally "draping" on my arms. So I asked him if he were ready yet or just positioning himself. He replied that he was indeed ready, with a rather bemused look on his face. So, I drove both palms straight into his chest and uprooted him across the floor. When he came to a stop, he got up and began to shake his index finger at me, exclaiming; "tha.. tha... that's BARBARIC!!!" I was again confused and told him so. He said that he had been taught to NEVER use short power in push hands because of its danger. I said... "and???" :rolleyes:

So, we linked up again, since he said he maybe wasn't ready afterall. And now he was stiff as a board trying to keep me out. So, I cut his force with a simple redirect and sent him flying again. You can imagine the words after that second go, so I'll cut to the end....

I said to him; "what good is all the fancy jargon about the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, and such, if you can't even stop a simple straight push from me?"

I come from a long line of fighters. And the internal arts have two sides built into them. They have the side devoted to health and longevity trainings and they have the side devoted to using those same actions for fighting.

I have no problem with people who teach my arts for the prior, just don't advertise it with a "ch'uan" fist at the end and then tell people honestly that you don't teach that aspect. We'll get along just fine. But tell me that I'm doing it wrong and you're going to need to prove to me why. ;)

[lkfmdc]

Who do we have to bribe to keep Shihfu Patterson here :p


:) When I first arrived in San Diego, literally fresh off the plane so to speak from Taiwan, I went to a school that advertised teaching all three "internal" arts. Since I had never been to a U.S. based school of such, I decided to go see for myself.

A polite young man greeted me and we began to chat about the arts. He began to ask me questions about what I thought regarding things like "the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, etc. etc." And I was confused. None of my teachers had ever used such words or jargon to me in my education. This seemed to make him feel superior. And more discussion ensued. Eventuall this led us to a "common ground" where he then asked me to "push hands" with him. I readily agreed, of course, as I love pushing hands with complete unknowns. We then discussed the rules of play and commenced to link arms.

When I touched him, he was utterly and completely soft. No linkage what-so-ever. No connection to the ground. He was literally "draping" on my arms. So I asked him if he were ready yet or just positioning himself. He replied that he was indeed ready, with a rather bemused look on his face. So, I drove both palms straight into his chest and uprooted him across the floor. When he came to a stop, he got up and began to shake his index finger at me, exclaiming; "tha.. tha... that's BARBARIC!!!" I was again confused and told him so. He said that he had been taught to NEVER use short power in push hands because of its danger. I said... "and???" :rolleyes:

So, we linked up again, since he said he maybe wasn't ready afterall. And now he was stiff as a board trying to keep me out. So, I cut his force with a simple redirect and sent him flying again. You can imagine the words after that second go, so I'll cut to the end....

I said to him; "what good is all the fancy jargon about the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, and such, if you can't even stop a simple straight push from me?"

I come from a long line of fighters. And the internal arts have two sides built into them. They have the side devoted to health and longevity trainings and they have the side devoted to using those same actions for fighting.

I have no problem with people who teach my arts for the prior, just don't advertise it with a "ch'uan" fist at the end and then tell people honestly that you don't teach that aspect. We'll get along just fine. But tell me that I'm doing it wrong and you're going to need to prove to me why. ;)

[taai gihk yahn]

:) When I first arrived in San Diego, literally fresh off the plane so to speak from Taiwan, I went to a school that advertised teaching all three "internal" arts. Since I had never been to a U.S. based school of such, I decided to go see for myself.

A polite young man greeted me and we began to chat about the arts. He began to ask me questions about what I thought regarding things like "the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, etc. etc." And I was confused. None of my teachers had ever used such words or jargon to me in my education. This seemed to make him feel superior. And more discussion ensued. Eventuall this led us to a "common ground" where he then asked me to "push hands" with him. I readily agreed, of course, as I love pushing hands with complete unknowns. We then discussed the rules of play and commenced to link arms.

When I touched him, he was utterly and completely soft. No linkage what-so-ever. No connection to the ground. He was literally "draping" on my arms. So I asked him if he were ready yet or just positioning himself. He replied that he was indeed ready, with a rather bemused look on his face. So, I drove both palms straight into his chest and uprooted him across the floor. When he came to a stop, he got up and began to shake his index finger at me, exclaiming; "tha.. tha... that's BARBARIC!!!" I was again confused and told him so. He said that he had been taught to NEVER use short power in push hands because of its danger. I said... "and???" :rolleyes:

So, we linked up again, since he said he maybe wasn't ready afterall. And now he was stiff as a board trying to keep me out. So, I cut his force with a simple redirect and sent him flying again. You can imagine the words after that second go, so I'll cut to the end....

I said to him; "what good is all the fancy jargon about the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, and such, if you can't even stop a simple straight push from me?"

I come from a long line of fighters. And the internal arts have two sides built into them. They have the side devoted to health and longevity trainings and they have the side devoted to using those same actions for fighting.

I have no problem with people who teach my arts for the prior, just don't advertise it with a "ch'uan" fist at the end and then tell people honestly that you don't teach that aspect. We'll get along just fine. But tell me that I'm doing it wrong and you're going to need to prove to me why. ;)

about 10 years ago, my sifu was out in San Diego doing a seminar, and had a visit from a senior student of a National Push Hands Champion by the name of Chris Luth; now, if u have ever seen what he does in terms of yielding, you know what I'm talking about...so, the guy wants to push w my sifu, and starts doing the whole bending way backwards thing; so my sifu just pushes him straight down, and the guy falls, and gets all bent out of shape, and irritated that this is just coarse, not taiji, etc. (the way my sifu does push hands is more like what u c in Taiwan, and he doesn't mix w the "mainstream" taiji crowd here in NY)

another time, we had a long time Chen Man Ching student come by, who was supposedly very highly regarded in that system for his pushing ability; so my sifu has me push w him, nice and easy; if I told u that the guy was so into yielding that he literally threw himself out when we pushed, i wouldn't be kidding - I mean, I literally was trying to help the guy keep himself centered, and he would just try even harder to throw himself out; afterwards, he was so impressed w my skills, he couldn't say enough about it; now, i don't know if he was just being obsequious, but it sure was weird as hell...

on the plus end, u have guys like Sam Chin (http://iliqchuan.com/) and Mike Pekor (http://www.taichili.com/) here in NY who r doing pushing based not just on fantasy but on resisting opponents; also, there were at least some students of BP Chan who didn't just melt away when u touched them...

it really just befuddles me, that u have guys who r so wrapped up in their fantasy-fu that when u put reality right to their faces, they tell u that u r crazy;

anyway, a pleasure chatting w u;

[taai gihk yahn]

Who do we have to bribe to keep Shihfu Patterson here :p

I'm sure that sooner or later he'd end up being discredited by the "I've got a special kung fu secret" crowd...

[MightyB]

:) When I first arrived in San Diego, literally fresh off the plane so to speak from Taiwan, I went to a school that advertised teaching all three "internal" arts. Since I had never been to a U.S. based school of such, I decided to go see for myself.

A polite young man greeted me and we began to chat about the arts. He began to ask me questions about what I thought regarding things like "the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, etc. etc." And I was confused. None of my teachers had ever used such words or jargon to me in my education. This seemed to make him feel superior. And more discussion ensued. Eventuall this led us to a "common ground" where he then asked me to "push hands" with him. I readily agreed, of course, as I love pushing hands with complete unknowns. We then discussed the rules of play and commenced to link arms.

When I touched him, he was utterly and completely soft. No linkage what-so-ever. No connection to the ground. He was literally "draping" on my arms. So I asked him if he were ready yet or just positioning himself. He replied that he was indeed ready, with a rather bemused look on his face. So, I drove both palms straight into his chest and uprooted him across the floor. When he came to a stop, he got up and began to shake his index finger at me, exclaiming; "tha.. tha... that's BARBARIC!!!" I was again confused and told him so. He said that he had been taught to NEVER use short power in push hands because of its danger. I said... "and???" :rolleyes:

So, we linked up again, since he said he maybe wasn't ready afterall. And now he was stiff as a board trying to keep me out. So, I cut his force with a simple redirect and sent him flying again. You can imagine the words after that second go, so I'll cut to the end....

I said to him; "what good is all the fancy jargon about the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, and such, if you can't even stop a simple straight push from me?"

I come from a long line of fighters. And the internal arts have two sides built into them. They have the side devoted to health and longevity trainings and they have the side devoted to using those same actions for fighting.

I have no problem with people who teach my arts for the prior, just don't advertise it with a "ch'uan" fist at the end and then tell people honestly that you don't teach that aspect. We'll get along just fine. But tell me that I'm doing it wrong and you're going to need to prove to me why. ;)

D@mn Cool to have the actual man post!

Guys like you REPRESENT.

[David Jamieson]

I'm sure that sooner or later he'd end up being discredited by the "I've got a special kung fu secret" crowd...

Nah, I'm getting better at deleting their sh1t now. :p
I'm only one man.

But what a man!

[MightyB]

Who do we have to bribe to keep Shihfu Patterson here :p

Well we could keep posting legitimate Kung Fu questions/topics/debates, control the trolls, stay away from personal flaming.

[lkfmdc]

Well we could keep posting legitimate Kung Fu questions/topics/debates, control the trolls, stay away from personal flaming.

don't be ridiculous, I was suggesting something POSSIBLE

[sanjuro_ronin]

I always love reading Shifu Patterson's stuff :)

See my sig?
That was a line told to me by a very high ranking IMA guy, who I will not insult by bring His name in this forum, :D.
I asked him what his definition of IMA was and he said what I wrote in my sig.

[Mike Patterson]

so, the guy wants to push w my sifu, and starts doing the whole bending way backwards thing; so my sifu just pushes him straight down, and the guy falls, and gets all bent out of shape, and irritated that this is just coarse, not taiji, etc.;

This is what happens when an individual becomes "tunnel visioned" by any specific rule set, such as "fixed step push hands competition rules".

The same is true for any rule structure. The thing to remember is that rules constrain. Accept that, but don't be defined by it.

I was once asked in what ways I "dumb down" the training I give my fighters. I don't. I believe that fighting training should be complete and that the fighter then should learn to control themselves within the structure they are involved with.

Just my take.

[Fa Xing]

This gives me a little hope that things like taijiquan still have some what of chance in being productive in realistic skill development.

I personally can't stand doing forms anymore, myself, and prefer rather shadowboxing, padwork, heavy bag, sparring, and so forth.

Shifu Patterson, in terms of practicing, how much forms work do your fighters do in comparison to sparring, push hands, etc.?

[Mike Patterson]

Shifu Patterson, in terms of practicing, how much forms work do your fighters do in comparison to sparring, push hands, etc.?

From form we learn integration. Forms give us the end "frame" of motion for body kinetic alignment upon delivery of force. From form we also develop transitional strength. Form is VERY important. But not at the expense of other training. I.E. Comprehensive and appropriate "layered" drills to develop certain essential skill sets, resistance training, percussion training, strength training and endurance trainiing. To focus on form alone is futile. But to remove form entirely (which I will say is impossible in a moment with an anecdote) is equally futile.

At a seminar for MMA folks, a muay thai based fellow asked me a similar question and received a similar answer. Whereupon he said words to the effect of "I don't believe in forms at all." I asked him to assist me in a little demo and brought him out onto the floor.

I extended my hand with a pad and asked him to kick it with his best round kick. He did so after a few misgivings. I then said to him; "Now, describe to me how you just now performed that kick as if I were completely ignorant." After a few questions for clarification of what I wanted him to do, he began to in detail tell me about when and how he stepped his front foot, when and how he rotated his waist, when and how he counterbalanced his rotational force, etc.

When done, I said to him.. "Dude, that's form." You object to what you call form as long organized patterns of movement. But all movement, to be performed properly, has a "form". You're just used to doing small mini forms revolving around one or two movements only.

Form in traditional chinese arts is a lviing text book. It is a construct for the development of kinetic potential, a source of theory and tactical overlay perspective and a means of cultivating fitness/endurance in the body. It is also a means of evaluation of performance and skill capabilities. I.E.. if your balance falls apart at high speed on this or that movement, you either have work left to do or you have a mistaken perspective of that particular mechanic and it needs to be corrected.

To me, form is of essential value. If I were to try and percentage it out for you, I'd say my fighters had about a 50% focus on form. And the rest of what I named above (drills to develop certain essential skill sets, resistance training, percussion training, strength training and endurance trainiing) rotated in terms of percentage allotted depending on deficiency seen within form or performanc of form.

[lkfmdc]

From form we learn integration. Forms give us the end "frame" of motion for body kinetic alignment upon delivery of force. From form we also develop transitional strength. Form is VERY important. But not at the expense of other training. I.E. Comprehensive and appropriate "layered" drills to develop certain essential skill sets, resistance training, percussion training, strength training and endurance trainiing. To focus on form alone is futile. But to remove form entirely (which I will say is impossible in a moment with an anecdote) is equally futile.

At a seminar for MMA folks, a muay thai based fellow asked me a similar question and received a similar answer. Whereupon he said words to the effect of "I don't believe in forms at all." I asked him to assist me in a little demo and brought him out onto the floor.

I extended my hand with a pad and asked him to kick it with his best round kick. He did so after a few misgivings. I then said to him; "Now, describe to me how you just now performed that kick as if I were completely ignorant." After a few questions for clarification of what I wanted him to do, he began to in detail tell me about when and how he stepped his front foot, when and how he rotated his waist, when and how he counterbalanced his rotational force, etc.

When done, I said to him.. "Dude, that's form." You object to what you call form as long organized patterns of movement. But all movement, to be performed properly, has a "form". You're just used to doing small mini forms revolving around one or two movements only.

Form in traditional chinese arts is a lviing text book. It is a construct for the development of kinetic potential, a source of theory and tactical overlay perspective and a means of cultivating fitness/endurance in the body. It is also a means of evaluation of performance and skill capabilities. I.E.. if your balance falls apart at high speed on this or that movement, you either have work left to do or you have a mistaken perspective of that particular mechanic and it needs to be corrected.

To me, form is of essential value. If I were to try and percentage it out for you, I'd say my fighters had about a 50% focus on form. And the rest of what I named above (drills to develop certain essential skill sets, resistance training, percussion training, strength training and endurance trainiing) rotated in terms of percentage allotted depending on deficiency seen within form or performanc of form.

more good (great) stuff

I would agree that because I had tons of time over the years, what forms did for me was teach me movement, and also how to COPY movement. Even with MMA coaches, they were often surprised how quickly I could copy a movement, but I was used to watching CTS do something and then copying it (and if I didn't there was heck to pay)

Yes, all movement is taught in a form in SOME WAY. My only reservation regarding this is how often it is taught in CMA, in much more extended sequences

And in the modern context, people often spend so much time on the sequences they don't have time to do the other stuff

It's something that still has to be considered. I'm guessing Shihfu Patterson was like most old school guys who ended up teaching, he trained HOURS a day, most days of the week

But do (did) his students have the same sort of time permitted?

[Dale Dugas]

Great posts by Shifu Patterson.

I have had a few encounters with people who do the gumby thing when pushing and when they landed on their arses, got all mad that I was not being internal but an external thug.

oh well.

If you want to play the hands and ignore the structure that is behind them, ie the root/spine/balance, then you deserve to get yourself pushed around.

Push hands was taught to me to serve as a basis for taking your ting jing, your listening skills and matching them with your physical skills in order to be able to hear it, then react to it and respond accordingly to who is across the floor from you.

Thank you, Shifu Patterson!

[lkfmdc]

Great posts by Shifu Patterson.

I have had a few encounters with people who do the gumby thing when pushing and when they landed on their arses, got all mad that I was not being internal but an external thug.

oh well.



This post made me think of the time Painter tied up a "famous Chinese bagua master" into knots at one of Jeff Bolt's events, man THAT was funny :D

[Dale Dugas]

People look at me being 6'2" and 285 pounds and say that I cannot be internal at all. But when they touch hands with me, I can be very "soft" but take their spine/root/structure and floor them.

People have this misconception that you need to be a little skinny stick to be internal.

What crap.

[YouKnowWho]

From the 1929 Leitai tournament in Hangzhou official record, it's not hard to see how many "internal" guys competed back then.

http://wulinmingshi.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/1929-hangzhou-leitai-tournament/

The final rankings of the Hangzhou tournament were:

1. Wang Ziqing (skilled at shaolin & shuai jiao)
2. Zhu Guolu (xingyi and boxing)
3. Zhang Dianqing (fanzi quan, shuai jiao, yiquan)
4. Cao Yanhai (originally studied Mizong quan. Learnt Tongbei from Ma Yingtu, pigua from Guo Changsheng, later studied under Sun Lutang)
5. Hu Fengshan (originally studied xingyi under Tang Shilin., later became Sun Lutang’s disciple)
6. Ma Chengzhi (originally shaolin,later studied xingyi under Sun Lutang)
7. Han Qingtang (praying mantis, taizu long fist, especially expert at qin’na)
8. Wan Changsheng (learnt Cha quan from Ma Jinbiao)
9. Zhu Zhenglin (learnt Tai Yi Men under Yang Mingzhai)
10. Zhang Xiaocai (learnt Cha Quan under Ma Jinbiao)
11. Gao Zuolin
12. Yue Xia (bagua under Zhao Weixian)
13. Zhao Daoxin (yiquan)
14. Li Qinglan
15. Shang Zhenshan

[lkfmdc]

According to CTS, in the Guangdong provincial fights he was in, other than his classmates, most of the successful fighters were Hsing Yi

[Lucas]

Interesting to see first, second and third places held by people who studied shuai jiao, boxing and shuai jiao? I can't say that I'm suprised though.

[YouKnowWho]

According to CTS, in the Guangdong provincial fights he was in, other than his classmates, most of the successful fighters were Hsing Yi

My teacher also told me that in those tournaments (1933, 1947, ...) that he had competed, there were only some XingYi guys and there were no Taiji and Bagua guys.

[lkfmdc]

My teacher also told me that in those tournaments (1933, 1947, ...) that he had competed, there were only some XingYi guys and there were no Taiji and Bagua guys.

According to CTS, the Hsing Yi guys were good because they only focused on a few techniques and they had good mechanics so they HIT HARD

[Mike Patterson]

Yes, all movement is taught in a form in SOME WAY. My only reservation regarding this is how often it is taught in CMA, in much more extended sequences

And in the modern context, people often spend so much time on the sequences they don't have time to do the other stuff

It's something that still has to be considered. I'm guessing Shihfu Patterson was like most old school guys who ended up teaching, he trained HOURS a day, most days of the week

But do (did) his students have the same sort of time permitted?

Hi Dale :)

Well, again.... sequences in the traditional arts serve many purposes, including maintaining a living record of the system in question. Only teachers really need become expert at all sequences as they are the ones to carry the living record forward for others to learn from.

Depends on what you're after through your training. If you run out of time practicing form only, I say you need a better workout plan. ;)

As for hours per day... well, I won't lie to you. I DID practice and still DO practice hours each day. And so did/do my students that wanted to develop their skills to the utmost.

It really boils down to what Hsu Hong Chi used to say to us; "Out of 100 GOOD students, 10 can be great. Out of those 10 GREAT students, two can become master."

Not good odds is it? 2%? But if it were easy, then everyone would do it, right? So, you put in the time if you want to be great. If you don't want to be great, you don't put in the time. Simple as that I reckon. :)

[Yum Cha]

Thank you Sifu Patterson for your concise insight.

A lot of us TCMA folk have to deal with this 'cult of the form' issue, essentially the focus on the trees not the forest.

And Dale, sorry, I reckon bigger blokes have the edge in internal, in that weight and stability generally walk hand in hand. I dropped 20kg and it changed a few things. Made me work what I thought was solid technique just a little bit harder. Of course, internal has both the hard and soft side, so obviously mobility is a big issue.

And yea, Pak Mei is full of people with all the vocabulary but little of the 'pudding' as well.

[Lucas]

According to CTS, the Hsing Yi guys were good because they only focused on a few techniques and they had good mechanics so they HIT HARD

Makes complete sense. The few hsing yi people ive talked to were all about applicable skills and live drilling.

[Eric Olson]

Internal is a way of defeating strength without resorting to the use of strength. There's no such thing as "internal strength". It's a misnomer.

There is such thing as efficient use of power and efficiency in application. In my mind that is the definition of internal. Can you develop it without practicing the martial arts labeled the "internal martial arts"....YES, YOU CAN. Say it with me now, YES YOU CAN. One more time so I'm not accused of saying something else...YES YOU CAN!!!!

If someone says "I practice internal martial arts" and then proceeds to jump around inefficiently in the ring, punch wildly instead of strategically, tries to out muscle his opponent instead of disrupt his balance then I would say that person does not understand his own art or "internal."

The difference is that the martial arts labeled "internal martial arts" start with this premise of "no strength" and seek to develop it from day one through practices like standing meditation (Tai Chi, Hsing Yi) or walking meditation (Ba Gua). Other martial arts might start with other things and in the "higher levels" start working on the "internal" aspect (ie Hung Gar, CLF, Longfist, etc.).

The question is: can you really skip this more general conditioning and start with the internal aspects? Or do you need to develop these other aspects before you can appreciate the difference?

EO

[Dale Dugas]

Good question, Eric

I think we have to remove the whole paradigm that Sun Lun Tang started with the whole internal external thing anyway.

You have to have it all, external and internal in order to become the best you can be no matter your system, style etc.

Its basically the same destination with the paths/roads being different.

But if you only do external or only do internal you are lacking.

So you need to start on one, pick one and go from there and then after a period of time you need to start to train the other and then be able to merge all the above into a complete method of self expression through movement, energy and skill.

Im off to teach my class in Chinatown.

Be well, everyone.

[David Jamieson]

People look at me being 6'2" and 285 pounds and say that I cannot be internal at all. But when they touch hands with me, I can be very "soft" but take their spine/root/structure and floor them.

People have this misconception that you need to be a little skinny stick to be internal.

What crap.

dang it, I shouldn't have cut myself down to 184 then :mad:

ah screw it, I got more energy when I'm light. Ima go for 10 more pounds!

[bawang]

textbook definition of internal, word by word from shaolin boxing treatise, is someone who looks weak, but can suddenly makes his muscles hard as iron.

its repeated again in shaolin 20 questions as someone who looks average, but can suddenly make his muscles hard as iron


in other words internal is not about the weak defeating the strong, its appearing weak but actually strong. this is a huge difference

[Yum Cha]

dang it, I shouldn't have cut myself down to 184 then :mad:

ah screw it, I got more energy when I'm light. Ima go for 10 more pounds!

The difference between 240 and 185 is bloody amazing... Hey, you're in my weight class now....<grin>.

I'm always baffled by the attention devoted to the term 'internal' as if its some kind of magic, like chi blasts or death touch. I look it across two axis, one being the full integration of your core strength through breathing, form and timing. The other being more about the experience, total skill, mental attitude and precise economy of movement and direct application of force.

I think there is also an element of always finding the path of least resistance, and having the ability to flow.

This presents some scope for less conventional tactics too.

[Hardwork108]

Well, if you think about it - Yi Quan tends to want to be absolutely formless, just internal power and then beat the h3ll out of each other, so they're not going to be overly concerned with any one technique.

Personally speaking, I was always made to understand that ultimately any kung fu style was "formless". Of course, that does not mean that certain style specific principles and concepts automatically stopped to be followed.

[Hardwork108]

I have been reading this thread and I see that it has developed in a great manner with the contributions of Sifu Patterson.

Sifu Patterson, I just wanted to thank you for bringing you kung fu knowledge, together with you TCMA clout into this forum. I hope that you will continue with your contributions for a long time to come.

It is good to have a sifu of your calibre validating the existance of the Internals as valid methodologies; their combat functionality; the importance of TCMA forms training and so on.

I know from personal experience that if an "unknown" poster had supported the same TCMA views, he would more likely than not be attacked and become subjecto of ridicule by some of the same people who are currently agreeing with you as regards these practices.

So thank you again. As a traditionalists I am sure that you have a lot more interesting TCMA knowledge to impart and hopefully other TCMA, as well as none TCMA-ists who read and/or post here can LEARN from your words. :)


.

[Hardwork108]

textbook definition of internal, word by word from shaolin boxing treatise, is someone who looks weak, but can suddenly makes his muscles hard as iron.

its repeated again in shaolin 20 questions as someone who looks average, but can suddenly make his muscles hard as iron


in other words internal is not about the weak defeating the strong, its appearing weak but actually strong. this is a huge difference
Internals are also about the efficiency of using force, balance and posture to absorbe uncoming aggression and counteract with powerful penetrative strikes.

For this to work you will need the required and proper (high level) body unity, "softness" (not floppiness!), "sensitivity" and "listening" abilities, as well as the various related breathing methodologies.

As for making muscles harder, the I would add TENDONS to that definition, which points to style specific and many times, not so well known, tendon development gungs.

All fascinating stuff, if you ask me, and well worth serious research by those who claim serious interest in authentic TCMAs.

[taai gihk yahn]

I know from personal experience that if an "unknown" poster had supported the same TCMA views, he would more likely than not be attacked and become subjecto of ridicule by some of the same people who are currently agreeing with you as regards these practices.
this is not true; there r numerous "unknowns" on here who share similar views that r not the subject of attack and ridicule, because these views r rational, based on fact versus conjecture; the ones that r ridiculed r the ones who inflate the nature and role of so-called "internals" to the point where they take an almost elitist perspective about the issue (this is what Dale was referring to w the Sun Lu Tang comment - he couched his 'argument" in a perspective of so-called "internals" being somehow superior to so-called "externals", and that "external" training was limited whereas "internal" was not; fact is, his writings, as well as others, have helped to create a divide where there really should not be one); or they r attacked bec when they see video evidence of people using internal systems successfully in a competative venue, they say, "well, that's not REAL internals" or some other silliness...

and it has nothing to do w notoriety - I seem to recall you making comments at one point calling into question Tim Cartmell's depth of internal knowledge, based on the argument that if he had to go find what he was "lacking" by studying BJJ, then he must not have studied his internal stuff deeply / thoroughly enough (I bet if we asked Sifu Patterson about his perspective on Cartmell's internals, he would not share that perspective)

but man, you just can't let any opportunity to go by to air ur grievance of how u have been received here by most people; maybe if u just let it go and stopped slipping in these comments on practically every post u make, people might be a little less quick to be adversarial w u...

[taai gihk yahn]

As for making muscles harder, the I would add TENDONS to that definition, which points to style specific and many times, not so well known, tendon development gungs.
it's pretty well known, it;s called plyometrics: tendons r "developed" by improving their ability to store and release energy (for example, some research indicates that closed chain ankle plantarflexion gets as much if not more power bec of the elastic recoil of the triceps surae tendon as opposed to active contraction of gastroc / soleus); of course, there may b more than one way to do that, but plyo is pretty much the most effective bec it works in function of established physiological parameters of tendon function (bearing in mind that in Chinese conception, "tendon" is the name given to ligaments as well, which are a vastly different sort of tissue, structurally and funtionally; any method that espouses to develop them as if they were the same thing would get a raised eyebrow from me at least);

as far as making muscles "harder" unless u r taking increasing fiber density, u r talking about increased neural recruitment to improve and maintain contractility;

that said, I can attest to how via various types of controlled breathing and spinal "coiling" and "uncoiling", u could impact elastic properties of tendonous tissue in the thoracic cage (basically the juntion of intercostal muscles to the ribs, so it's not like bicpes tendon) - this is based on my personal experience treating rib cages and having people do full exhalations while I compress the thoracic cage, then resist its expansion as the breath in; repeat this 3-4 times, and then "recoil" off the costals as their last inhalation reaches maximal tension (quite a head rush to have it done to you); this maneuver mimics a lot of the breathing gungs I have seen, but is on one level more efficient, bec of the added fulcrum of the practitioner's hands to work against;

[Hardwork108]

this is not true; there r numerous "unknowns" on here who share similar views that r not the subject of attack and ridicule, because these views r rational, based on fact versus conjecture;

Well the "fact" is that the Internals exist! I believe that Sifu Patterson would agree with that! Yet, there have been numerous arguments in this forum - not all of them with me - on this subject, provoked by people who do not, have never practiced authentic TCMAs.

Another "fact" is that forms are important in TCMA training. How many times have you seen the statements that forms training is "useless","fantasy", "irrelevant", etc. in this forum? How many times have you seen people arguing cluelessly to prove the these misconceptions, while using "I have trained ´kung fu´before as a way to legitimize their totally clueless comments?

Where are they now? Isn't a fact still a fact, no matter who brings it up? The earth is round, no matter who says it!!!


the ones that r ridiculed r the ones who inflate the nature and role of so-called "internals" to the point where they take an almost elitist perspective about the issue

Yes, you are right some people do that, but there IS a TCMA school of thought that regards the Internals to be of a higher level and superior to the Externals.

Why people get their corsets into a twist every time someone mentions this view is beyond me, specially when hardly anyone ever raises an eyebrow as regards the constant elitist comments of the MMA posters in this - KUNG FU - forum.


(this is what Dale was referring to w the Sun Lu Tang comment - he couched his 'argument" in a perspective of so-called "internals" being somehow superior to so-called "externals", and that "external" training was limited whereas "internal" was not;

Well, Dale is a free individual and can have any opinion he pleases. Personally, I would put my money on the likes of Sun Lu Tang. ;)



fact is, his writings, as well as others, have helped to create a divide where there really should not be one);
The FACT could also possibly be that the DIVIDE always existed, but that Sun Lu Tang's (and others´) writings brought this out into the public domain. ;)


r they r attacked bec when they see video evidence of people using internal systems successfully in a competative venue, they say, "well, that's not REAL internals" or some other silliness...

The fact is that many who claim to use "internal" kung fu in their combat, are NOT! I mean for god's sake, most people who claim to use the relatively more available External kung fu in combat fighting, are also blowing hot air, as they are only involved in glorified kickboxing/TKD etc.

So each claim of the use of Internals in actual combat fighting has to be examined and judged on its own.


and it has nothing to do w notoriety - I seem to recall you making comments at one point calling into question Tim Cartmell's depth of internal knowledge, based on the argument that if he had to go find what he was "lacking" by studying BJJ, then he must not have studied his internal stuff deeply / thoroughly enough (I bet if we asked Sifu Patterson about his perspective on Cartmell's internals, he would not share that perspective)

Perhaps not, but his opinions will be respected by me as he is not some pseudo kung fu-ist kickboxer. He knows his TCMAs and we need more people like him to post here.

As for Cartmell, he is also free to research and to look for his answers in any art that he pleases. However, I am of the personal opinon that all MA answers can be found in the hundreds of TCMAs that have been created over a couple of thousand years or so.


but man, you just can't let any opportunity to go by to air ur grievance of how u have been received here by most people; maybe if u just let it go and stopped slipping in these comments on practically every post u make, people might be a little less quick to be adversarial w u...

You misunderstand. It is not just me, but others who get ridiculed as sellers of "snake oil" if they dare to discuss the Internals, nevermind the more obscure aspects that no one here knows about. Again, this kind of treatment is very ironic in a KUNG FU Forum, where MMA-ists are free to put down genuine TCMA methodologies based on their lack of presence in sports competitions....LOL!

This has not happened with Sifu Patterson because he has TCMA clout and good on him. I hope to be reading his posts for a long time to come.

[Hardwork108]

it's pretty well known, it;s called plyometrics: tendons r "developed" by improving their ability to store and release energy (for example, some research indicates that closed chain ankle plantarflexion gets as much if not more power bec of the elastic recoil of the triceps surae tendon as opposed to active contraction of gastroc / soleus); of course, there may b more than one way to do that, but plyo is pretty much the most effective bec it works in function of established physiological parameters of tendon function (bearing in mind that in Chinese conception, "tendon" is the name given to ligaments as well, which are a vastly different sort of tissue, structurally and funtionally; any method that espouses to develop them as if they were the same thing would get a raised eyebrow from me at least);

as far as making muscles "harder" unless u r taking increasing fiber density, u r talking about increased neural recruitment to improve and maintain contractility;

that said, I can attest to how via various types of controlled breathing and spinal "coiling" and "uncoiling", u could impact elastic properties of tendonous tissue in the thoracic cage (basically the juntion of intercostal muscles to the ribs, so it's not like bicpes tendon) - this is based on my personal experience treating rib cages and having people do full exhalations while I compress the thoracic cage, then resist its expansion as the breath in; repeat this 3-4 times, and then "recoil" off the costals as their last inhalation reaches maximal tension (quite a head rush to have it done to you); this maneuver mimics a lot of the breathing gungs I have seen, but is on one level more efficient, bec of the added fulcrum of the practitioner's hands to work against;

I believe that you are referring to a different, even if valid, methodology to which I am speaking of. The "hardning" is not of the muscle but of tendons and ligaments, creating density and thickeness that contributes to the "Iron Shield" as well as a distinct body unity associated with styles such as Chow Gar and Pak Mei (when practiced correctly using the very obscure gongs), which create the ability of the infamous shock power, different to many other TCMA short power delivery "engines".

Through longer term practice, the actual form of the body changes, and not relatively short term as in "muscle development", either.

[taai gihk yahn]

Another "fact" is that forms are important in TCMA training. How many times have you seen the statements that forms training is "useless","fantasy", "irrelevant"
in may ways it is; the way many people train their forms, even the way the forms are structured, will not impart martial skill; much better to take forms apart and train individual sequences; the exception would b the "development" forms that, like a yoga pranayama routine or qigong sequence, do need to be practiced over sustained time period in order for the physiological effects that u r trying to induce to occur;


Yes, you are right some people do that, but there IS a TCMA school of thought that regards the Internals to be of a higher level and superior to the Externals.
elitist pablum; weekend warrior literati types trying to substantiate why they r better all around than those low-brow rough-and-tumble "externalists"; China is historically stratified, and the educated classes had to make gung fu practice palatable for that level, so the gentified it; again, the example of Yang Lu Chan changing his method of practice for one group who were too genteel to stomp, pound, jump, low sweep, etc. but not for another group that really were serious about training;


Why people get their corsets into a twist every time someone mentions this view is beyond me, specially when hardly anyone ever raises an eyebrow as regards the constant elitist comments of the MMA posters in this - KUNG FU - forum.
right now, as regards available evidence, the MMA approach appears to be the most efficacious in terms of developing fighting skill; these r the people who r not just claiming superior skill and technique, they r demonstrating it; TCMA as a body is realizing that the days where it can make claims to efficacy without substantiating it are over; heck, people can obviously train what they want, but if they want to claim that the TCMA approach inherently is better than any other, they r going to have to furnish proof


Personally, I would put my money on the likes of Sun Lu Tang. ;)
honestly, I would not; he was pretty much an egg-headed smarty pants (who may not have even been able to punch his way out of a wet paper bag, from what I have been lead to understand); but he WAS highly iterate; and the push at the time was to create a substantiation for martial arts practice suited to the scholar class; taiji, bagua and hsing yi were systems that could be practiced without having to engage in the sort of low class activities like sweating, stooping, jumping, stomping, etc. that other arts were known for; as such, it was necessary to explain why they were efficacious, so a lot of Taoist inner cultivation concpets were superimposed onto these practices to provide a theoretical framework


The FACT could also possibly be that the DIVIDE always existed, but that Sun Lu Tang's (and others´) writings brought this out into the public domain. ;)
no, it did not: internal / external was a consideration that had to do with physical vs. mental practice, it did not divide up methods of physical practice; he didn't bring anything into the public domain, he propogated a construct that had been designed for a specific purpose, to legitimize one aspect of physical cultivation as distinct from another so that bookworms could practice MA without having to get their robes all sweaty;


The fact is that many who claim to use "internal" kung fu in their combat, are NOT! I mean for god's sake, most people who claim to use the relatively more available External kung fu in combat fighting, are also blowing hot air, as they are only involved in glorified kickboxing/TKD etc.
So each claim of the use of Internals in actual combat fighting has to be examined and judged on its own.
well, by that logic, u can't really say who is using what without directly experiencing it; I mean, the I Liq Chuan people supposedly compete in FC venues, w the basis of what they do being "internal"; now, I have touched hands w several of them, including one of their senior students in the US - sparring this guy, I would agree that he demonstrated the sort of "internal" connection that is talked about; of course, he also trains lots of other things, so he utilized a variety of skill sets...but based on my interaction w this guy, i'd say he was pretty "internal" so to speak; OTOH, I've pushed w several "highly respected" taiji peeps, who do not display the sort of connectivity that is characterized as "internal" - one was the guy I mentioned earlier who kept throwing himself out bec he was so excessively yielding; the other was the son of a prominent TCMA guy here in NYC - I spent about 2 months in their school last year, and as a newbie he wanted to push w me; well, he was very surprised when he couldn't just toss me around, and he actually ended up using a lot of muscle to try to move me, which in general didn't really work (actually, I did let him throw me, so he wouldn't loose face, but he knew that he could only do it when I let him, so he felt hot shame all the more poignantly, bec while everyone else thot he got the best of me, he knew he didn't; years later, i came back and ate the heart of his first-born, but that's another story...)


As for Cartmell, he is also free to research and to look for his answers in any art that he pleases.
I'm sure he appreciates ur having given him leave in this regard :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Hardwork108;1128056] However, I am of the personal opinon that all MA answers can be found in the hundreds of TCMAs that have been created over a couple of thousand years or so.
you can believe it, but that doesn't necessarily make it true; Cartmell probably has a little more breadth and depth of experience than u or most of us do; if he searched and did not find, then it probably isn't there (and frankly, he is not the only person w substantial authentic experience I know of who has come to this conclusion); also, a couple thousand years ago, u probably didn't have most TCMA's that r in existance today as such


This has not happened with Sifu Patterson because he has TCMA clout and good on him.
he has clout because he takes a rational approach, which he backs up with the evidence of his students competing in venues that allow for a "live" expression of their system against people not invested in their success! moreover, if u note from his posts, he does not dwell on "obscure gungs" and notions of style-specific powere generation minutae; this is because, I believe, he understands that it's not about abstruse style-specific methods, (which can b espoused as unique, but r pretty consistent in most ways across similar styles, IMPE) but about universal principles that apply to fighting regardless of style or art (frankly, it's essentially what Ross is doing - which if u watched him teach a class, u would understand; of course, I know that u have personal issues w him that preclude a measured assessment of his take on things; I mean, when he does "talk traditional", u start going on about him cutting and pasting from books without understanding the content - when in fact, he's just using extant pics to illustrate Lama techniques / principles that he understands quite well w/out any books)

[Hardwork108]

PART 1.


in may ways it is; the way many people train their forms, even the way the forms are structured, will not impart martial skill; much better to take forms apart and train individual sequences; the exception would b the "development" forms that, like a yoga pranayama routine or qigong sequence, do need to be practiced over sustained time period in order for the physiological effects that u r trying to induce to occur;
I believe that sifu Patterson puts it best in his take on forms training. Whatever the individual views, for some here, and there have been many, to have said that forms training is "irrelevant", "not needed", "fantasy", etc, is totally clueless!

Yes, there are right ways (not just one) of training forms and the wrong ways. The same can be said about any aspect of TCMA, or indeed any MA training.



elitist pablum; weekend warrior literati types trying to substantiate why they r better all around than those low-brow rough-and-tumble "externalists"; China is historically stratified, and the educated classes had to make gung fu practice palatable for that level, so the gentified it; again, the example of Yang Lu Chan changing his method of practice for one group who were too genteel to stomp, pound, jump, low sweep, etc. but not for another group that really were serious about training;

I will just say that the sifus who I have met personally who believe in the superiority of the Internals were not "weekend warriors"!


right now, as regards available evidence, the MMA approach appears to be the most efficacious in terms of developing fighting skill; these r the people who r not just claiming superior skill and technique, they r demonstrating it; TCMA as a body is realizing that the days where it can make claims to efficacy without substantiating it are over; heck, people can obviously train what they want, but if they want to claim that the TCMA approach inherently is better than any other, they r going to have to furnish proof
I believe that limiting your paradigm to the sports arena as the only type of proof is a mistake!

I know what I practice works, because my sifus teach with a COMBAT oriented mindset and they have solid fighting experience to validate what they teach, not to mention the fact they learned the genuine kung fu from real masters,not some watered down version for "gringos"!



honestly, I would not; he was pretty much an egg-headed smarty pants (who may not have even been able to punch his way out of a wet paper bag, from what I have been lead to understand); but he WAS highly iterate; and the push at the time was to create a substantiation for martial arts practice suited to the scholar class; taiji, bagua and hsing yi were systems that could be practiced without having to engage in the sort of low class activities like sweating, stooping, jumping, stomping, etc. that other arts were known for; as such, it was necessary to explain why they were efficacious, so a lot of Taoist inner cultivation concpets were superimposed onto these practices to provide a theoretical framework

Well, according to added material in one of his books, he had indeed fought challenge matches including with at least one Japanese martial artist.

Also, from my experience, Internal MAs can be very demanding and draining, so I believe that the notion of Internals being somehow designed for "lazy" martial artists is a false one!!



no, it did not: internal / external was a consideration that had to do with physical vs. mental practice, it did not divide up methods of physical practice; he didn't bring anything into the public domain, he propogated a construct that had been designed for a specific purpose, to legitimize one aspect of physical cultivation as distinct from another so that bookworms could practice MA without having to get their robes all sweaty;
Again, my experience of the Internals has involved sweating, not to mention stuff that are drainning, not just physically, but also mentally. So much so that many martial artists would rather prefer to give up and go on to "simpler" modes of training that involve a lot more of things such as lifting weights and hitting the bag.

[Hardwork108]

PART 2


well, by that logic, u can't really say who is using what without directly experiencing it; I mean, the I Liq Chuan people supposedly compete in FC venues, w the basis of what they do being "internal"; now, I have touched hands w several of them, including one of their senior students in the US - sparring this guy, I would agree that he demonstrated the sort of "internal" connection that is talked about; of course, he also trains lots of other things, so he utilized a variety of skill sets...but based on my interaction w this guy, i'd say he was pretty "internal" so to speak; OTOH, I've pushed w several "highly respected" taiji peeps, who do not display the sort of connectivity that is characterized as "internal" - one was the guy I mentioned earlier who kept throwing himself out bec he was so excessively yielding; the other was the son of a prominent TCMA guy here in NYC - I spent about 2 months in their school last year, and as a newbie he wanted to push w me; well, he was very surprised when he couldn't just toss me around, and he actually ended up using a lot of muscle to try to move me, which in general didn't really work (actually, I did let him throw me, so he wouldn't loose face, but he knew that he could only do it when I let him, so he felt hot shame all the more poignantly, bec while everyone else thot he got the best of me, he knew he didn't;

Well, that just goes to prove that some of the skill sets in question can be rare to come by and yet there are others out there that are even rarer, including ones that do less yielding, and more blasting, while maintaining their "softness". Touching hands with such people is almost like touching hands with someone who is beyond human norms regarding strength.


years later, i came back and ate the heart of his first-born, but that's another story...)
Well, I for one am glad that I have no kids! :D



I'm sure he appreciates ur having given him leave in this regard :rolleyes:

Hey,it is a free world. The fact is, if one builds the "internal body" that I am talking about, then they can gain advantage in practicing any MA. Of course, I would hazzard a guess that Cartmell has trained in a different methodology to what I have been exposed to, but if valid, it would still help him in other MA endeavors.



you can believe it, but that doesn't necessarily make it true; Cartmell probably has a little more breadth and depth of experience than u or most of us do; if he searched and did not find, then it probably isn't there (and frankly, he is not the only person w substantial authentic experience I know of who has come to this conclusion);

Well, I happen to know others of substantial authentic experience, more than most people in this forum, infinitley more, I might add, who have never felt the need to add BJJ to their kung fu.



also, a couple thousand years ago, u probably didn't have most TCMA's that r in existance today as such

Very true. However, I would hazzard a guess that many, if not most TCMAs today, can trace their roots back a couple of thousand years ago. I am talking accumulated knowledge here.

And for some to say that the TCMAs never forsaw the fact that a fight might go to the ground is absolutley wrong! Specially when you consider that wrestling arts were around in China longer than what we know as kung fu!



he has clout because he takes a rational approach, which he backs up with the evidence of his students competing in venues that allow for a "live" expression of their system against people not invested in their success!
Whatever his way, and there are other ways besides fighting tournaments to see evidence, his take on the TCMAs is very familiar to what I have been taught, but of course, not exactly the same!


moreover, if u note from his posts, he does not dwell on "obscure gungs" and notions of style-specific powere generation minutae;

Actually, I would like to know his opinions about these gungs, as regards Hsing I, as I know that they exist in this style, but are somewhat different to those of Chow Gar. Of course, I would not want too many details because some of these gungs, if they are anything like their Chow Gar counterparts, are not talked about in in detail in public forums, or most places, for that matter.

Also, different internal power generation "engines" do exist in the TCMAs. So while many will debate wether the Internals exist or not, there are people researching these different methodologies, some of which are not in the public domain.



this is because, I believe, he understands that it's not about abstruse style-specific methods, (which can b espoused as unique, but r pretty consistent in most ways across similar styles, IMPE) but about universal principles that apply to fighting regardless of style or art

I believe you misunderstand my point. There are similarities between styles when it comes to actual fighting. But a genuine Fujian Crane Stylist will have a different internal power generation "engine" to that of a Chow Gar practitioner. Both Internal, but yet both DIFFERENT. Of course, during the act of fighting, both stylists will "punch" and "kick", but their applied "energies" will be different, and of course, they will have distinct style specific techniques and strategies as well.



(frankly, it's essentially what Ross is doing - which if u watched him teach a class, u would understand; of course, I know that u have personal issues w him that preclude a measured assessment of his take on things; I mean, when he does "talk traditional", u start going on about him cutting and pasting from books without understanding the content - when in fact, he's just using extant pics to illustrate Lama techniques / principles that he understands quite well w/out any books)

But can he use his pure Lama Pai techniques to fight his way out of paper bag?

Furthermore, what Ross "teaches" or shows through the cut and paste illustrations, can be done by almost anyone who has practiced any style under a genuine sifu for more than a few years.....just saying.

Anyway, I really don't want to discuss Ross. The subject matter and this very thread is a fascinating one, and even Ross has managed to behave in this one, so I will keep my fingers crossed and hope that this discussion develops further into genuine TCMA topics, with more contributions from Sifu Patterson and more of his opinions on the Internals, including stuff you and I are discussing as well.

This is the type of discussion that moves me and that is because one, yes, me, you and Ross, can learn aspects about styles that we were not familiar with to start with.

[David Jamieson]

Fair warning -

stick to discussion, avoid personal attacks, ignore those who really get you ruffled.
:)

[Dale Dugas]

The whole internal external thing started with the little skinny stick Sun Lu Tang, who I have never heard of fighting in a public match that was recorded. I could be wrong, and will admit that if proof is shown, but he seemed to be more into tying in all these concepts esoterica into the martial arts of his generation rather than actually going out and seeing if his material worked.

Cheng Ting Hua was known to wear a weight vest, as well as walk the circle holding onto a bucket on the end of a rope, as he walked his circles and he would change hands as he performed his palm changes. He also was reported to have a heavy bag, that he would hit, strike, kick, etc. He was a Baoding Shuai Jiao expert before he was inculcated into the Baguamen.

No one calls him a glorified kickboxer. But myself and others who train with similar methodologies are labeled as such.

I am also slightly surprised that HW has not made the same comment to Shifu Patterson, as he has done so to many other forum members in the recent past.

There are too many people who want the easy road, and feel they do not have to eat bitter to succeed in the martial arts, when the exact opposite is required.

Many are confused and only choose one side of the coin rather then the daunting task of training and uniting the entire body.

I like Shifu Patterson's comments from his teacher Master Hsu about only a small percentage of students will ever really get good, and even fewer will actually master what they are studying/practicing.

In our system, there are no "Masters" as we feel you can always improve until the day you pass this realm. Then you have reached mastery.

Im off to study for my National Boards.

[JamesC]

Aside from the derail, this thread is one of my favorites in a long time.

Thanks for the insight Sifu Patterson, Sifu Ross, and Sifu Dale. Great stuff.

[lkfmdc]

It really boils down to what Hsu Hong Chi used to say to us; "Out of 100 GOOD students, 10 can be great. Out of those 10 GREAT students, two can become master."

Not good odds is it? 2%? But if it were easy, then everyone would do it, right? So, you put in the time if you want to be great. If you don't want to be great, you don't put in the time. Simple as that I reckon. :)

We once figured out that Chan Tai San must have had around 5000 students since the time he arrived in the US until his death. Many were not serious of course, but still, we an count on the fingers of two hands (maybe ONE hand!) the students who really got the material.

Of course there are always people who no matter what were going to "get it" but as a professional teacher I really don't agree with this typical CMA elitism.

How many students did it take for Shihfu Hsu to get 100 good ones?

Believe me when I say I understand that some people are lost causes. We get people who literally don't know their left from their right and can't throw a straight punch. But I'd really say they are 1%

I can say with no reservations that in less than 4 months, 90% of my students have proper structure and can kick, punch, elbow and knee stuff HARD

Of course, that doesn't make them "masters" or even "advanced" but it sure is a step up from a lot of the TMA (not just Chinese martial arts btw) places we see.

[sanjuro_ronin]

it's pretty well known, it;s called plyometrics: tendons r "developed" by improving their ability to store and release energy (for example, some research indicates that closed chain ankle plantarflexion gets as much if not more power bec of the elastic recoil of the triceps surae tendon as opposed to active contraction of gastroc / soleus); of course, there may b more than one way to do that, but plyo is pretty much the most effective bec it works in function of established physiological parameters of tendon function (bearing in mind that in Chinese conception, "tendon" is the name given to ligaments as well, which are a vastly different sort of tissue, structurally and funtionally; any method that espouses to develop them as if they were the same thing would get a raised eyebrow from me at least);

as far as making muscles "harder" unless u r taking increasing fiber density, u r talking about increased neural recruitment to improve and maintain contractility;

that said, I can attest to how via various types of controlled breathing and spinal "coiling" and "uncoiling", u could impact elastic properties of tendonous tissue in the thoracic cage (basically the juntion of intercostal muscles to the ribs, so it's not like bicpes tendon) - this is based on my personal experience treating rib cages and having people do full exhalations while I compress the thoracic cage, then resist its expansion as the breath in; repeat this 3-4 times, and then "recoil" off the costals as their last inhalation reaches maximal tension (quite a head rush to have it done to you); this maneuver mimics a lot of the breathing gungs I have seen, but is on one level more efficient, bec of the added fulcrum of the practitioner's hands to work against;

The last part you mention is a very good description of the "rib power" developed in SPM.
I recall seeing a clip of Chow Gar Master Ip Chui doing this in one of their specialized gung forms.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Aside from the derail, this thread is one of my favorites in a long time.

Thanks for the insight Sifu Patterson, Sifu Ross, and Sifu Dale. Great stuff.

Agreed.
It is threads like this that this forum are about.
People with experience talking about how it is.
The the years of experience by Shifu's Ross and Patterson is huge, add to that Dales and even the stuff we know of Cartmell, pretty impressive.

Of course the main thing that all stylists that are good fighters and produce good fighters have in common is this:
The train to fight and they fight often.

[Eric Olson]

The whole internal external thing started with the little skinny stick Sun Lu Tang, who I have never heard of fighting in a public match that was recorded. I could be wrong, and will admit that if proof is shown, but he seemed to be more into tying in all these concepts esoterica into the martial arts of his generation rather than actually going out and seeing if his material worked.

I hear this argument a lot on this forum that "internal" was something that someone (perhaps Sun Lu Tang) just made up.

I'll argue that someone happened to notice the big three arts shared similar practices and principles and grouped them together. Does this make the label "internal" less valid?

Let's say I did the same thing for CLF, Longfist and Hop Gar. What if I decided to lump these all together into a category called "long strategy" styles. What is the problem there?

I think people get too hung up on this internal label, mostly because of charlatans who would try to lead people to believe that internal means not having to put in the time and effort to learn to fight.

I've worked with some really skilled "internal" people and they embody the principles of the "internal" arts. Does this mean these styles are inherently better?

If I call something "long strategy" does it mean I'm saying it's better?

EO

[Mike Patterson]

We once figured out that Chan Tai San must have had around 5000 students since the time he arrived in the US until his death. Many were not serious of course, but still, we an count on the fingers of two hands (maybe ONE hand!) the students who really got the material.

Of course there are always people who no matter what were going to "get it" but as a professional teacher I really don't agree with this typical CMA elitism.

How many students did it take for Shihfu Hsu to get 100 good ones?

Believe me when I say I understand that some people are lost causes. We get people who literally don't know their left from their right and can't throw a straight punch. But I'd really say they are 1%

I can say with no reservations that in less than 4 months, 90% of my students have proper structure and can kick, punch, elbow and knee stuff HARD

Of course, that doesn't make them "masters" or even "advanced" but it sure is a step up from a lot of the TMA (not just Chinese martial arts btw) places we see.

Funny you should ask this... my wife and me were just trying to calculate the other day how many students I have trained to the current point in time and it definitely numbers in the 5 to 6 thousand range. Of course, many of them did not stay long enough to develop any true skill. And although I cannot speak for the numbers of my teacher, out of all that I have touched and trained, I have a record of only 30 individuals that I have sanctioned to teach the arts. This by no means terms them "master" nor does it negate the hard workd and skills accumulated by so many others that did not quite make that particular tier.

The reason for my bringing up his view was to simply state that the work needs to be done and those unwilling to do the work will never really develop their true potential. But I would hardly call my view "elitism". It is simply my observation over my lifetime as a professional teacher also.

Every year, while running my school in La Mesa, my senior students would hear the stories of how I trained personally in Taiwan. And they would exclaim; "I want to do that! We want to train like that!" So, about three times a year, I would start an advanced class to train the way I was trained. The first week, all came. The second week, maybe half. By the third week, only a few. By week four, canceled class.

Most people are not willing to do that kind of training nowadays. And I had by no means slouches for senior students. These were all accomplished full contact fighters. They simply found the old ways too hard and would rather train modern.

As to the whole internal/external debacle. Again, I will say there are only so many things you can do with a hand or a foot. And there is nothing new under the sun in martial arts. It's all been done before. All complete styles/systems/arts have both Yin and Yang. If only one side is practiced, you are not going to become well rounded. You must condition yourself as well as meditate. You must fight as well as push hands. You must strengthen as well as learn to yield.

I do, however, take exception to a few comments;

The internal arts as they were taught to me are complete. We do conditioning. We sweat. We bleed. We are not elitist snobs who are uinwilling to get dirty or roll around on the ground (ever heard of the three basin theory?).

We do mostly body weight strengthening exercises. But some are device driven. We hit things... lots of things.. in various ways. We fight. We do scenario training. We grapple. I will grant that I have encountered many in the USA who think this blasphemy but I have always just shrugged, smiled and then proven to them why they are misguided. ;)

I am happy to participate in civil discussion over the arts I love. Or anything related to training in general, but it must remain civil.

I do not appreciate words being put into my mouth. Or speculation of what I think by association to someone elses ideology. If you wish to know what I think, there is a simple route to take. It's called a direct question.

I have been on this forum since 2007. I seldom post because most of these threads get derailed by a couple of guys either trying to play cute, prove themselves clever, or air obvious past grievances from prior run-ins with each other. I suspect that may be true of others as well.

I love the arts. But I despise politics. And I believe they have no place in productive discussion. Such antics just cause me to turn my back at the pointless futility.

Sorry for the long post. But I just finished a Hsing-I session and my energy was high.. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well Said Shifu, thank you.

[Dragonzbane76]

We do mostly body weight strengthening exercises. But some are device driven. We hit things... lots of things.. in various ways. We fight. We do scenario training. We grapple. I will grant that I have encountered many in the USA who think this blasphemy but I have always just shrugged, smiled and then proven to them why they are misguided.

question.

Not trying to start anything just curious about your past learning. Did you learn to grapple in your original "system/style" or did you have to go elsewhere to find that?

[Mike Patterson]

question.

Not trying to start anything just curious about your past learning. Did you learn to grapple in your original "system/style" or did you have to go elsewhere to find that?

"Chin Na", as taught to me from the three "internal" disciplines, contains the elements of locking, throwing and partial restraint/submission.

It is said of the "three basin theory" that all techinques can be perfomed upright, in a half crouch, or on the ground (obvious mechanical variants notwithstanding). It is also said that sometimes the hands must become the feet and the feet must become the hands.

With that said; as a combat philosophy we do not believe in staying on the ground. One must be willing to go there, yes. But our perspective is to do what is necessary to get back up on our feet as quickly as possible.

So if you're thinking modern perspectives of ring grappling, we can, but we prefer not to stay there. It's not our way.

But no, I did not have to go "elsewhere".

[Dragonzbane76]

I do a good bit of grappling/wrestling and BJJ love it and try to train the students I have in it with an understanding that the ground is not the best of places to be sometimes. But in situations you never know where you will end up so preperation is the best process in my book.


It is said of the "three basin theory" that all techinques can be perfomed upright, in a half crouch, or on the ground (obvious mechanical variants notwithstanding). It is also said that sometimes the hands must become the feet and the feet must become the hands.
your last statement in that quote is right on. And you could add that other parts of the body have to be the hands as well. The whole body is oriented to domination and control while on the ground IMO.


But no, I did not have to go "elsewhere".

you hear a lot these days about people having to go elsewhere besides TCMA to gain an understanding of the ground. I had a background in it before I started CMA's but our teacher and many that i've been around do not orient themselves around it. But it's understandable to a point with most MA's orienting themselves around the standup game. My point of view is to be literate in the ground enough to get yourself up off it if need be.

But anyways thanks for reply.

[Mike Patterson]

The whole body is oriented to domination and control while on the ground IMO.

This should happen from initial engagement, no matter what the point of engagment. Domination and control of the opponent's center of balance translates to negation of his collective strength. I agree with you, but it doesn't start on the ground, or shouldn't, from my perspective. :)

[Dragonzbane76]

I agree with you, but it doesn't start on the ground, or shouldn't, from my perspective.

agree, should start from the onslaught of fight. I was just commenting about ground work in standalone.

[Dale Dugas]

Shifu Patterson,

Great post!

I agree with you on the Kam Na/Chin Na. In our system of Baguazhang we do not like to hold people with two hands, as we are always thinking about multiple opponents so we lock, and then either break it, or project them into whoever is coming next, or into the ground.

I too hate politics and will let the chips fall as they may, but we have a few people on here who will just argue for arguments sake as well as bring in their whiny agenda.

Thanks again!

Let me know if you ever get to Boston, as I would love to take you to dinner.

[Hardwork108]

I hear this argument a lot on this forum that "internal" was something that someone (perhaps Sun Lu Tang) just made up.

I'll argue that someone happened to notice the big three arts shared similar practices and principles and grouped them together. Does this make the label "internal" less valid?

Let's say I did the same thing for CLF, Longfist and Hop Gar. What if I decided to lump these all together into a category called "long strategy" styles. What is the problem there?

I think people get too hung up on this internal label, mostly because of charlatans who would try to lead people to believe that internal means not having to put in the time and effort to learn to fight.

I've worked with some really skilled "internal" people and they embody the principles of the "internal" arts. Does this mean these styles are inherently better?

If I call something "long strategy" does it mean I'm saying it's better?

EO

Good points.

I believe that you will find that most people who deny the existance of anything are people who have not "seen" it or have a more than a superficial comprehension of it, and the reason for this poor understanding may be due to the fact that their mindset has been influenced by preset intellectual limits designed to keep them within intellectual "comfort zones", which makes them respond, "if this existed, I would have known about it, because I have trained for X amount of time", etc. So they say, "this or that does not exist".

Of course, this kind of mindset is not just limited to the world of TCMAs or even MAs, but also the world of politics, where even now there are people who think that the invasion and consequent mass murder (holocaust) in Iraq had something to do with "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (albeit invisible ones) and the "freeing" of the Iraqi people (from their physical bodies, apparently as it turned out).

Internals DO exist and so do the Externals. One could not exist without the other, but the styles that emphasis the Internals more can be labelled as Internal and the ones that emphasis External practices can be classified as External.

It is a simple definition, yet so many people are having problems with this. :confused:

[wenshu]

I hear this argument a lot on this forum that "internal" was something that someone (perhaps Sun Lu Tang) just made up.

I'll argue that someone happened to notice the big three arts shared similar practices and principles and grouped them together. Does this make the label "internal" less valid?

Let's say I did the same thing for CLF, Longfist and Hop Gar. What if I decided to lump these all together into a category called "long strategy" styles. What is the problem there?

I think people get too hung up on this internal label, mostly because of charlatans who would try to lead people to believe that internal means not having to put in the time and effort to learn to fight.

I've worked with some really skilled "internal" people and they embody the principles of the "internal" arts. Does this mean these styles are inherently better?

If I call something "long strategy" does it mean I'm saying it's better?

EO


Good points.

I believe that you will find that most people who deny the existance of anything are people who have not "seen" it or have a more than a superficial comprehension of it, and the reason for this poor understanding may be due to the fact that their mindset has been influenced by preset intellectual limits designed to keep them within intellectual "comfort zones", which makes them respond, "if this existed, I would have known about it, because I have trained for X amount of time", etc. So they say, "this or that does not exist".

Of course, this kind of mindset is not just limited to the world of TCMAs or even MAs, but also the world of politics, where even now there are people who think that the invasion and consequent mass murder (holocaust) in Iraq had something to do with "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (albeit invisible ones) and the "freeing" of the Iraqi people (from their physical bodies, apparently as it turned out).

Internals DO exist and so do the Externals. One could not exist without the other, but the styles that emphasis the Internals more can be labelled as Internal and the ones that emphasis External practices can be classified as External.

It is a simple definition, yet so many people are having problems with this. :confused:

You guys should really try reading up on some history. I mean history based on sound scholarship backed by extant documentation, not folklore passed down from your white wing chun shifu.

The "big three" as people seem to call them are actually relative newcomers, really within the last two centuries or so.

In the Ming dynasty there was an actual style called "internal" neijia 內家. It likely had little resemblance to what people call "internal" nowadays. The founder of this style essentially sparked the whole Zhang San Feng/ Wu Dang Pai hagiography as a Daoist counter to the dominant Damo/Shaolin mythos (which have they're own issue's vis a vis being completely made up . . .)

At some point during the Ming dynasty the landed gentry developed an abiding interest in martial arts and to satisfy their effete literary, scholarly and cultivation interests they began to incorporate all the daoist and buddhist metaphysical theory into their practice along with daoyin (or qigong). Even during the Ming hand combat was essentially impractical and largely ineffective, even more so with the concurrent ascension of modern war tactics and weapons. Skip a century or two later and Sun Lu Tang appropriated "internal" to market what was basically a variation of hong quan. Admittedly an over simplified generalization for the sake of style but my point remains. Internal or External, it's all the same **** it just comes in different packaging before you eat it.

. . .what have you as such therefore hereafter also too. Quite!

Q to the E to the D.

[bawang]

the internal concept is very seductive because chinese martial arts is the origin of martial cults.
the allure of internal is the result of centuries of refinement in deception and mind control. even in the 1600s martial artist wu ying mentioned roaming martial art conmen.

[Hardwork108]

You guys should really try reading up on some history. I mean history based on sound scholarship backed by extant documentation, not folklore passed down from your white wing chun shifu.

The "big three" as people seem to call them are actually relative newcomers, really within the last two centuries or so.

In the Ming dynasty there was an actual style called "internal" neijia 內家. It likely had little resemblance to what people call "internal" nowadays. The founder of this style essentially sparked the whole Zhang San Feng/ Wu Dang Pai hagiography as a Daoist counter to the dominant Damo/Shaolin mythos (which have they're own issue's vis a vis being completely made up . . .)

At some point during the Ming dynasty the landed gentry developed an abiding interest in martial arts and to satisfy their effete literary, scholarly and cultivation interests they began to incorporate all the daoist and buddhist metaphysical theory into their practice along with daoyin (or qigong). Even during the Ming hand combat was essentially impractical and largely ineffective, even more so with the concurrent ascension of modern war tactics and weapons. Skip a century or two later and Sun Lu Tang appropriated "internal" to market what was basically a variation of hong quan. Admittedly an over simplified generalization for the sake of style but my point remains. Internal or External, it's all the same **** it just comes in different packaging before you eat it.

. . .what have you as such therefore hereafter also too. Quite!

Q to the E to the D.

It would be interesting to see Sifu Patterson's take on this.

I will stick to what I stated before, and that is there are fundamental differences between the Internal and External approaches, even if they overlap on certain levels.

Another thing that I would add is that besides the "Big Three", there are other Internal styles and methodologies, including those trained within the Shaolin styles, as well as Hakka Family systems.

So, it has nothing to do with believing in "myths" or "legends", it is to do with PERSONAL exposure and the resultant understanding of these methodologies and approaches.

[Dragonzbane76]

I agree with one of the statements above even HW's that
One could not exist without the other yes i know me agreeing with him. :rolleyes:

anyways but it's not the same agreement in form to me. They are the same, they come from the same "tree", hell they are the tree, they are more of a continuing path imo. To put 2 definitions to them is not correct in my thoughts. The quote above that you cannot have one without the other, is to me, like saying they are the same thing. external/internal a noted defintion for people to get off on saying they are in the know to me. People do get hung up on dogma of it all.

I might not always agree with things stated but hell this is a forum and people are allowed their opinion last I noted. What is frustrating is the "shoving it down your throat" and how you come off with elitist bullsh!t. A broken record over and over.

I'm with lucas on this I'm joining the "I don't care party"
What I care about is training my way and taking new ideas and cross referencing them to fit into what I do.

[wenshu]

bawang;

You are always talking about code words; what about Douglas Wile's assertion that Huang Zongxi's Internal designation was actually an expression of Ming loyalty during Qing suppression and censorship?

Lost Tai Ji Classics from the Late Qing Dynasty by Douglas Wile pg 25-26 (http://books.google.com/books?id=i1X06spGp9cC&lpg=PP1&dq=douglas%20wile&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false)


This reference has been widely hailed as expressing Huang's patriotism, and it may be that the opening words of the "Epitaph for Wang Zhengnan," providing the philosophical, mythological, and genealogical frame for the Internal School art, is a coded strategy for surviving the Manchu occupation:

"The Shaolin Temple is famous for its fighting monks. However their art stresses only offense, which allows an opponent to take advantage of this for a counter attack. Then there is the so called Internal School that uses stillness to control movement and can easily throw an opponent. Therefore we call Shaolin the External School. The Internal School originated with Zhang San Feng of the Song dynasty. San Feng was a Taoist immortality seeker of the Wu Dang Mountains. Emperor Hui Zong summoned him, but the roads were impassable and he could not proceed. That night in a dream he received a martial art from the God of War and the next morning single handedly killed more than a hundred bandits."


Interpreting the "Epitaph" in this way, Zhang San Feng represents the spirit of the Chinese people, which communes with Xuan Wu, the god of war. The "internal" and "external" designations imply Chinese vs Manchu; "stillness" represents the Chinese strategy, and "movement" the Manchu mode; "Zhang San Feng" is a Chinese defender, and the "hundred bandits" are Manchu invaders. Since Huang was not given to superstition or mythological thinking, it is difficult to read this as anything but political allegory.

[Hardwork108]

The quote above that you cannot have one without the other, is to me, like saying they are the same thing.
You cannot have night, without the day. It does NOT make night and day the same, even if on a certain level the two will meet.

You cannot have hot, without the cold, but they are NOT the same, even if there will be meeting point between the two.

If I were you, I would study the Yin and Yang symbol more closely! ;)


external/internal a noted defintion for people to get off on saying they are in the know to me.
That is true and that is because they ARE! If you have studied a TCMA using a certain approach, be it Internal or External, then you are automatically in "the know" regarding this approach.

Problems arise when you have spent time and effort to study a discipline using the Internal approach, to suddenly be told someone that "the Internals do not exist and that they are part of someone's active imagination".....


People do get hung up on dogma of it all.

It is not about "dogma", it is about valid TCMA training methodologies, that apparenty many people do not have sufficient knowledge of to brush of as "fantasy".


I might not always agree with things stated but hell this is a forum and people are allowed their opinion last I noted. What is frustrating is the "shoving it down your throat" and how you come off with elitist bullsh!t. A broken record over and over.

It is not about elitism but about valid training methodologies that happen to be known as the Internals. If you look, you will see that this very thread is about the Internals, meaning that to come here and say that they don't exist is ELITISM in itself. ;)


I'm with lucas on this I'm joining the "I don't care party"
What I care about is training my way and taking new ideas and cross referencing them to fit into what I do.

Good on you and each one to his own.

Now, if you don't care and you are doing your own thing, while you do NOT believe that the Internal approach exists - why are you posting in a thread about the Internals? :confused:

Seriously, genuine question!

[Dragonzbane76]

I'm not going to get into a heated argument with you over this. We have covered this ground one to many times. I have my opinion you have yours. I can live with that apparently you can't.


Now, if you don't care and you are doing your own thing, while you do NOT believe that the Internal approach exists - why are you posting in a thread about the Internals?

Just because I don't see the same paths you do does not prohibit me from posting on an internet forum. And again I did not, nor have I ever said to you that I don't "believe" in such approaches only that I look at it in a different light. If you are done telling me what I can and cannot do then good day. I will not be sucked into the black hole you create every time you enter a thread.

[Hardwork108]

I'm not going to get into a heated argument with you over this. We have covered this ground one to many times. I have my opinion you have yours. I can live with that apparently you can't.
Apologies. I was under the impression that you were addressing me.




Just because I don't see the same paths you do does not prohibit me from posting on an internet forum. And again I did not, nor have I ever said to you that I don't "believe" in such approaches only that I look at it in a different light. If you are done telling me what I can and cannot do then good day. I will not be sucked into the black hole you create every time you enter a thread.

:confused:


.

[YouKnowWho]

"I don't care party"
I belong to the "I don't care party" too. My reason is simple. Since kick, punch, lock, throw are the 4 major components of the TCMA. So far I have not yet heard or seen any:

- "internal" kick,
- "internal" lock, and
- "internal" throw.

If "internal" principle can only be applied in "punch", it only has 1/4 of the total combat value. The day that someone can show me an "internal hip throw" or "internal roundhouse kick", the day that I'll pay more attention on "internal". Until then, it doesn't have much value for me.

[wiz cool c]

i don't think internal kung fu artist fight more. the first time i came to beijing for two weeks with a group to train in bagua and tai chi. i was into push hands comps at the time and was happy to finally be around a group of internal stylist to practice some free style push hands in our free time with.

wow nobody wanted to push, most never even did it before. and when i did get them to push ,i couldn't get them to push a second time. i think it is about the same 90% of internal and external kung fu practioners don't fight regularly.

[wenshu]

what about Douglas Wile's assertion that Huang Zongxi's Internal designation was actually an expression of Ming loyalty during Qing suppression and censorship?



*Wile got it from Stanley Henning who cites Tang Hao
http://seinenkai.com/articles/henning/il&t.pdf

[Hardwork108]

I belong to the "I don't care party" too. My reason is simple. Since kick, punch, lock, throw are the 4 major components of the TCMA. So far I have not yet heard or seen any:

- "internal" kick,
- "internal" lock, and
- "internal" throw.

If "internal" principle can only be applied in "punch", it only has 1/4 of the total combat value. The day that someone can show me an "internal hip throw" or "internal roundhouse kick", the day that I'll pay more attention on "internal". Until then, it doesn't have much value for me.

I could, but then you would have to kill me! :eek::)

Seriously, this is a difficult thing to explain in writing but I will try by making a comparison between an external reverse punch as one would see in a external style such as Shotokan Karate and say an internal kung fu style.

The short of it is that on the surface both of these punchs will look very similar but the power generating "engine" will be different. For one, the karate punch will conclude in a lot more bodily tension than the kung fu one.

Because of this different "engine", the kung fu punch will have more penetration. That is not to say that the karate punch will not hurt. I have been hit by both types of punches. The contrast was the Internal kung fu strike went through me and its delivery looked rather effortless. Whereas the karate one was obviously more external with a clear lunge forward and clear hip movement. Ok, this is a really comparison, but I hope that the distinction can be seen.

Sometimes simple ways of breathing can dictate the force/effect of the Internal punch.

Another concept associated with the Internals the way I have learned is "aliveness", associated with "sensitivity" and "listening" abilities. So, if an internal kung fu punch is blocked then at least in some systems that strike can change into another attack. Whereas in contrast the Shotokan punch "dies" when it is blocked. It may pulled back and "reloaded", or perhaps the other hand will launch the next strike.

In the Southern Mantis lineage that I am familiar with there are no closed fist punches except for the Phoenix Eye. However, even if they were to be then the power generation would not be as visible as the karate counterpart. The hips and waste play a part, but the connection is different, so you would not see a clear hip twist.

Also, it is worth adding that this system is famous for its chock power, which comes from INTERNAL training, which is even different to many other TCMA short power methodologies, and it is not an aspect of externally trained karate.

This is difficult to explain, but these are differences that I could put in writing.

Then there are also the other concepts and strategies that differ even between Internal styles....

[MightyB]

I belong to the "I don't care party" too. My reason is simple. Since kick, punch, lock, throw are the 4 major components of the TCMA. So far I have not yet heard or seen any:

- "internal" kick,
- "internal" lock, and
- "internal" throw.

If "internal" principle can only be applied in "punch", it only has 1/4 of the total combat value. The day that someone can show me an "internal hip throw" or "internal roundhouse kick", the day that I'll pay more attention on "internal". Until then, it doesn't have much value for me.

The internal striking techniques are: the Donkey Punch, and the Rusty Sheriff Badge penetration technique. We have a couple of guys that are very good with those skillz. They are MMA fighters... I'll use their ring names to preserve their anonymity. The first is called "Backdoor Poncho", another is known as the "Starfish Puncher", the last is well known - he is a master and is called "Dirty Sanchez".

:D

[Mike Patterson]

It would be interesting to see Sifu Patterson's take on this.

My take on "what" exactly? I thought I had already made my position clear?



Let me know if you ever get to Boston, as I would love to take you to dinner.

I would probably enjoy that, Dale. Thank you for the offer.

And for you clowns out there... no, this does NOT mean Dale and myself will be dating. So save the comments please. :rolleyes:

[MightyB]

And for you clowns out there... no, this does NOT mean Dale and myself will be dating. So save the comments please. :rolleyes:

We make no judgements... Dale's quite the catch.

[lkfmdc]

If Shihfu Patterson hasn't left already...

Wondering if you could comment on how you trained and taught push hands. Lately I've been associating with a group that goes to Taiwan to do push hands. Also with a Dr Hwang from Ohio who is from Taiwan and is advocating a thing called "extreme push hands" which is more like the Taiwan version (as opposed to the, well, sort of lame stuff they do here in the US)

Seeing how they do it in Taiwan, it is perfectly obvious how it applies to standing grappling, including throwing. Again, such a start contrast from what they do in the US under that name

Any comments or thoughts on push hands and it's proper application?




And for you clowns out there... no, this does NOT mean Dale and myself will be dating. So save the comments please. :rolleyes:

Glad to see you have a good sense of humor, you'll need it here! :D

[JamesC]

If Shihfu Patterson hasn't left already...

Wondering if you could comment on how you trained and taught push hands. Lately I've been associating with a group that goes to Taiwan to do push hands. Also with a Dr Hwang from Ohio who is from Taiwan and is advocating a thing called "extreme push hands" which is more like the Taiwan version (as opposed to the, well, sort of lame stuff they do here in the US)

Seeing how they do it in Taiwan, it is perfectly obvious how it applies to standing grappling, including throwing. Again, such a start contrast from what they do in the US under that name

Any comments or thoughts on push hands and it's proper application?



Glad to see you have a good sense of humor, you'll need it here! :D

I was going to ask you about that. I saw the "flyer" on your website.

[TenTigers]

We make no judgements... Dale's quite the catch.
I agree. Have you seen him in a kilt?
(looks kinda like Shrek in drag....but in a good way!)

[Taixuquan99]

Honestly, most internalists will kill you for even suggesting that they fight more.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Honestly, most internalists will kill you for even suggesting that they fight more.

If by kill you mean look at you with a constipated frown, yes, yes they will.

[Taixuquan99]

If by kill you mean look at you with a constipated frown, yes, yes they will.

That's not a frown, that's chi rising from their dingus.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's not a frown, that's chi rising from their dingus.

http://rlv.zcache.com/dont_mess_with_the_dingus_tshirt-p235629930541790811qr2x_400.jpg

[Taixuquan99]

All goofing aside, thanks for sharing sifu Patterson, and watch Dale, he's grabby.

[Taixuquan99]

If Shihfu Patterson hasn't left already...

Wondering if you could comment on how you trained and taught push hands. Lately I've been associating with a group that goes to Taiwan to do push hands. Also with a Dr Hwang from Ohio who is from Taiwan and is advocating a thing called "extreme push hands" which is more like the Taiwan version (as opposed to the, well, sort of lame stuff they do here in the US)

Seeing how they do it in Taiwan, it is perfectly obvious how it applies to standing grappling, including throwing. Again, such a start contrast from what they do in the US under that name

Any comments or thoughts on push hands and it's proper application?



Also interested in sifu Patterson's take on this.

[Fa Xing]

Thank you Shifu Patterson for answering my question about forms training. I am curious about Dave's question as well.

[Mike Patterson]

If Shihfu Patterson hasn't left already...

Wondering if you could comment on how you trained and taught push hands. Lately I've been associating with a group that goes to Taiwan to do push hands. Also with a Dr Hwang from Ohio who is from Taiwan and is advocating a thing called "extreme push hands" which is more like the Taiwan version (as opposed to the, well, sort of lame stuff they do here in the US)

Seeing how they do it in Taiwan, it is perfectly obvious how it applies to standing grappling, including throwing. Again, such a start contrast from what they do in the US under that name

Any comments or thoughts on push hands and it's proper application?



Glad to see you have a good sense of humor, you'll need it here! :D

I'm going to assume you mean what we call "freestyle" involving two hands and no fixed positions? Other than a standardized "linking up" of arms in a neutral phase starting pattern?

If so; We use freestyle push hands to develop the trapping, grappling and throwing ranges of combat. All technical perspectives can be allowed, or, the exercise can be agreed upon aforehand as to limitation for development of specific skill sets.. I.E. shoulder strokes only, elbow strokes only, leg locking only, sweeping only, etc. etc. etc.

When freestyle is deemed unlimited, the only thing we forbid is strikes to the face and fisted attacks to the rest of the body. All other techniques are fair game including takedown and submission parameters.

For us, it is only a beginning phase stage when we focus to develop "listening" skills. After that, the idea is to take those base skills of touch, redirect, ground, reflect, yield, follow, etc. into actual resistant phase combat to refine said skills for the real world.

I could talk forever on such a subject really, but I think this gives you the gist that you're after?

Btw.... I STILL teach. I'm not so old yet! ;)

[Taixuquan99]

I'm going to assume you mean what we call "freestyle" involving two hands and no fixed positions? Other than a standardized "linking up" of arms in a neutral phase starting pattern?

If so; We use freestyle push hands to develop the trapping, grappling and throwing ranges of combat. All technical perspectives can be allowed, or, the exercise can be agreed upon aforehand as to limitation for development of specific skill sets.. I.E. shoulder strokes only, elbow strokes only, leg locking only, sweeping only, etc. etc. etc.

When freestyle is deemed unlimited, the only thing we forbid is strikes to the face and fisted attacks to the rest of the body. All other techniques are fair game including takedown and submission parameters.

For us, it is only a beginning phase stage when we focus to develop "listening" skills. After that, the idea is to take those base skills of touch, redirect, ground, reflect, yield, follow, etc. into actual resistant phase combat to refine said skills for the real world.

I could talk forever on such a subject really, but I think this gives you the gist that you're after?

Btw.... I STILL teach. I'm not so old yet! ;)

Do you use fixed position at all, or do you favor moving from the start?

To illustrate what I mean, with my group, we do use fixed(with the qualifier of allowing pivots), to give people an idea of some listening skills and to get them aware of some setups. From there, it gets expanded out to the sort of thing you are describing, I just wondered if you tend to eschew the fixed step approach or not.

[lkfmdc]

I'm going to assume you mean what we call "freestyle" involving two hands and no fixed positions? Other than a standardized "linking up" of arms in a neutral phase starting pattern?



Yes, exactly, and "free style" is the term Dr Hwang uses as well




If so; We use freestyle push hands to develop the trapping, grappling and throwing ranges of combat. All technical perspectives can be allowed, or, the exercise can be agreed upon aforehand as to limitation for development of specific skill sets.. I.E. shoulder strokes only, elbow strokes only, leg locking only, sweeping only, etc. etc. etc.

When freestyle is deemed unlimited, the only thing we forbid is strikes to the face and fisted attacks to the rest of the body. All other techniques are fair game including takedown and submission parameters.



I've seen it be pretty much everything except "striking" (ie no punching in the face, no knee strikes, etc) but certainly shouldering, elbowing, hipping, etc are all "striking" but I guess you know what I mean

Certainly many takedowns




I could talk forever on such a subject really, but I think this gives you the gist that you're after?



It certainly gave me the "gist" but feel free to talk more ;)

[Hardwork108]

My take on "what" exactly? I thought I had already made my position clear?

Apologies, you are correct, sir.

You practice/teach the Internals and you have referred to your training in a very interesting manner. Yet, people tend to argue with me that the INTERNALS do not exist in this very thread that they agree or imply agreement with you that they exist! :confused:

I can just imagin the frenzied PM-ing that may be goin on.

I would ask you to elaborate a little more on the ground aspect of your training. In the past I have had difficulty in getting the point across to other posters here that in the Mainland Chinese lineage of Wing Chun that I practice, ground fighting is a legitimate part of the traditional curriculum and not some adhop later addition.

I was wondering if you could refer to other TCMAs that you are aware of that train this aspect/range as well, as to enlighten other forum members who are not aware of such training in the TCMAs. :)

[Mike Patterson]

Do you use fixed position at all, or do you favor moving from the start?

To illustrate what I mean, with my group, we do use fixed(with the qualifier of allowing pivots), to give people an idea of some listening skills and to get them aware of some setups. From there, it gets expanded out to the sort of thing you are describing, I just wondered if you tend to eschew the fixed step approach or not.

I am not sure I'm understanding what you mean by "fixed" vs. "moving" so I'll just say what we do in summary overview and you can ask for clarification if need be...

1) Stepping wise, we have both no step and moving step exercises.

2) Within the fixed step grouping, we have several isolate methods to develop this or that skill. I.E. one focused simply on core rotation and simple redirection; one focused on yielding and adhereing through the forearms, etc.

3) Within moving step exercises, we again have several that isolate certain redirective or neutralization methods. Or, at the extreme, we also have what we call "freestyle" as described already.

You must walk before you run, so the fixed pattern, no step methods we employ at the base are necessary prerequisites to more advanced practice.

To me, push hands is a constantly evolving skill set. It is wholly necessary and the basics (listening skills) must be revisited frequently to gain further insight and awareness and then re-integrated into the evolving fixed pattern, moving step pattern and freestyle exercises to continually improve.

Push hands should be a cornerstone of the disciplines I train. Without such practice, I think it fairly impossible to cultivate certain skillsets to any point of viability for combat.

[Mike Patterson]

I would ask you to elaborate a little more on the ground aspect of your training. In the past I have had difficulty in getting the point across to other posters here that in the Mainland Chinese lineage of Wing Chun that I practice, ground fighting is a legitimate part of the traditional curriculum and not some adhop later addition.

I was wondering if you could refer to other TCMAs that you are aware of that train this aspect/range as well, as to enlighten other forum members who are not aware of such training in the TCMAs. :)

I can only really speak to what I experienced in Taiwan and what I have experienced here in the US by contrast.

In Taiwan, at least in my day, all styles trained to fight. Very few exceptions to this. As such, all practioners understood that the ground was just another range/venue/transition of combative potential. So we all did it.. I never met anyone of any stylistic persuasion there that did not practice ground technique. Although we all had our differences in terms of emphasis.

It is only in the USA that I have seen such seemingly insurmountable differences of opinion over what qualifies as this or that or what defines this or that. Silly if you ask me. I have already stated that there are only so many things that can be done with a hand or foot. The rest is stylistic persuasion via tactical overlay or perspective of efficiency of combat.

Many things are a trade off. You want to be integrated? Then kinetic principles say you need to remain centered and not over extend your balance hence sacrficing your leverage and strength. You want to get to the enemy quickly? Then you might opt for long range extension knowing that you are momentarily vulnerable if you miss.. so don't miss, right? You want to be quick? You'll sacrifice some power potential via less mass involvement. Want to be powerful? You'll sacrifice some speed on the opposite end of that same coin to get your whole mass involved. (Of course, duly noted that both these ceilings appreciate in direct proportion to your ability).

So, I guess to elaborate... all old styles are complete. They need no outside help. It's all been done before. The bickering comes from mistaken perspectives, missing information or just plain obstinance in most cases I reckon. ;)

[IronWeasel]

I can only really speak to what I experienced in Taiwan and what I have experienced here in the US by contrast.

In Taiwan, at least in my day, all styles trained to fight. Very few exceptions to this. As such, all practioners understood that the ground was just another range/venue/transition of combative potential. So we all did it.. I never met anyone of any stylistic persuasion there that did not practice ground technique. Although we all had our differences in terms of emphasis.

It is only in the USA that I have seen such seemingly insurmountable differences of opinion over what qualifies as this or that or what defines this or that. Silly if you ask me. I have already stated that there are only so many things that can be done with a hand or foot. The rest is stylistic persuasion via tactical overlay or perspective of efficiency of combat.

Many things are a trade off. You want to be integrated? Then kinetic principles say you need to remain centered and not over extend your balance hence sacrficing your leverage and strength. You want to get to the enemy quickly? Then you might opt for long range extension knowing that you are momentarily vulnerable if you miss.. so don't miss, right? You want to be quick? You'll sacrifice some power potential via less mass involvement. Want to be powerful? You'll sacrifice some speed on the opposite end of that same coin to get your whole mass involved. (Of course, duly noted that both these ceilings appreciate in direct proportion to your ability).

So, I guess to elaborate... all old styles are complete. They need no outside help. It's all been done before. The bickering comes from mistaken perspectives, missing information or just plain obstinance in most cases I reckon. ;)




Well said.

This should be a sticky.

[Hardwork108]

I can only really speak to what I experienced in Taiwan and what I have experienced here in the US by contrast.

In Taiwan, at least in my day, all styles trained to fight. Very few exceptions to this. As such, all practioners understood that the ground was just another range/venue/transition of combative potential. So we all did it.. I never met anyone of any stylistic persuasion there that did not practice ground technique. Although we all had our differences in terms of emphasis.

It is only in the USA that I have seen such seemingly insurmountable differences of opinion over what qualifies as this or that or what defines this or that. Silly if you ask me. I have already stated that there are only so many things that can be done with a hand or foot. The rest is stylistic persuasion via tactical overlay or perspective of efficiency of combat.

Many things are a trade off. You want to be integrated? Then kinetic principles say you need to remain centered and not over extend your balance hence sacrficing your leverage and strength. You want to get to the enemy quickly? Then you might opt for long range extension knowing that you are momentarily vulnerable if you miss.. so don't miss, right? You want to be quick? You'll sacrifice some power potential via less mass involvement. Want to be powerful? You'll sacrifice some speed on the opposite end of that same coin to get your whole mass involved. (Of course, duly noted that both these ceilings appreciate in direct proportion to your ability).

So, I guess to elaborate... all old styles are complete. They need no outside help. It's all been done before. The bickering comes from mistaken perspectives, missing information or just plain obstinance in most cases I reckon. ;)

Many thanks sifu Patterson for your answer. I hope that the issue of the existance of the ground training in the TCMAs is settled once and for all in this forum and that many people who post here, who through no fault of their own have not experienced authentic TCMA practices, will now be the wiser because of your message, while at the same time realizing that the major styles of kung fu are COMPLETE arts, in that they train all ranges of combat. They will know now that any incomplete training that they may themselves have been exposed to has been because of the "fault" and/or shortcomings of their "sifus" - NOT the fault of the particular TCMA style that they have trained.

Thank you again, Sifu Patterson. :)

[Dragonzbane76]

If so; We use freestyle push hands to develop the trapping, grappling and throwing ranges of combat. All technical perspectives can be allowed, or, the exercise can be agreed upon aforehand as to limitation for development of specific skill sets.. I.E. shoulder strokes only, elbow strokes only, leg locking only, sweeping only, etc. etc. etc.

When freestyle is deemed unlimited, the only thing we forbid is strikes to the face and fisted attacks to the rest of the body. All other techniques are fair game including takedown and submission parameters.


sounds a lot like freestyle wrestling/grappling. I've watched some of the vids of the Taiwan versions of it and i've seen the western versions and sometimes it's like watching night and day. The taiwan version seem to be more up my alley.


The bickering comes from mistaken perspectives,

think you hit the nail on the head with that comment. To me many things are the same just different names. We only put names to them and end up arguing about the right and wrong "names" we see and not look to see the similarities. Wrestling is the oldest form of fighting but we as western eyes see it in terms of possesion, when in reality its alive in many differing places in the world and branched from those as well.

Grappling is my passion and glad to see others doing it and passing it along in there own versions.

[JamesC]

I second the sticky.

Perhaps a mod could clean this thread up(i.e. take out all the uneccessary posts) as well?

Either way, i'm gonna bookmark this one for reference.

Again, thanks for this thread. Awesome stuff.

[taai gihk yahn]

As to the whole internal/external debacle. Again, I will say there are only so many things you can do with a hand or a foot. And there is nothing new under the sun in martial arts. It's all been done before. All complete styles/systems/arts have both Yin and Yang. If only one side is practiced, you are not going to become well rounded. You must condition yourself as well as meditate. You must fight as well as push hands. You must strengthen as well as learn to yield.
somewhere along the line, this obvious truth in terms of "internal" training seems to have gotten waylaid in favor of a far less sweat-inducing paradigm...


I do, however, take exception to a few comments;
The internal arts as they were taught to me are complete. We do conditioning. We sweat. We bleed. We are not elitist snobs who are uinwilling to get dirty or roll around on the ground (ever heard of the three basin theory?).
We do mostly body weight strengthening exercises. But some are device driven. We hit things... lots of things.. in various ways. We fight. We do scenario training. We grapple. I will grant that I have encountered many in the USA who think this blasphemy but I have always just shrugged, smiled and then proven to them why they are misguided. ;)
I think that this is representative of the manner in which TCMA when trained as a unified whole will encompass; to wit, I have experienced at least one "internal" school where this was the norm for the students who were "in the door" - sweating, bleeding, vomiting, passing out, etc. (the once-a-weekers, OTOH, were enthralled by the teacher's gentle smile, loving kindness and esoteric exercises...)


I do not appreciate words being put into my mouth. Or speculation of what I think by association to someone elses ideology.

I assume u r referring to this:

and it has nothing to do w notoriety - I seem to recall you making comments at one point calling into question Tim Cartmell's depth of internal knowledge, based on the argument that if he had to go find what he was "lacking" by studying BJJ, then he must not have studied his internal stuff deeply / thoroughly enough (I bet if we asked Sifu Patterson about his perspective on Cartmell's internals, he would not share that perspective)


If you wish to know what I think, there is a simple route to take. It's called a direct question.
ok, fair enough; so in the case of someone like Shifu Cartmell, and not even talking about him specifically if u prefer not to, who has studied a particular TCMA system deeply and thoroughly, and still feels the need to supplement it w something non-TCMA (either due to a perceived lack in the TCMA or their own impetus to do so); does doing so suggest some short-fall of the system they studied? or is it them? or, perhaps, r they engaging in a sort of evolutionary synthesis - which would suggest that the concept of any art as being "complete" may not b possible - that all arts are constantly evolving - it's just a question of who does the active evolution and why...

not trying to stir the pot, bad-mouth, etc. but rather to take a look at the issue objectively in terms of how individuals and styles integrate, evolve, etc...

[Mike Patterson]

ok, fair enough; so in the case of someone like Shifu Cartmell, and not even talking about him specifically if u prefer not to, who has studied a particular TCMA system deeply and thoroughly, and still feels the need to supplement it w something non-TCMA (either due to a perceived lack in the TCMA or their own impetus to do so); does doing so suggest some short-fall of the system they studied? or is it them? or, perhaps, r they engaging in a sort of evolutionary synthesis - which would suggest that the concept of any art as being "complete" may not b possible - that all arts are constantly evolving - it's just a question of who does the active evolution and why...

not trying to stir the pot, bad-mouth, etc. but rather to take a look at the issue objectively in terms of how individuals and styles integrate, evolve, etc...

:) Well, first, I don't speculate on the motivations of others unless their actions directly affect me. So in this case, if you wish to know why any individual may choose a specific course of action, it is best to ask THEM. I am not in their mind, so it is rather pointless to ask ME.

Second, I have already made my position clear that I never felt the need to go outside my respective system. And that old systems are indeed complete in their attempts to address all aspects/ranges/transitions of combat potential.

Perhaps I was fortunate to have open minded and knowledgeable teachers who encouraged me to explore other disciplines via "crossing arms" (this is what we said in those days) and to bring back any questions or dilemnas I had. There was always an answer waiting.

I remember in my first full contact event I had the fortune (or misfortune depending on how you look at things) to draw a Thai in one of my bouts. I won the bout on decision, but that man beat me to death with elbows and knees during. Afterward, my teacher took me aside for a few days and taught me a better way to deal with such attacks inside. The next time I fought a Thai, it was decidely different.

Practitioners evolve. No question about it. Every time we get our head handed to us, we evolve by necessity to avoid same from happening yet again.

But I will one more time for the record say; There is nothing new under the sun. All has been done before. Those who would say that what they do is unique.. well, maybe to them it is, but not to me. Oftentimes it simply boils down to your individual paradigm and experience quotient I reckon.

[lkfmdc]

Good stuff, as always, but allow me to ask a few more questions




I have already made my position clear that I never felt the need to go outside my respective system.



The system you were brought up in was extremely strong, well rounded and some would even say progressive. It combined three arts (Hsing Yi, Bagua and Tai Chi) with elements of "Shaolin" (to me the term appeared to be used generically for other Chinese martial art). Gives you a pretty broad base I'm sure you agree.

There has been some suggestion that some non Chinese martial arts have influenced it, particularly boxing and judo. Any comment on that?





And that old systems are indeed complete in their attempts to address all aspects/ranges/transitions of combat potential.



Certainly every art / tradition in the "old days" attempted to address all the aspects/ranges of combat. And in your tradition, you also had to combined knowledge of three traditions funneled down to you

What I am getting at is that the method you use isn't strictly just one art or tradition. It's a method that HAS embraced cross training.




Perhaps I was fortunate to have open minded and knowledgeable teachers who encouraged me to explore other disciplines via "crossing arms" (this is what we said in those days) and to bring back any questions or dilemnas I had. There was always an answer waiting.



I would say you were fortunate on two counts

1) Yes, they encouraged you to experience it, test it and ask questions about it (which sadly the last part many teachers discourage)

AND

2) Your primary teacher and his teacher were both extremely well trained, with a breadth of knowledge and world views which encouraged growth





But I will one more time for the record say; There is nothing new under the sun. All has been done before.



I agree 100%. You can find everything in every tradition (which you then say right after this quote).

However, my point would be that martial arts systems are often like old watches, every once in a while they need to be wound up or some little general up keep to keep them "on time" and running smoothly.

I think the system you were brought up in was EXACTLY this, ie keeping the internal arts current, relevant and up to date.

But that doesn't mean in my opinion that the danger should ever be forgotten




Those who would say that what they do is unique.. well, maybe to them it is, but not to me. Oftentimes it simply boils down to your individual paradigm and experience quotient I reckon.

No, I agree, there is nothing unique in anything. But I think there is always a danger of thinking "well, my system has everything" in that you may not realize that while your system has it, you may not be doing it.

Cross training, not just crossing hands, shouldn't in my opinion be looked down upon (NOT saying that is what you said, but others may construe your comments in ways they see fit) as "going outside your system" or "betraying your teacher" but rather as a constant quest to keep asking questions and keep evolving YOURSELF

[Mike Patterson]

There has been some suggestion that some non Chinese martial arts have influenced it, particularly boxing and judo. Any comment on that?

Sorry. I looked really hard through your post for the "questions", but I only found the one, extracted above. The rest appeared to be "statements" so not sure what you wanted from on those, but I'll make a few comments.

As to the question above.... Look, in my day, you didn't ask your teachers about where this or that came from. You respectfully did what was asked of you when asked. Trying to grill them over what they were teaching you, or worse, implying that what they were teaching you was not what they said it was would likely get you seriously hurt.

As an aside though.. ever see a photo of a "jab" from the bare knuckles days of western boxing? Looks a great deal like the splitting fist of most Hsing-I systems, albeit in a more shallow basin does it not? Hmmmm.... chicken or egg? ;)

My "familie's" history is public record by now. So you can think whatever you like about what is and is not in the "Tang Shou Tao" lineage. The Taiwanese martial artists in my day were very pragmatic people and nothing else really mattered much to them. We trained the arts as we were told to train them.

The fact that we have all three "internal" arts in the Tang Shou Tao system doesn't really change anything I've said. All three stem from the same principle base and and so "dovetail" quite nicely. And it is not at all uncommon, or wasn't in my day, for an "internalist" to start in one of the three and then branch into the other two. Just as it is not uncommon for long term practitioners starting with any other stylistic persuasion to eventually branch into other styles. Such is the evolution of a practitioner.

By example; once I actually understood there were different "lineages" out there, I once aske Hsu Hong Chi (XuHongJi) what "style" our Hsing-I (xingyi) was. His reply to me was: "Where come from, not important. Work, no work, THAT your concern!" And he walked away. I didn't ask that same questioin for many, many years after that first time. Message received, sir! Thank you for not killing me, sir! :)

I think that a constantly questing mind keeps their respective art fresh. The willingness to interact with others in whatever venue, be it push hands or organized fighting or backyard barbecue brawling, all contribute to keeping the mind evolving within the respective discipline being studied. It is only when people allow themselves to become too "comfortable" and hence "complacent" within only their own school or group that they become tunnel visioned and fail to dig deeper into their system to discover the wealth of information contained. It's there. You just have to look.

It is the questing that is important. The attempts to categorize and quantify only serve to obfuscate the truth. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." As soon as you attempt to define something that is undefinable you limit your perspective awareness to the truth forever afterward.

Again, a "system" is defined by the perspectives it holds about how to best express and utilize the different ranges/tools of combat.. foot, hand, elbow, knee, shoulder, hip, head, trapping, grappling, throwing, submission.. the "system" is the blueprint that makes all these tools and ranges work efficiently together. The tools are the tools, but the "how" of utilization of the tools creates the "system" over time. The differing viewpoints on what is a good "trade off" create the different stylistic persuasions we see today. The rest is the individual in question. The respective strengths and weaknesses of that practitioner will then determine the selected and/or favored tools within the system of choice.

There is no such thing as a "bad" tool. And there is no such thing as a "superior" tool. There exist only poor decisions of when and how to use a tool, or, mistaken perspectives on the actual utility of said tool. All tools are useful in their respective time and place. And if there were such a thing as a "superior" tool, well then, we would ALL be practicing only that ONE THING. And it would have been discoverd LONG ago.

I have had numerous discussions with practitioners/teachers that tell me that they feel that they are able to fight and fight well. Oftentimes, by asking just a few quick questions... Do you spar in your school? What are the rules if any? Do you engage with outsiders at all? Do you go to other schools/venues to play with unknowns in contact environments? What are the rules, if any?..... tells me where their respective heads are. It is amazing to me how many practitioners keep their metaphorical heads in the sand but yet profess that "they know" what they do is real and effective.

And now we have come full circle. As my initial comment on this thread is once again here to be stated. I think there is a major disconnect in many schools today. They do not train essence for combat. They do not marry their style based skill sets with the pressure of actual fighting. Yet they profess that they know. :rolleyes:

I say; good luck with that. :)

[lkfmdc]

Sorry. I looked really hard through your post for the "questions", but I only found the one, extracted above. The rest appeared to be "statements" so not sure what you wanted from on those, but I'll make a few comments.



No worries, and thanks for taking the time to post




As to the question above.... Look, in my day, you didn't ask your teachers about where this or that came from. You respectfully did what was asked of you when asked. Trying to grill them over what they were teaching you, or worse, implying that what they were teaching you was not what they said it was would likely get you seriously hurt.



Oh, I've trained with a number of old school guys. And indeed I've been thrown across the room, choked, even kicked in the nuts :D I know what you are saying

For me personally though, it remains, when you don't ask questions you stop evolving.





As an aside though.. ever see a photo of a "jab" from the bare knuckles days of western boxing? Looks a great deal like the splitting fist of most Hsing-I systems, albeit in a more shallow basin does it not? Hmmmm.... chicken or egg? ;)



Know enough Hsing-Yi people to know that it shares features with boxing

Also they found Lama Pai (my art) which has never been characterized as "internal" generating power in ways similar to Hsing Yi.

"Strange"? I tend to think there is only two kinds of technique. Those that work and those that don't. Only so many ways the fingers, hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder, hip, waist, knee and ankle work isn't there? But you've already said that!





My "familie's" history is public record by now. So you can think whatever you like about what is and is not in the "Tang Shou Tao" lineage. The Taiwanese martial artists in my day were very pragmatic people and nothing else really mattered much to them. We trained the arts as we were told to train them.




Oh, don't get insulted! I've always found your lineage fascinating and it influenced me, even before I realized you were part of it.

Not saying anything bad about them at all, in fact suggesting that MANY martial artists could learn a lot from them






I think that a constantly questing mind keeps their respective art fresh. The willingness to interact with others in whatever venue, be it push hands or organized fighting or backyard barbecue brawling, all contribute to keeping the mind evolving within the respective discipline being studied. It is only when people allow themselves to become too "comfortable" and hence "complacent" within only their own school or group that they become tunnel visioned and fail to dig deeper into their system to discover the wealth of information contained. It's there. You just have to look.



THIS is what I was getting at, so you understood exactly





I have had numerous discussions with practitioners/teachers that tell me that they feel that they are able to fight and fight well. Oftentimes, by asking just a few quick questions... Do you spar in your school? What are the rules if any? Do you engage with outsiders at all? Do you go to other schools/venues to play with unknowns in contact environments? What are the rules, if any?..... tells me where their respective heads are. It is amazing to me how many practitioners keep their metaphorical heads in the sand but yet profess that "they know" what they do is real and effective.



We share similar experiences

Be well

[Mike Patterson]

Oh, don't get insulted! I've always found your lineage fascinating and it influenced me, even before I realized you were part of it.

Not saying anything bad about them at all, in fact suggesting that MANY martial artists could learn a lot from them

Wasn't taken as an insult. You asked a question, I answered. We didn't really think about such things in those days. It is only upon returning to the United States that I was asked such questions.. moreso since the advent of the net of course.

I simply meant that all practitioners, if truly seeking, are influenced by what they encounter. Even if only in small shifts of perspective about what they are doing currently. Sometimes, a major shift occurs as a result of a specific event.

It is well known that the Hung family practiced shaolin prior to beginning to learn the internal disciplnes from Chang Chun Feng. We had always been taught that the Hung's father had blamed the death of his eldest son on the extremely hard kungs that they had practiced prior. It was he that mandated the change of discipline in their family as a result.

People train, they interact with others, other styles, other modes of thought... this changes them. All practitioners evolve in this way. We are all an amalgum of our experiences in the art. Kung fu is a living, breathing evolution within all of us. Or should be.

You also be well. :)

[taai gihk yahn]

:) Well, first, I don't speculate on the motivations of others unless their actions directly affect me. So in this case, if you wish to know why any individual may choose a specific course of action, it is best to ask THEM. I am not in their mind, so it is rather pointless to ask ME.
I agree; which was why I made a point to ask you to generalize if u didn't want to speak to Cartmell specifically; also it was untoward of me to suggest that you would have a specific opinion of him, so I retract that and apologize;


Second, I have already made my position clear that I never felt the need to go outside my respective system.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that, if someone did feel the need to "go outside", I don't believe it is necessarily indicative that they didn't study that system "deeply" enough; to say this is to make a lot of assumptions about that person that one could not know; and furthermore, it would suggest that "the system" predominates over the "individual", which I don't agree with, since the individual is as such, while the system is a construct created by the individual(s) as a means to an end; to say that, even for a "complete" system, the ONLY reason one would go look outside for answers is due to the individual's lack of depth of study, is a gross overgeneralization (and yet, people do this all the time, typically the more "traditional" types)


And that old systems are indeed complete in their attempts to address all aspects/ranges/transitions of combat potential.
yes - complete in their ATTEMPTS - meaning that, they may attempt and fail; so when they do, what do they do? some would say "dig deeper" into their own extant method; which is fine; however, what makes more sense? "dig" for another 15 years, or spend a lot less time studying the system that spawned the "problem" that vexes you?


Practitioners evolve. No question about it. Every time we get our head handed to us, we evolve by necessity to avoid same from happening yet again.
of course; again, the question is, what is the most efficacious manner in which to avoid that happening?


But I will one more time for the record say; There is nothing new under the sun. All has been done before. Those who would say that what they do is unique.. well, maybe to them it is, but not to me. Oftentimes it simply boils down to your individual paradigm and experience quotient I reckon.
absolutely;


Look, in my day, you didn't ask your teachers about where this or that came from. You respectfully did what was asked of you when asked. Trying to grill them over what they were teaching you, or worse, implying that what they were teaching you was not what they said it was would likely get you seriously hurt.
fair enough, but honestly, this is more in context of a particular cultural paradigm than a combat one - I mean, there is no logical reason for a teacher not to be forthright about what they learned and where...of course, if that was your personal experience, recounting and adhering to that paradigm probably has a certain nostalgic sensibility - but from a relatively more objective perspective, it may not make that much sense - it might even suggest that the teacher is trying to hide something from the student that might undermine the "purity" of what they are teaching - for example, IF a Chinese teacher had incorporated a non-Chinese system into theirs, it might be somewhat embarrassing to "admit" this - I am not suggesting this was the case, but it certainly wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility; of course, ultimately, who cares, right? and if that is the case, then simply being forthright really makes the most sense...


As an aside though.. ever see a photo of a "jab" from the bare knuckles days of western boxing? Looks a great deal like the splitting fist of most Hsing-I systems, albeit in a more shallow basin does it not? Hmmmm.... chicken or egg? ;)
maybe; OTOH, evolutionary theory has multiple examples of highly similar traits evolving in different species independent of each other; it suggests Nature has an ultimately limited bag of tricks, based on various factors of morphogenesis; therefore, for two disparate systems to independently come up with similar looking / functioning ways to punch someone is not that big a of a stretch;


My "familie's" history is public record by now. So you can think whatever you like about what is and is not in the "Tang Shou Tao" lineage. The Taiwanese martial artists in my day were very pragmatic people and nothing else really mattered much to them.
suggesting that if they had incorporated "external" arts like boxing or judo, they would have been upfront about it, as for them, where something came from wouldn't matter so long as it works;


I once aske Hsu Hong Chi (XuHongJi) what "style" our Hsing-I (xingyi) was. His reply to me was: "Where come from, not important. Work, no work, THAT your concern!"
on the one hand, I don't agree w this perspective in general - I mean, why not just tell someone? however, I can, on some level, understand that he is simply trying to reframe the context from a cognitive behavioral perspective: by taking your keen interest in where it comes from and redirecting it back into the immediate issue of skill acquisition; so, did he ultimately answer that question for you? just curious;


I think that a constantly questing mind keeps their respective art fresh.
exactly - and that involves both experiential work (practicing a technique, testing it out, etc.) and contextual appreciation (where something came from)


It is the questing that is important. The attempts to categorize and quantify only serve to obfuscate the truth.
I don't know - truth, as such, is self-evident; categorizing and quantifying are simply two ways of approaching it, as valid as any other method (I mean, mathematics is based on categorizing and quantifying, and it is one, though not the only, very useful way of providing a perspective on "truth"); I would suggest that the method of inquiry doesn't obfuscate, it is the individual's perception that does: meaning some people can categorize and quantify and in fact get to 'truth" just fine, for others, they become more focused on the act of categorizing and quantifying itself;


"The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." As soon as you attempt to define something that is undefinable you limit your perspective awareness to the truth forever afterward.
but that's the nature of life - we are constantly "attempting to define the undefineable" - because, ultimately, NOTHING is definable - it's all temporary, a convenience - as soon as we coalesce direct experience into thoughts / words, we are doing this; and there is nothing wrong with doing this, it's how we are able to communicate - if we lived our daily lives in full, non-cognitive awareness of "the All", it would b pretty hard to do just about anything that required discriminatory thought, including practicing MA! I think that what the quote above is actually trying to get at is not so much a criticism of "the Tao that can be named" as being "inferior" to "the Tao that cannot be named" (which is how many people seem to take it), but rather that, simply put, they are two sides of the same coin, and that both are valid and necessary in terms of enabling one to negotiate the vagaries of life...


Again, a "system" is defined by the perspectives it holds about how to best express and utilize the different ranges/tools of combat.. foot, hand, elbow, knee, shoulder, hip, head, trapping, grappling, throwing, submission.. the "system" is the blueprint that makes all these tools and ranges work efficiently together. The tools are the tools, but the "how" of utilization of the tools creates the "system" over time. The differing viewpoints on what is a good "trade off" create the different stylistic persuasions we see today. The rest is the individual in question. The respective strengths and weaknesses of that practitioner will then determine the selected and/or favored tools within the system of choice.
so, by this perspective (and I agree w ur assessment 101%), it doesn't matter quite so much what sort of specific "obscure gungs" one practices, there is no inherently superior means by which skill can b acquired, and to qualify a given TCMA as "authentic" or "innauthentic" simply by virtue of the content of its curriculum really doesn't make any sense, since it is utimately the expression of the individual - two people can train the same way under the same teacher, but each will embody and express the art differently; or you can have two people who study different systems under different teachers and actually end up being strikingly similar in what they do and how they do it - for example, one of your students and one of Dave Ross' students could manifest their skills almost identically, despite you and his approach to TCMA being very different; suggesting that to go on and on about who is being authentic doesn't really make any sense, as long as the principles that they teach lead to the desired result of skilled performance;

[YouKnowWho]

if someone did feel the need to "go outside", I don't believe it is necessarily indicative that they didn't study that system "deeply" enough;
Confucius once said, "I have spent 3 days trying to find some solution from what I already know. After those 3 days, I realize that it may be better for me to learn from others instead."

In gradulate school work, before you start your own research, you will write a survey paper first. You may have to spend 1 years to read through more than 200 papers that were published by others first. Not only you try to learn what others did research before you do, you also want to make sure that you don't repeat others research and re-invent the wheel.

All modern scientific research starts from "go outside". I just don't seen any reason that TCMA can get away from that logical path.

[Mike Patterson]

1a, b& c) yes - complete in their ATTEMPTS - meaning that, they may attempt and fail; so when they do, what do they do? some would say "dig deeper" into their own extant method; which is fine; however, what makes more sense? "dig" for another 15 years, or spend a lot less time studying the system that spawned the "problem" that vexes you?

2) of course; again, the question is, what is the most efficacious manner in which to avoid that happening?

3) of course, ultimately, who cares, right? and if that is the case, then simply being forthright really makes the most sense...

4) so, did he ultimately answer that question for you? just curious;

Not to be rude, but clearly you have FAR more time than I do to post in this forum. So I'm just going to stick to the questions and avoid the rhetoric since you are certainly entitled to your own opinions. And I really don't care. :)

1a, b &c) The answer to this would depend on the individual, their experience quotient, their problem solving skillset and attributes of personality that are impossible to know.

2) Keep an open mind. Study tactics and kinetics of motion. Look for answers in all possible avenues open to you for discovery.

3) I certainly don't care. And as for being forthright.. well, most human beings are far from. Most promote their own agenda every time over anything else. ;)

4) Yes. He did.

[taai gihk yahn]

Not to be rude, but clearly you have FAR more time than I do to post in this forum.
well, today I do, as we r sitting here as the hurricane passes over and i am still on vacation; starting next week, I will probably be back to not posting much at all;


So I'm just going to stick to the questions and avoid the rhetoric
I am not attempting to be rhetorical;


since you are certainly entitled to your own opinions.
of course; as are you;


And I really don't care. :)
um, well, ok; hey, I thought we were just having a conversation - you know, I express my opinions, you express yours, as a result, some new perspectives might be arrived at by both parties; but, if you really don't care, I guess that concludes the exchange...


1a, b &c) The answer to this would depend on the individual, their experience quotient, their problem solving skillset and attributes of personality that are impossible to know.

2) Keep an open mind. Study tactics and kinetics of motion. Look for answers in all possible avenues open to you for discovery.

3) I certainly don't care. And as for being forthright.. well, most human beings are far from. Most promote their own agenda every time over anything else. ;)

4) Yes. He did.
agree w #1 & 2; as to #3) well of course, we all have our particular interests that we "promote" - my personal "agenda" is to try to discern clearly the fundamental operating factors that influence people's behavior (my own included); this, to me, necessarily involves examining and breaking down structures of "traditional" thought and the assumptions that often go along with them; a lot of times, that means looking at things in a detailed manner; I guess I am influenced a great deal by Krishnamurti's method of inquiry;
for #4, that would suggest he was not being deceptive, but rather trying to keep u focused on ur training at that particular stage;

ok, so anyway, sorry that you seem to have tired of our discourse (maybe I am wrong, but that is my sense of it); take care;

[bawang]

who is mike patternson can someone explain to me

[omarthefish]

Rather well known student of Xu Hong-ji (许鸿基 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsu_Hung-Chi)) which makes him also Shixiong to Tim Cartnell. (I think anyways. )

He's particularly famous in Internal MA circles for having very successfully fielded lots of students in full contact kuoshu matches (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5wzaDgYQZA) where they can be seen applying the skills of Xingyi and Bagua clearly and effectively. Maybe Taiji too but me personally, I mainly see the other two in the clips that are out there.

[lkfmdc]

Shihfu Patterson is a student of Hsu Hong Chi. Hsu is a student of Hong I Hsiang. Hong founded the Tang Shou Tao organization in Taiwan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ4t7mWdKsw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CISLY0kXQrk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB47HIyWkDA&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE11COUegek&feature=related

Originating back in the 1960's, the organization was actually pretty progressive by TCMA standards, and as I said some would even say controversial in some respects


SADLY, apparently not doing well in Taiwan these days, this is supposed to be the last school left?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWK9hyJwMEs&feature=fvwp&NR=1

[andyhaas]

I'd say 'internalists' -- that is, those that study the so-called 'internal' styles, especially tiajiquan, don't fight for anything, especially compared to MMA or something like that.

I had a lot of arguments with a ton of them and they generally consider it against 'wude' (martial virtue) to apply what they study in anything but a rou-shou (freestyle push-hands) format.

I checked out Mike Patterson's school because it was comparatively rare in that they did supposedly go to tournaments like that, but they had stopped going to tournaments supposedly so much by that time (2000) and the commute just didn't work for me.

In this case, I don't think the exceptions prove the rule.

[Hardwork108]

My personal perspective on the recent exchanges in this thread is that the major TCMA styles are COMPLETE systems - Something that I have known for years and I am happy that that this fact has been validated further here!

So, people can try all they want to "extract" comments that validate needless cross training, or to somehow indicate shortcomings in given TCMA styles - but it won't do any good. Facts are facts!

The other fact that has been cemented here is the fact that the major (at least, most of them) TCMAs contain ground fighting methodologies.

Given the above facts, if one does not get a COMPLETE training in his given TCMA school, he should perhaps blame his school or "sifu", and perhaps himself for lack of patience, but NOT cluelessly blame the particular style or even the WHOLE of the TCMAS - sometimes the case in this forum - for being "unfuncional", or somehow lacking!

The TCMAs are not for everyone, that is why god created kickboxing and the MMAs. If having trained in a kung fu school, you do badly in a fight against another stylist then you have two choices:

One. Look deeper into your own style for answers (assuming that you are getting genuine tuition).

Two. Run along and join your local MMA gym.

The choice is yours, people are free to do as they wish, so whatever makes you happy, but don't dare make incorrect and generalized statements about the supposed short comings of the TCMAs when you have not studied them deeply enough and/or have not had genuine instruction.

We live in a world that over 90% of "TCMA-ists" who post in this forum are not aware of ground fighting training in the TCMAs, or they think that they were later (post UFC) additions. A world where a great percentage do not even have a beginner's concept of Internal training, while still claiming valid TCMA experience, even "sifu" status. In some cases, they are not even aware of the Internal aspects of the External kung fu styles they, themselves claim to practice.

For all of the people in the 90% category here in the forum I recommend that you pay attention to people who know more than you, because sifu Patterson is one such person, and he has been kind and patient enough (including with me) to inform us of his Way.

In my humble opinion, people who are here in the forums to exclusively "teach" and impress the rest of us with their half baked kung fu knowledge (eg. "forms are useless"; "Internals don't exist";"no ground fighting in Kung fu", etc.) which has led them into a life of pseudo kung fu combined with MMA training - and promotion in forums - not to mention, often needless cross training, should get off their high horses and try and to expand their actual TCMA knowledge, specially when, in the know, sifus such as Patterson are kind enough to spend the time to explain certain TCMA approaches.

After all, we are all posting in a KUNG FU FORUM (one of the best ones there is, I believe) and don't forums such as this one exist for this exact purpose - that is the expansion of knowledge?

[Mike Patterson]

I'd say 'internalists' -- that is, those that study the so-called 'internal' styles, especially tiajiquan, don't fight for anything, especially compared to MMA or something like that.

I had a lot of arguments with a ton of them and they generally consider it against 'wude' (martial virtue) to apply what they study in anything but a rou-shou (freestyle push-hands) format.

I checked out Mike Patterson's school because it was comparatively rare in that they did supposedly go to tournaments like that, but they had stopped going to tournaments supposedly so much by that time (2000) and the commute just didn't work for me.

In this case, I don't think the exceptions prove the rule.

"Supposedly?" It's a fact, not a supposition.

Those who you have had "a lot of arguments with" are not representative of the rest of us "so called internalists".

The commute didn't work for you, huh? :rolleyes: I used to "commute" 10,000 miles to learn after I left Taiwan. The best avenue of study is seldom down the street from you. My teacher used to say; "As long as you like study, I like teach. You no like study anymore... who lose? Me? I don't think so. I already know."

I stopped training teams in 2000, yes. But tournaments are only a venue of demonstration of such training. The training still did and still does exist through me. Too bad you couldn't rectify the commute. ;)

And WE are not an exception. Only in this country is what I have done even remotely "exceptional". The fact that you have not been exposed to such often elsewhere is a result of your environment, NOT the arts you now disparage.

But hey, to each his own. :)

[Indrafist]

[QUOTE We live in a world that over 90% of "TCMA-ists" who post in this forum are not aware of ground fighting training in the TCMAs, or they think that they were later (post UFC) additions. A world where a great percentage do not even have a beginner's concept of Internal training, while still claiming valid TCMA experience, even "sifu" status. In some cases, they are not even aware of the Internal aspects of the External kung fu styles they, themselves claim to practice. [/QUOTE]

In 1975 my Lion's Roar Sifu took me to the ground in a full contact sparring session (which were mandatory) and broke my right elbow with a cross-over arm bar. I was off work for 4 months. An internal style Sifu called Ho Sui Fai (from Macao) also used to teach at the school, and he fought on the ground - I know because he put me there regularly.

[Hardwork108]

In 1975 my Lion's Roar Sifu took me to the ground in a full contact sparring session (which were mandatory) and broke my right elbow with a cross-over arm bar. I was off work for 4 months. An internal style Sifu called Ho Sui Fai (from Macao) also used to teach at the school, and he fought on the ground - I know because he put me there regularly.

Thank you for sharing your experience Indrafist. I hope your post served as educational to anyone else here who still doubts that ground fighting training is and HAS been present in the TCMAs for a long time.

I keep bringing up this subject because years ago, in this very forum, when I talked about the ground fighting training in the lineage of the Mainland Chinese Wing Chun I practice, I was "attacked" and ridiculed by many who claimed "decades" of TCMA experience (and yes, the world is full of them). Actually some of them are posting in this very thread, but currently in a rather subdued manner, while others have very wisely kept their silence!

The same is true when it comes to the Internals. Many here with the trademark "decades" of MA experience, ridiculed me (and other genuine TCMA posters) and came up with fancy "debunking" and/or "scientific" theories to deny their existance, but they EXIST, and those of us who have actually practiced this are very well aware of this FACT!

Then we have the "why practice forms at all, when you can spar all the time" crowd, who are mainly the same people who ridiculed the notion that the Internals existed, as well as the existance of ground fighting training in the TCMAs.

Am I a sifu? NO! Am I an expert? NO, or at least not yet, as I am hoping to be! :)

I am a mere intermediate kung fu student, yet through very good luck, have had access to genuine sifus, and that has been enough to help me see through the usual thinly disguised "MMA is great and we must crosstrain because kung fu is 'lacking' ", message/smoke screen (even if "kung fu" tagged), so prevalent in the MA forums throught the internet, and dare I say, even in this very thread!

Thanks again for your post! :)

[bawang]

Am I a sifu? NO! Am I an expert? NO

thanks for clearing that up

[sanjuro_ronin]

There seems to be a bit of "confusion" perhaps about a system being complete and "stand alone" in regards to its PRINCIPLES and what some people are "taking" as meaning TECHNIQUES.
Every MA systems has, in its principles, ways of "fighting on the ground", that does NOT mean that these systems are ON PAR with the specialized ground fighting systems such as BJJ and submission grappling and "MMA".
It simply means that withing said system, the principles are THERE to be DEVELOPED via sparring and so forth.

I THINK that is what Sifu Patterson MAY be saying ( not to put words in his mouth of course) .

[Dragonzbane76]

Was going to say the same thing robin but I didn't want to start an argument with Hw seeing that this thread was pretty good.

[MightyB]

There seems to be a bit of "confusion" perhaps about a system being complete and "stand alone" in regards to its PRINCIPLES and what some people are "taking" as meaning TECHNIQUES.
Every MA systems has, in its principles, ways of "fighting on the ground", that does NOT mean that these systems are ON PAR with the specialized ground fighting systems such as BJJ and submission grappling and "MMA".
It simply means that withing said system, the principles are THERE to be DEVELOPED via sparring and so forth.

I THINK that is what Sifu Patterson MAY be saying ( not to put words in his mouth of course) .

was going there too - for example - Wrestling is good, doesn't have submissions like Judo - Judo is good - doesn't have submissions of BJJ - BJJ is getting better at subs with a gi, wasn't good at no gi, a marijuana burnout created a sub style that's better at no gi... now no gi and gi stuff added to wrestling and valla - something not new - but definitely better... all this in the last what??? 50 years with some of the most significant advances in the last 15 - :confused:

[lkfmdc]

CMA has ground "fighting", it has tons of kicks from the ground to a standing attacker, sweeps against a standing attacker and ways to get back up on your feet

What CMA has little to none of is ground GRAPPLING.

And let's just state a fact

In Taiwan, the 900 lb gorilla in the room is always JUDO

There was TONS of JUDO in Taiwan. How it got there, that it is a Japanese martial art, etc remains to this day a hugely touchy subject

Which sort of relates to the history issues I mentioned in the other thread

[Frost]

CMA has ground "fighting", it has tons of kicks from the ground to a standing attacker, sweeps against a standing attacker and ways to get back up on your feet

What CMA has little to none of is ground GRAPPLING.

And let's just state a fact

In Taiwan, the 900 lb gorilla in the room is always JUDO

There was TONS of JUDO in Taiwan. How it got there, that it is a Japanese martial art, etc remains to this day a hugely touchy subject

Which sort of relates to the history issues I mentioned in the other thread

history as in the japanese occupied the country for a while?

[MightyB]

CMA has ground "fighting", it has tons of kicks from the ground to a standing attacker, sweeps against a standing attacker and ways to get back up on your feet

What CMA has little to none of is ground GRAPPLING.

And let's just state a fact

In Taiwan, the 900 lb gorilla in the room is always JUDO

There was TONS of JUDO in Taiwan. How it got there, that it is a Japanese martial art, etc remains to this day a hugely touchy subject

Which sort of relates to the history issues I mentioned in the other thread

And what I was getting at was that even with Judo, it was incomplete in the subs ground game because Judo was incomplete in the subs ground game as we know it today. Don't believe me, try using Judo newaza with an accomplished BJJer.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Before I did Judo and wrestling, I thought the "ground work" I had gotten from TCMA and Karate before that was just fine, and it was, until I had to go up against guys in judo and wrestling and it was a whole new world.
And I though my subs in Judo were fine, I was a shodan after all, until I got into BJJ and it was a whole new world.
Kyokushin for example, does have "ground fighting", but bu that I mean some moves to kick and punch from the ground and some moves to take someone out when they are on the ground, but I certainly would call it ground fighting at the level that a Kyokushin practioner could take out a MMA guy for example.
That is what Kyokushin guys are advised to take up judo, the two mix very well.
Oyama took up Judo under Kimura, eventually getting a yodan.
Hung Kuen has ground fighting, as does SPM, as does MT, but the level and depth is far less than what is found even in beginner MMA ( first year).

[lkfmdc]

Before I did Judo and wrestling, I thought the "ground work" I had gotten from TCMA and Karate before that was just fine,



The question becomes "fine for WHAT?"

But the rest of your post will get me there




And I though my subs in Judo were fine



You were a shodan, you had actually done judo with randori (and I believe a significant amount of shiai?) so they were FINE

FINE for judo training and competition
FINE for many self defense situations

Not up to the level of BJJ submissions though




Kyokushin for example, does have "ground fighting", but bu that I mean some moves to kick and punch from the ground and some moves to take someone out when they are on the ground,



There is tons of ground FIGHTING in CMA like this. And AGAIN, it may work in SELF DEFENSE against some people. but are we content with being just OK?

Going back to Taiwan, the fights they did were certainly full contact, but to my knowledge all the various formats remained stand up fighting.

So they may have had ground FIGHTING, they may even of had some ground GRAPPLING (probably from JUDO IMO) but DID THEY TEST IT OUT FOR REAL?




Hung Kuen has ground fighting, as does SPM, but the level and depth is far less than what is found even in beginner MMA ( first year).

The problem remains the same, people are content thinking that just because it EXISTS that it is fine...

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think its the case of "lack of evolution", and as we know the prime mover in evolution is SURVIVAL and if one is surviving "just fine' then one stays where they are, BUT if one must "survive to the fittest", one evolves and continues to evolve.

And looking back at what Shifu Patterson wrote, I wonder if him NOT having to go outside his system had to do with the system OR the teacher/environment he was in.

[MightyB]

The question becomes "fine for WHAT?"


This is something that I often lose sight of and it's a good point.

If I'm a swimmer, have swum, even competed - but I'll never come close to Phelps, does that diminish the fact that I can swim? We often compare ourselves and our respective arts unfairly against the best of the best athletes.

[lkfmdc]

"Chi Na Fa"

One of several books that's always good to start an argument :D

The issues are never "yes" or "no"
They aren't black or white

Are these techniques part of TCMA?
Or were they "borrowed" from something like Judo?

Well, it does NOT end there!

Regardless of the answer to the above, HOW MANY PEOPLE KNEW THESE TECHNIQUES?

How many practiced them?

HOW did they practice them?

[Frost]

Going back to Taiwan, the fights they did were certainly full contact, but to my knowledge all the various formats remained stand up fighting.

So they may have had ground FIGHTING, they may even of had some ground GRAPPLING (probably from JUDO IMO) but DID THEY TEST IT OUT FOR REAL?



The problem remains the same, people are content thinking that just because it EXISTS that it is fine...

this is the point I consider, saying my art has a complete ground game when you only compete in stand up fighting with stand up grappling is at best leaving a big question mark, now if TCMA only guys were competing at a good level in MMA without any cross training then i might reconsider my view on the matter.......

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have that book Dave, and we have to thank Tim for putting it out there.
It's a very valid question and one must ask it:
Where were these techniiues BEFORE the "japanese issue" ?
And how many systems had/have them?
While the RNC and the typical arm locks are a given, since they have been around for centuries, the ground grappling is another story.
It is, however, conceivable that they were there in the MILITARY arts, and since the majority of people tended to train in the CIVILIAN ones, that is why we didn't see them before.
Ancient military arts, because of the armour, tend to favour grappling and "short blades" when training for "Close quarter combat".
See the "kumi uchi" of the Yawara arts of Japan.

[MightyB]

Here's another thing to consider - I know I'm one of the few humans with mere mortal skillz here so this probably doesn't apply to most of you uberhumans... but - If I don't randori / spar regularly... meaning spar hard at least a couple of times a month with someone who's equal to or better than me... my ability to apply my martial skills diminishes - sometimes rapidly. It doesn't matter how many techniques I know, or can teach - If I'm not using them, I lose 'em.

I bet this is the case with the rest of the humans out there too. Soooo, even if said techniques are in said systems - it doesn't really matter. Because if you're not using them against good and skilled people, it's like not having them at all.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here's another thing to consider - I know I'm one of the few humans with mere mortal skillz here so this probably doesn't apply to most of you uberhumans... but - If I don't randori / spar regularly... meaning spar hard at least a couple of times a month with someone who's equal to or better than me... my ability to apply my martial skills diminishes - sometimes rapidly. It doesn't matter how many techniques I know, or can teach - If I'm not using them, I lose 'em.

I bet this is the case with the rest of the humans out there too. Soooo, even if said techniques are in said systems - it doesn't really matter. Because if you're not using them against good and skilled people, it's like not having them at all.

While there are things one can do to maintain a certain edge in solitary training, it requires a LOT of solid sparring in one's background, we are talking YEARS.
And even then, you will notice a decline, a decline in timing, cardio, ability to take a hit, etc.

There is simply no way around it.

[lkfmdc]

I have that book Dave, and we have to thank Tim for putting it out there.
It's a very valid question and one must ask it:
Where were these techniiues BEFORE the "japanese issue" ?
And how many systems had/have them?
While the RNC and the typical arm locks are a given, since they have been around for centuries, the ground grappling is another story.
It is, however, conceivable that they were there in the MILITARY arts, and since the majority of people tended to train in the CIVILIAN ones, that is why we didn't see them before.
Ancient military arts, because of the armour, tend to favour grappling and "short blades" when training for "Close quarter combat".
See the "kumi uchi" of the Yawara arts of Japan.

I believe the book was published in 1936? You have it so double check ;)

I have a FEW books with that sort of stuff also, a thing called "National Methods of Self Defense"

It's also from around 1936 (the 30's)

Nothing from an earlier period shows this sort of stuff

By the 1930's JUDO had been around and influencing CMA for DECADES

Not a definitive answer, but certainly something to ponder

[R]

And what I was getting at was that even with Judo, it was incomplete in the subs ground game because Judo was incomplete in the subs ground game as we know it today. Don't believe me, try using Judo newaza with an accomplished BJJer.


I am not sure that this is completely true. The BJJ guys and judo guys at the top levels compete against each other at times and it has not always been that straight forward. Lots has to do with the format of the match. You know that the stuff used in BJJ had to largely come from somewhere and that somewhere was judo (Maeda who taught the Gracies to start with).


http://youtube.com/watch?v=korAyURbW6c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0v2rXdBaY&feature=related

Mifune - you notice he is the really old guy with the white hair beasting the younger, heavier BB's

A lot of it has been done before... judo got it's start by taking on all comers in an open tourney to select who would teach the japanese police force.... wait that sounds like the UFC ;' ) and I believe that they won all 15 matches (some say one was tied).

I think because judo has a much bigger student base and has been about with the sporting emphasis for longer that this has led to some weakness. This is related to the rule set and which skills it rewards and not the base knowledge that was in the system. You score differently in different sports as Rickson Gracie found out when he lost in 45 seconds in a Sambo match in 1993.

Not disagreeing with you that BJJ will prepare most for the chess game on the ground that is a BJJ comp but as MMA has developed people are seeing more weaknesses in BJJ in that arena than once would have been beleived.

Just trying to even out things a bit to give perspective.

R

[MightyB]

I am not sure that this is completely true. The BJJ guys and judo guys at the top levels compete against each other at times and it has not always been that straight forward. Lots has to do with the format of the match. You know that the stuff used in BJJ had to largely come from somewhere and that somewhere was judo (Maeda who taught the Gracies to start with).


http://youtube.com/watch?v=korAyURbW6c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0v2rXdBaY&feature=related


Just trying to even out things a bit to give perspective.

R

LOL - that's my account kbaringer3 - that's the first clip you posted :D

Judo was on the path and did directly lead to the start of the development of BJJ... but BJJ did develop largely on it's own. Maeda simply wasn't around the Gracies enough to take all that much credit. There's too much to go into, but rest assured - although Judo had a pretty good ground game and it had a lot of good stuff, it lost most of it because of sport and the Kodokan playing favorites then, as they do now, to the detriment of Judo.

[MightyB]

LOL - that's my account kbaringer3 - that's the first clip you posted :D

Judo was on the path and did directly lead to the start of the development of BJJ... but BJJ did develop largely on it's own. Maeda simply wasn't around the Gracies enough to take all that much credit. There's too much to go into, but rest assured - although Judo had a pretty good ground game and it had a lot of good stuff, it lost most of it because of sport and the Kodokan playing favorites then, as they do now, to the detriment of Judo.

BTW - I prefer Judo over Jiu Jitsu (get tired of all the man on man ground humping after a bit), but I get better work outs in BJJ.

[taai gihk yahn]

I am not sure that this is completely true. The BJJ guys and judo guys at the top levels compete against each other at times and it has not always been that straight forward. Lots has to do with the format of the match. You know that the stuff used in BJJ had to largely come from somewhere and that somewhere was judo (Maeda who taught the Gracies to start with).


http://youtube.com/watch?v=korAyURbW6c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ0v2rXdBaY&feature=related

Mifune - you notice he is the really old guy with the white hair beasting the younger, heavier BB's

A lot of it has been done before... judo got it's start by taking on all comers in an open tourney to select who would teach the japanese police force.... wait that sounds like the UFC ;' ) and I believe that they won all 15 matches (some say one was tied).

I think because judo has a much bigger student base and has been about with the sporting emphasis for longer that this has led to some weakness. This is related to the rule set and which skills it rewards and not the base knowledge that was in the system. You score differently in different sports as Rickson Gracie found out when he lost in 45 seconds in a Sambo match in 1993.

Not disagreeing with you that BJJ will prepare most for the chess game on the ground that is a BJJ comp but as MMA has developed people are seeing more weaknesses in BJJ in that arena than once would have been beleived.

Just trying to even out things a bit to give perspective.

R
you're new here, so we'll cut u some slack, but be warned that this is JUST the sort of knuckleheaded, glorified kickboxer cross-training agenda pushing that clearly indicates how clueless u r when it comes to authentic, valid traditional Chinese Martial Arts ;)

ok, now that u hav been appropriately chastised, u r "one of us"; welcome to the fold!

[SimonM]

An anecdotal story,

In my sifu's youth, his father's gym included groundwork in the curriculum. This would have been in the 1960s.

His father came from a military background and moved to Hong Kong after the war, but, being of northern extraction his form was influenced quite a lot by Heilongjiang wrestling traditions.

Heilongjiang, before the war, was an area of significant Japanese influence. My sifu remarked that, in Hong Kong, the use of ground fighting was seen as odd. He also remarked that his father found the lack odd.

So, with a background both in the north-east (an area of Japanese influence) and a background in the military, there is some anecdotal support for either theory coming from this source.

I explored this topic a bit in an article I wrote for KFM some time back. I'll post the link to the issue when I dig it up.

[R]

chastised and feeling a bit dazed.....

maybe my middle way arts aren't internal enough to hang with you old guys...

you did notice I have been a member since ... like forever ;' )

no worries. will not try to interject fairness and even perspectives again :' P

R

[SimonM]

Here is the issue it was in. (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=913)

[taai gihk yahn]

chastised and feeling a bit dazed.....

maybe my middle way arts aren't internal enough to hang with you old guys...
I suggest a long period of deep introspection, involving much navel-contemplation, granola-crunching and tree-hugging...



you did notice I have been a member since ... like forever ;' )
in some way, haven't we all...?


no worries. will not try to interject fairness and even perspectives again :' P
yeah, we don't take to that sort of crazy-talk 'round these parts...;)

[Frost]

chastised and feeling a bit dazed.....

maybe my middle way arts aren't internal enough to hang with you old guys...

you did notice I have been a member since ... like forever ;' )

no worries. will not try to interject fairness and even perspectives again :' P

R

dont worry you will get used to it :eek:

just remember fairness and even handedness has no place on the main forum :)

[MightyB]

Here is the issue it was in. (http://www.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=913)

This is obviously a forgery :eek: After reading many of your postings it's obvious that you are illiterate!!! :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Maeda had a great influence on the Gracies but it went beyond Judo, it was his "whatever works" philosophy.
Maeda took what worked and used it, his Judo was far more combative than anyone elses of the kodokan at the time.
Maeda was the prototype "ronin", except instead of a sword, he used his hands and he would go anywhere he could get a fight and pick up and use anything that would win him a match.
The Gracies took what he taught them and modified it along the lines of his philosophy BUT they did it their way, as they always do.
Personally, Maeda is a bit of a "icon" for me, he did what ALL MA that value fighting, should do in my opinion, take on all comers for the sake of perfecting their system and their fighting ability.

[Mike Patterson]

There seems to be a bit of "confusion" perhaps about a system being complete and "stand alone" in regards to its PRINCIPLES and what some people are "taking" as meaning TECHNIQUES.
Every MA systems has, in its principles, ways of "fighting on the ground", that does NOT mean that these systems are ON PAR with the specialized ground fighting systems such as BJJ and submission grappling and "MMA".
It simply means that withing said system, the principles are THERE to be DEVELOPED via sparring and so forth.

I THINK that is what Sifu Patterson MAY be saying ( not to put words in his mouth of course) .

Right. Every old system has taken into account all ranges/transitions/venues. Then, depending on the perspective has dwealt upon certain principles to make it all work seemlessly together. This is what makes a "style" and why we have so many different ones today. There are many ways, and many views.

I have talked about things being a trade off earlier. Suppose I give you a choice between two weapons in a fight. You can choose either a spear or a sword (to make it more clear, the spear is in excess of 8' end to end, the sword is no more than 3'). Which do you choose? Both are sound weapons. The spear is often called the king of all long weapons. The sword, the king of all short. Which is better?

Both have their inherrent strengths and weaknesses. IF you choose spear AND you can keep me outside. You win. But IF you choose spear and you CANNOT keep me outside, you're dead.

All styles have differing perspectives based on the above simplified choice.

Futhermore, to consider things (as many of you seem to) only from competition/rule based structures is amusing to me. Any rule structure will tend to favor a certain skillset because that is simply what rules do. In an actual fight, there are no rules. If you take me to the ground, and I want to get up. I will. Because no matter what hold you put me in.. I can gouge your eye, or, grab your groin or throat, bite you, bash your bones with a nearby stone, cut you with a piece of broken glass, etc. This is fighting and it is wholly brutal and unpredictable.

Years ago, when BJJ was just getting started, a young women called my school from L.A. and tried to sell me a weekend seminar program, offering to license me at the end in the process. I declined, much to her surprise. I'll cut to the end of the conversation since the rest doesn't really matter. I proposed a scenario to her that went like this. "You're in downtown L.A. shopping. It's getting late and you start to make your way back to your car. You go down what appears to be a crossover alley, but it turns out to be a dead end and you reverse your course. Three youths approach you. One wields a knife, one wields a bat, one wields a chain. Ground grapple your way out of that." She said. "You have a point."

Yes. I do. And it goes like this. All tactical perspectives are a trade off. All tactical perspectives have a counter measure. There is no such thing as a superior system. There are only tools and choices of how to employ them.

The bickering over such issues is pointless and futile. Mostly, it boils down to marketing in the modern age.

I say, get over it. Train hard and often. Explore the depth of whatever system you are involved with in ALL ranges and modes of combat. Discover both the strengths and weaknesses of not only your system, but yourself. Accentuate the strengths and cover/mitigate the weaknesses in whateve manner seems fitting. For at the end of the day, it is usually not the system, but the man/woman who makes it work.

Now if anyone wishes to "line by line" this post again.. feel free. I won't respond. This argument is a timeless one and what has spawned all the different styles we see today from antiquity. It will never change. :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

For at the end of the day, it is usually not the system, but the man/woman who makes it work.
Can't be said enough.

I had a buddy who was pure Taiji, Chen Taiji and he showed me some stuff and introduced me to his Sifu.
Great guys.
His Sifu taught him how to fight with Taiji and he did it well, well enough for me to learn under him for a few years and I carry the lessons to this day.
BUT his Sifu didn't teach that to any other of his students.
Oh he always taught the self-defence applications in every class, but no one really "cared" that much, but when he saw my friend hitting the bag and trying to apply taiji on it, he took him "under his wing" and helped him to understand the fighting aspects of the principles that were always there.
In short, my friend made it work because he trained Taiji in that way.

[RWilson]

Hello everybody. I am new to this board and have been following this discussion closely. My name is Wilson.


There is no such thing as a pure or complete style. For example, it is well known that Hsu Hong Ji's teacher, Hung I Shiang, adopted judo exercises and renamed them fu hu gong. The claim cannot be made that hsing i had these exercises "all along" before Hung I Shiang saw them in judo.

Here's a link discussing it:

http://www.shenwu.com/discus/messages/29/842.html?1181991626

The so called "fu hu gong" exercises are body weight exercises that where you pull yourself across the floor, push yourself, crawl just using your hands, etc. They are used by people who do wrestling arts like judo and swai jiao as a way of conditioning yourself to be able to move at least your own body weight. Hsing i, from what I have seen is a boxing art with grappling in it. All you have to do is youtube hsing i and all you see are videos of forms. I have never heard of a hsing i grappler.

There is nothing wrong with saying that these exercises are from judo/wrestling but a bit disingenuous to say that they are from hsing i or that hsing i always had them.

The purpose of "ground fighting" in Chinese martial arts is to get back up as was stated many times in this thread. TCMA ground grappling is not the same as bjj whose goal is to incapacitate you on the ground. That is probably why some felt they need to study bjj because they knew that if they could not get back up they would be in trouble.

[Frost]

H
The purpose of "ground fighting" in Chinese martial arts is to get back up as was stated many times in this thread. TCMA ground grappling is not the same as bjj whose goal is to incapacitate you on the ground. That is probably why some felt they need to study bjj because they knew that if they could not get back up they would be in trouble.

this is very true .....as for the whole biting, gauging, grab the throat, using rocks etc arguement its been done to death so lets just say BJJ and judo guys can do that to, usually from a better position that someone not as skilled as them on the ground

[sanjuro_ronin]

this is very true .....as for the whole biting, gauging, grab the throat, using rocks etc arguement its been done to death so lets just say BJJ and judo guys can do that to, usually from a better position that someone not as skilled as them on the ground

The problem with doing stuff is that the other guy can do them too.
Yep, sucks but it is written in stone.
It's funny though because we ALL KNOW that the other guy will kick and punch and strike and grapple and stuff to us, but for some reason those that advocate the use of biting, eye gouging, weapons, and usually advocate using them from a DISADVANTAGEOUS position, seem to forget that part.

True story:
Knew a guy that tried to bite his way out of RNC.
Of course he got the bite in, but also got a dislocated jaw for his efforts ( and beaten badly after that).

[Frost]

The problem with doing stuff is that the other guy can do them too.
Yep, sucks but it is written in stone.
It's funny though because we ALL KNOW that the other guy will kick and punch and strike and grapple and stuff to us, but for some reason those that advocate the use of biting, eye gouging, weapons, and usually advocate using them from a DISADVANTAGEOUS position, seem to forget that part.

True story:
Knew a guy that tried to bite his way out of RNC.
Of course he got the bite in, but also got a dislocated jaw for his efforts ( and beaten badly after that).

well said its kind of like saying why learn stand up when we can just kick the groin and eye poke the opponent........
watched my grappling coach have a friendly spar with a TKD coach who tried to grab his throat and pull hair whilst being mounted because he paniced ...he ate some punches for that one and got aarm barred hard but nothing brocken....the coach was niceer than i would have been

[sanjuro_ronin]

well said its kind of like saying why learn stand up when we can just kick the groin and eye poke the opponent........
watched my grappling coach have a friendly spar with a TKD coach who tried to grab his throat and pull hair whilst being mounted because he paniced ...he ate some punches for that one and got aarm barred hard but nothing brocken....the coach was niceer than i would have been

Yeah, I've only had one guy try to bite me and one guy try to eye gouge me.
Biter ate a few elbows in the mouth for that one and the eye gouger, well...I bit his fingers, LOL !
Learned that from a certain youtube video ;)

[RWilson]

this is very true .....as for the whole biting, gauging, grab the throat, using rocks etc arguement its been done to death so lets just say BJJ and judo guys can do that to, usually from a better position that someone not as skilled as them on the ground

I am not trying to stir the pot at all but I would not go to a hsing i guy or a kung fu guy to learn how to wrestle or strike for example. It would be best to learn from the people that train that. You study tcma to integrate your skill sets into a coherent fighting system. TCMA seems to not develop advanced levels when it comes to skill set development. "Yeah, our system has it all. Striking, throwing, joint locking, etc".


The videos in the first post of the thread are not spectacular by any measure. They do not suck either. Unfortunately there is no variation in footwork from that of a kickboxer. I see backwards, frontwards, and angled movements. What makes that tai chi footwork as opposed to "regular fighting" footwork. Power generation might be different based on claims made here but again you cannot see that from the videos.

Someone mentioned marrying styled skill sets with actual fighting. This sounds nice but what does this actually look like? If those videos are the "married" versions of internal martial arts and fighting than maybe I just do not get it.


Mr. Patterson,
You mentioned you had an advanced class where your seasoned full contact fighters quit as the weeks go on. In these classes you trained them the way you were trained. Could you please elaborate on what went on in these classes? It sounds very interesting.

Tim Cartmell describes his hsing i training as such:

"Hi Al,
I practiced Xing Yi Quan with my first teacher about four nights a week. Classes followed this basic pattern: about an hour of warm ups and conditioning (joint exercises, lots of variations of push ups and ab exercises, basic strikes, kicks and body movements in place), then rolling and falling, next we would review and practice forms for about 45 minutes to an hour, then techniques and sparring for about the same length of time (classes were about 2 and a half hours long). Sometimes we would practice techniques more and free spar less, depending on if we were preparing for a competition or not.
My Xing Yi Classes are only an hour and a half, so we spend about forty five minutes on conditioning and forms and 45 minutes on techniqes and sparring.
I spent about six of the eleven years I was in Taiwan and the Mainland studying Xing Yi Quan with my teachers "full time."

Was your training similar/different than this? Thanks

[Frost]

Yeah, I've only had one guy try to bite me and one guy try to eye gouge me.
Biter ate a few elbows in the mouth for that one and the eye gouger, well...I bit his fingers, LOL !
Learned that from a certain youtube video ;)

was at a comp once about 6 years ago fighting a russian i had beat the month before...he spent the first 3 minutes defending the takedown by sticking his hands in my face and trying to go for my eyes with his fingers..when i finally got the take down i rammed my chin in his eye socket from side control and hit the americana so hard he yelped...i didnt break anything but man i was annoyed at him you csn here the coach screaming to me to f him up once it hits the ground

as you say people tend to forget the person in the better position can do alot more damage

[Frost]

I am not trying to stir the pot at all but I would not go to a hsing i guy or a kung fu guy to learn how to wrestle or strike for example. It would be best to learn from the people that train that.

true and the good teachers will admit they have holes in their game and send you elsewhere, that’s what my last CMA coach did, he took us to a grappling open mat because whilst being a former college wrestler, he was good enough and secure enough in his skills to admit there was better people out there to teach the ground game than him,...... and I’ll always be thankful for him doing this and it contrasts starkly with my other TCMA master who would rather show some very low percentage takedowns and ground work rather that admit it simple wasn’t part of his style

[SimonM]

This is obviously a forgery :eek: After reading many of your postings it's obvious that you are illiterate!!! :D

Dat's just a'cuz I can haz mikrosawft werd checkings my spellin' and grammars.

[wenshu]

Hello everybody. I am new to this board and have been following this discussion closely. My name is Wilson.


There is no such thing as a pure or complete style. For example, it is well known that Hsu Hong Ji's teacher, Hung I Shiang, adopted judo exercises and renamed them fu hu gong. The claim cannot be made that hsing i had these exercises "all along" before Hung I Shiang saw them in judo.

Here's a link discussing it:

http://www.shenwu.com/discus/messages/29/842.html?1181991626

The so called "fu hu gong" exercises are body weight exercises that where you pull yourself across the floor, push yourself, crawl just using your hands, etc. They are used by people who do wrestling arts like judo and swai jiao as a way of conditioning yourself to be able to move at least your own body weight. Hsing i, from what I have seen is a boxing art with grappling in it. All you have to do is youtube hsing i and all you see are videos of forms. I have never heard of a hsing i grappler.

There is nothing wrong with saying that these exercises are from judo/wrestling but a bit disingenuous to say that they are from hsing i or that hsing i always had them.

The purpose of "ground fighting" in Chinese martial arts is to get back up as was stated many times in this thread. TCMA ground grappling is not the same as bjj whose goal is to incapacitate you on the ground. That is probably why some felt they need to study bjj because they knew that if they could not get back up they would be in trouble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT2sJtknMi0

[MightyB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT2sJtknMi0

Very interesting (Strokes Goatee)

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT2sJtknMi0

The last ones are 100% found in Judo.
The first ones I have done in Kyokushin and Kung Kuen.

[wenshu]

Very interesting (Strokes Goatee)

Indeed.

/*stands in street wearing boxer shorts and plastic flip flops with wife beater pulled up over pot belly chain smoking Hóngtǎshān*/

[MightyB]

Indeed.

/*stands in street wearing boxer shorts and plastic flip flops with wife beater pulled up over pot belly chain smoking Hóngtǎshān*/

Absolutely

/busts radio antennae off parked car, threatens prostitute/ "Where's my money Beyotch!?!?"

[wenshu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yr75_WwKAc

The video I was originally looking for before I posted the other one. Horrible quality though.

I like the forearm plank plyo to knuckles, must be murder on the serratus.

[RWilson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT2sJtknMi0

The only videos with those from the xing yi guys are from Steve Cotter. He was a student of Mike Patterson's who'se teacher was a student of Hung I shiang.

[MightyB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yr75_WwKAc

The video I was originally looking for before I posted the other one. Horrible quality though.

I like the forearm plank plyo to knuckles, must be murder on the serratus.

Very cool warmups. Sifu Mike Patterson does some neat things with his students. Getting back to topic here now aren't we? But, again, that was the point of this thread because peeps were getting a little carried away with "Internalist" bashing when it's really quite unwarranted.

[wenshu]

This no time to be making jokes. Only serious internet martial arts discussion business. Serious.

[YouKnowWho]

A: Is your system complete?
B: Yes!
A: Does your system have "flying knee"?
B: No!
A: Why do you still claim that your system is complete?
B: Because I don't need it. I believe "one punch to kill".
A: :(

The word "complete" has different meaning for different people. To me, if someone can do something that I can't, my skill is not "complete".

[wenshu]

Very cool warmups. Sifu Mike Patterson does some neat things with his students. Getting back to topic here now aren't we? But, again, that was the point of this thread because peeps were getting a little carried away with "Internalist" bashing when it's really quite unwarranted.

It is not about bashing internalists, it is that there is really no distinction between the two in the first place. These exercises would not look out of place in any practice that happened to be labeled external. Taiji/bagua/xingyi jibengong is nearly indistinguishable from styles labeled external.

[Mike Patterson]

I am not trying to stir the pot at all but I would not go to a hsing i guy or a kung fu guy to learn how to wrestle or strike for example. It would be best to learn from the people that train that. You study tcma to integrate your skill sets into a coherent fighting system. TCMA seems to not develop advanced levels when it comes to skill set development. "Yeah, our system has it all. Striking, throwing, joint locking, etc".


The videos in the first post of the thread are not spectacular by any measure. They do not suck either. Unfortunately there is no variation in footwork from that of a kickboxer. I see backwards, frontwards, and angled movements. What makes that tai chi footwork as opposed to "regular fighting" footwork. Power generation might be different based on claims made here but again you cannot see that from the videos.

Someone mentioned marrying styled skill sets with actual fighting. This sounds nice but what does this actually look like? If those videos are the "married" versions of internal martial arts and fighting than maybe I just do not get it.


Mr. Patterson,
You mentioned you had an advanced class where your seasoned full contact fighters quit as the weeks go on. In these classes you trained them the way you were trained. Could you please elaborate on what went on in these classes? It sounds very interesting.

Tim Cartmell describes his hsing i training as such:

"Hi Al,
I practiced Xing Yi Quan with my first teacher about four nights a week. Classes followed this basic pattern: about an hour of warm ups and conditioning (joint exercises, lots of variations of push ups and ab exercises, basic strikes, kicks and body movements in place), then rolling and falling, next we would review and practice forms for about 45 minutes to an hour, then techniques and sparring for about the same length of time (classes were about 2 and a half hours long). Sometimes we would practice techniques more and free spar less, depending on if we were preparing for a competition or not.
My Xing Yi Classes are only an hour and a half, so we spend about forty five minutes on conditioning and forms and 45 minutes on techniqes and sparring.
I spent about six of the eleven years I was in Taiwan and the Mainland studying Xing Yi Quan with my teachers "full time."

Was your training similar/different than this? Thanks

First of all, it might be best to remember that the people in that video are developing "amateur" fighters. The ones where possible to show a "progression" over years are denoted in the video. I have already been over this ground before so I'm not going over it again. If you don't get it, then I can't help you see it, nor do I really care if you do.

Why you bring up "fhu hu kung" out of the blue is beyond me. But I guess somehow in your mind, body conditioning exercises negate all other perspectives of Chin Na contained within the system. Whatever.

What I stated regarding "marrying" the two was a perspective formed on the lack of what I see in this country regarding most chinese martial arts training. Meaning they don't train to fight utilizing the principles of their respective art. They train form, but they do not use the principles found within their forms in fighting. The two must be married through specific, progressive drills to ingrain key ideas under pressure. Most do not do such things. We do.

The classes you describe in Taiwan as told to you by Tim Cartmell appear to be somewhat descriptive of base level classes that I would have attended prior to his day, but not exactly. By the time he was there, Hsu Hong Chi was not really teaching anymore at the main school. So I reckon his involvement to be a bit different than my own. We did far more drilling and scenario fighting training in prior years I would think. But certainly conditioning was always a staple.

As to the rest since my last post; The use of anecdotal stories by several above to prove or disprove this or that technical perspective is pointless. Meaning the drivel about "this guy tried this so I.... " The guy you did it to was an idiot. So what? Any fool can be beaten by pretty much anything.

The fact remains that your "superior" position can be "eroded". Whether it be by a counter grappling movement that you or I might favor. Or a gauging technique that I might employ from "momentary" transition is irrelavant. The point is, all technical perspectives have a trade off and all can be countered. Depends on who gets there first. And I did not speak from a position of "disadvantage" NOR do I EVER forget the other fellow can do the same to me. Absolute nonsense. But such is the way of the martial world. You say potatoe, I say potato.

You compare and contrast given a certain paradigm. This rules all your thought. But all I'm trying to say is different is different. And there is no one right way to do anything. Martial arts have been evolving for a very long time. Right now, even in what appears to be many of your focus of "MMA", stylistic differences are being formed. New styles are being created. This is always the way of things.

To dwell on any one perspective as "the best" way and ignore all others, or, to denigrate another way as "ineffective" given your own paradigm is a mistake in my humble opinion. But hey... whatever turns you on. At the end of the day, since I ignore nothing, I'll turn your narrow minded ignorance against you. :)

[Lucas]

They train form, but they do not use the principles found within their forms in fighting. The two must be married through specific, progressive drills to ingrain key ideas under pressure. Most do not do such things.


More people need to pay attention to this.

[Hardwork108]

They train form, but they do not use the principles found within their forms in fighting. The two must be married through specific, progressive drills to ingrain key ideas under pressure. Most do not do such things.



More people need to pay attention to this.

EXACTLY! Specially those people who have never trained the TCMAs in such manner hence have sought martial "refuge" in styles such as BJJ and concepts such as modern MMA!

Not that there is anything wrong with training the above systems (people are free to train whatever they like), but because having NOT trained the TCMAs in the correct manner and with genuine sifus, results in some ("kung fu" tagged) MMA-ists making clueless remarks about the TCMAs and their effectiveness/ranges, etc. based on their VERY limited paradigm!

[Hardwork108]

Hello everybody. I am new to this board and have been following this discussion closely. My name is Wilson.

Hello Wilson.


There is no such thing as a pure or complete style.

In my humble opinion,pureness of style may be dictated more by its concepts and principles and the corresponding techniques that adhere to them, then by the classifications of individual techniques.

For example, Wing Chun has its Central Line theory. As long as one uses this while sticking to Wing Chun's concepts and principles as regards rooting/relaxation and strategical considerations, then what his does will be recognized as Wing Chun. So, as long as added techniques can be made to work within Wing Chun's distinct framework, then they becom Wing Chun.

I believe that is what masters in the old days did when they made additions to their core styles to improve them. That is, they adopted new techniques to fit within their structure of their core structure. That way their style maitained its integrity, even if their particular lineage became somewhat distinct from others.

In contrast I have seen "inpure" but "progressive":rolleyes: Wing Chun practitioners hopping around (as in boxing/TKD/kickboxing)-without roots and stance - while chainpunching in sparring/competition scenarios, presumably because they did not consider WC stance "mobile" enough and somehow missed the relevance of the roots to power issuance.

God forbid being informed of what such "modernists' " take on correct breathing in relation to power issuance is! :eek:


As for "COMPLETE" styles, I don' think that anyone here is implying that there are styles that have all the techiques and principles under the sun. However, there are styles - TCMA ones, as the case in discussion that cover all ranges of combat, with corresponding techniques, that is, they are not as "limited" as they are painted to be by proponents of the modern MMA, whose actual TCMA experience, hence understanding is highly questionable, to say the least.



http://www.shenwu.com/discus/messages/29/842.html?1181991626

The so called "fu hu gong" exercises are body weight exercises that where you pull yourself across the floor, push yourself, crawl just using your hands, etc. They are used by people who do wrestling arts like judo and swai jiao as a way of conditioning yourself to be able to move at least your own body weight. Hsing i, from what I have seen is a boxing art with grappling in it. All you have to do is youtube hsing i and all you see are videos of forms. I have never heard of a hsing i grappler.

There is nothing wrong with saying that these exercises are from judo/wrestling but a bit disingenuous to say that they are from hsing i or that hsing i always had them.

Are you familiar with TCMA animal walking exercises - Tiger Walking, Crocodile Walking, etc.?


The purpose of "ground fighting" in Chinese martial arts is to get back up as was stated many times in this thread. TCMA ground grappling is not the same as bjj whose goal is to incapacitate you on the ground. That is probably why some felt they need to study bjj because they knew that if they could not get back up they would be in trouble.

That is not the idea of the Mainland Chinese Lineage of Wing Chun that teaches ground fighting, even if eventually you would want to get up to go home. :D

Here is Tiger Style ground fighting, have a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__JYhJJXZr8


.

[TenTigers]

A: Is your system complete?
B: Yes!
A: Does your system have "flying knee"?
B: No!
A: Why do you still claim that your system is complete?
B: Because I don't need it. I believe "one punch to kill".
A: :(

The word "complete" has different meaning for different people. To me, if someone can do something that I can't, my skill is not "complete".

I do it a bit differently:
A: Is your style complete.
B: I suppose it is.
A: Does your system have "Flying Knee?"
B: Perhaps. Let me see it.
A: Yes. We have "Flying Knee."(....now)

One of my Sifus a 76 yr-old gentleman from Guangzhao-very Traditional, very old school. He said that in China, Sifus would go to yum-cha and discuss Gung-Fu,exchange knowledge and techniques all the time. If one man had a technique you liked, you would say,"Hey, I like that technique. I'm going to use that in my style."

It seems that we* have a very skewed idea of what is and what is not traditional.
We seem to think that not sharing and evolving is traditional.
We seem to think that learning forms first, and then maybe applications, and then maybe, drills, and then sparring, rather than the other way around-is traditional.

I am amazed at how close this belief system is to cheap Shaw Bros movies, and how far away from reality.

*we, meaning "them."

[Dragonzbane76]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__JYhJJXZr8

guy relied a lot on the "hair pull" for leverage. Nothing wrong with that but what I would call a low percentage move. What if the guy was bald? his whole arsenal is thrown out the window?

Also, he would roll to his back a good bit when doing a "modified single" not very good for domination control on the ground. Control was lacking IMO. doing that on a 250lb. guy would be a little daunting.
Not a resistant environment. Guy was very compliant. I know this is demonstration purposes, but to see things work "live" and realistically one must roll live. If you can make it work in that environment then you have something. This is not grappling IMO. My term and your term of grapplling are 2 different things.

Again i think ronin brought up a fine point in another thread. The break down of these discussions usually occurs in terms and definition. nothing wrong with that, just a natural occurance.

[Hardwork108]

A: Is your system complete?
B: Yes!
A: Does your system have "flying knee"?
B: No!
A: Why do you still claim that your system is complete?
B: Because I don't need it. I believe "one punch to kill".
A: :(

The word "complete" has different meaning for different people. To me, if someone can do something that I can't, my skill is not "complete".

To me, COMPLETE does not mean every attack technique in the world. So, if we don't have flying knee techniques in the styles that I practice - Wing Chun and Chow Gar - is immaterial. The important thing is that both systems can DEFEND and DEFEAT such attacks, as well as other techniques that are not existant in these styles. Techniques such as high round kicks/jumping kicks/boxing type hook punches, etc.

So in my humble opinion, that is what makes the system COMPLETE. That is, the ability it gives the practitioner to defend against all possible attacks (and there are just so many ways a human can attack you) from all ranges, using its own distinct techniques, concepts and principles - the faculties that identify it as a style.

[Hardwork108]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__JYhJJXZr8

guy relied a lot on the "hair pull" for leverage. Nothing wrong with that but what I would call a low percentage move. What if the guy was bald? his whole arsenal is thrown out the window?
Not unless his "arsenal" was developed/practiced solely by hairy monks in the Shaolin Temple....LOL


Also, he would roll to his back a good bit when doing a "modified single" not very good for domination control on the ground. Control was lacking IMO. doing that on a 250lb. guy would be a little daunting.

You forget that Tiger style fighting has other combat techniques, besides grappling.....



Not a resistant environment. Guy was very compliant. I know this is demonstration purposes, but to see things work "live" and realistically one must roll live. If you can make it work in that environment then you have something.
I suspect that the reason you misunderstand those techniques has to do with your benchmark of SPORTS rolling, whereas that style was created to trap and maim/kill the enemy in as short as possible, instead of "rolling" for long minutes for the amusement of an audience largely made up of knuckleheads.... ;)



This is not grappling IMO. My term and your term of grapplling are 2 different things.
Well, either the man was grappling or striking.....Do you think that the master in the video was striking???? LOL!


Again i think ronin brought up a fine point in another thread. The break down of these discussions usually occurs in terms and definition. nothing wrong with that, just a natural occurance.
Well, there is something wrong if you see submission techniques, but are unable to "define" them as grappling....but hey, to each, his own.....

[YouKnowWho]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__JYhJJXZr8

guy relied a lot on the "hair pull" for leverage.
I don't see any "hair pull" but "摘(Zai) - Helmet taking", the easiest counter to be used against "shoulder throw". The move "摘(Zai) - Helmet taking" can be used to against any 300 lb guy because you are woking on his neck.


Not a resistant environment.
It depends on whether you are working on solo move or combo moves. When you throw your opponent and your opponent resists, if you still use your original throw to over power him, it may work if you are stronger than your opponent, but that will be force against force. If you borrow your opponent's resistence and reverse your throwing direction, you can combine your 2nd throw with your opponent's resistence and your throw will become "effortless". Here is a simple example that you borrow your opponent's resistence and reverse your throwing direction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mud_ymGU2A8

IMO, when you train

- solo move with your opponent, your opponent should not resist against you.
- combo moves with your opponent, your opponent should resist as hard as he can.

TCMA old saying said, "How you will throw your opponent is not up to you but up to your opponent." If your opponent wants to:

- raise up, you help him to raise up higher.
- sink down, you help him to sink down lower.
- go forward, you help him to go forward more.
- go backward, you help him to go backward more.

[MightyB]

EXACTLY! Specially those people who have never trained the TCMAs in such manner hence have sought martial "refuge" in styles such as BJJ and concepts such as modern MMA!

Not that there is anything wrong with training the above systems (people are free to train whatever they like), but because having NOT trained the TCMAs in the correct manner and with genuine sifus, results in some ("kung fu" tagged) MMA-ists making clueless remarks about the TCMAs and their effectiveness/ranges, etc. based on their VERY limited paradigm!

douchebaggery at its finest

Yes - enlighten us o' wizards of old. For our simple minds cannot possibly comprehend the grandness that's ran rampant in the martial world for all to see. Yay all ye masters who hide in the shadows and mock the mockery of the purely physical fisticuffs - for take pity on them - they "roll" and "fight" and we shouldn't debase ourselves with such madness!

Ours is the masturbation of the mind - for we need not feel the t'ain't of real pu$sy - for our hands are enough. We've mastered the principles have we not? For why then shall we need thy womenz?

[Lucas]

Ours is the masturbation of the mind - for we need not feel the t'ain't of real pu$sy - for our hands are enough. We've mastered the principles have we not? For why then shall we need thy womenz?

this is frighteningly accurate...should i even admit i understand this?

[MightyB]

this is frighteningly accurate...should i even admit i understand this?

:D

Scary that you understand...

[Lucas]

Tell me about it...

;)

[YouKnowWho]

To me, COMPLETE does not mean every attack technique in the world. So, if we don't have flying knee techniques in the styles that I practice - Wing Chun and Chow Gar - is immaterial. The important thing is that both systems can DEFEND and DEFEAT such attacks, as well as other techniques that are not existant in these styles. Techniques such as high round kicks/jumping kicks/boxing type hook punches, etc.

So in my humble opinion, that is what makes the system COMPLETE. That is, the ability it gives the practitioner to defend against all possible attacks (and there are just so many ways a human can attack you) from all ranges, using its own distinct techniques, concepts and principles - the faculties that identify it as a style.
IMO, if you (general YOU) can't do a move well, your counters for that move will suck too. The reason is simple. You have to master that move first so you will know how to change that move into other moves depending on your opponent's resistence. You then can train different counters against different combos.

Will it be better to train "How to rape a girl" than to train "how not to be raped by girls?" :D

[Hardwork108]

douchebaggery at its finest
That is exactly what I meant with my post, but I was too polite to use those terms in a public forum, but thank you for deciphering what I actually said as regards people who make generalizations as regards the TCMAs, without having had valid or credible exposure to the various methodologies in question.....;)


Yes - enlighten us o' wizards of old. For our simple minds cannot possibly comprehend the grandness that's ran rampant in the martial world for all to see. Yay all ye masters who hide in the shadows and mock the mockery of the purely physical fisticuffs - for take pity on them - they "roll" and "fight" and we shouldn't debase ourselves with such madness!
Well, that is the whole point, I am not a master, nor an advanced student, but yet I seem to have a grasp of the TCMAs that many here don't. So, what does that say about your TCMA (I am not talking about other MAs that you may be great at) understanding?


Ours is the masturbation of the mind - for we need not feel the t'ain't of real pu$sy - for our hands are enough. We've mastered the principles have we not? For why then shall we need thy womenz?

Again, I was too polite to describe the MMA crowd in such a manner, but if you wish to do so then that is fine too.

[Hardwork108]

IMO, if you (general YOU) can't do a move well, your counters for that move will suck too. The reason is simple. You have to master that move first so you will know how to change that move into other moves depending on your opponent's resistence. You then can train different counters against different combos.

There is solid logic behind what you say and it certainly is one way of doing things, but in my humble opinion, if one's given style has provisions for that given situation, then practicing that skill "live" will help one defend against it.

For example we don't have any jumping spinning kicks in the styles that I practice, but having practiced what I have I have a good idea what to do if I am faced by such an attack, using the principles of the arts I train in.

Of course, I still agree with you that knowing how to perform an individual technique will give you a different insight, but at the same time the reality is that we cannot learn all the attacking moves in the world in order to be able to defend against them.

For example, what if I was attacked by Capoeira practitioner? The question is how much cross training in different arts is going to be enough to ensure my protection? I believe that the major TCMA styles solve this problem through their richness and intelligent prinicples and concepts.

Of course, the problem still remains in that no matter how great a given TCMA style is, one's progress will not only depend on one's own dedication to training, but also on the QUALITY of AUTHENTIC instruction that one has access to, otherwise what one learns will be full of holes and perhaps then cross training becomes a viable option for some.


Will it be better to train "How to rape a girl" than to train "how not to be raped by girls?" :D

I don't know as I am currently training in the art of "how to be raped by girls"... :D

[lkfmdc]

It's astounding to see a series of well thought out, well articulated posts containing interesting insights and information end with a post that says "if you do BJJ on me I will bite you" (I paraphrase of course)

Stating that in combat you find a problem, then look for the solution inside your system is fine - but saying stuff like "I'll bite" shows that you did NOT investigate the problem and put real research into the issue. It is a complete "throw away" response

As I am sure others have already said, "dirty fighting" can of course happen on the street. But the reality is, as unpleasant as this may be, the person IN CONTROL has the ability to do the most damage

Renzo Gracie a long time ago released real "home movies" of Gracie family street fights with eye gouging, groin striking and biting. In one, a person's ear is bitten off. Guess who did the biting? YES, Renzo's brother bite off the ear of a guy who tried, underline that, TRIED to eye gouge him

ie, the PERSON IN CONTROL WAS ABLE TO USE THE DIRTY TACTIC

My second response to all this is, yes, I may be able to find many (perhaps ALL) the solutions to a problem inside what I was taught by one man (or organization) but is that really the most effective way to function?

Just an easy example, I want to learn to stop a single leg takedown

I could look in my system

Determine what options I have

Hope they are effective (if it is something "new" what do I really know?)

Try to determine a way to train it

OR

and this is a big OR

I can look into what Dan Gable is doing

He is the only man EVER to win the Olympics without a single point being scored on him

He is the most winning coach in wrestling history

I know the techniques he advocates are the highest percentage

I know the drills he advocates are the most efficient

And as far as the ONLY reason I can come up with why you wouldn't want to do this is some "pride issue"

[MightyB]

Just an easy example, I want to learn to stop a single leg takedown

I could look in my system

Determine what options I have

Hope they are effective (if it is something "new" what do I really know?)

Try to determine a way to train it

OR

and this is a big OR

I can look into what Dan Gable is doing

He is the only man EVER to win the Olympics without a single point being scored on him

He is the most winning coach in wrestling history

I know the techniques he advocates are the highest percentage

I know the drills he advocates are the most efficient

And as far as the ONLY reason I can come up with why you wouldn't want to do this is some "pride issue"

or as I like to say... "why reinvent the wheel when there's a set of pirellis right there for the taking".

Hmmm - combat tested and perfected technique or wishful thinking... which one will work best?

[bawang]

you guys are forgetting not only internalist dont want to learn mma, mma people dont want those people to learn mma.

its like the skinny guys that go to gym for a couple of days then get intimidated or stared at or made fun of by the big guys, and never come back. or the guys that only use the smith machines at the front of the gym and never go to the free weights section.

you guys make it sound like mma guys would welcome kung fu people with open arms.

[lkfmdc]

you guys are forgetting not only internalist dont want to learn mma, mma people dont want those people to learn mma.



Complete and utter horse ****

Feel free to quote me

In the incredibly competitive field of wrestling, you can still easily find instructional DVD's by ALL the major coaches showing things EXACTLY how they do them.

There are also tons of camps/seminars you can attend each year

And as for the "MMA guys" - dear lord, one of the guys I've trained with, Erik Paulson, has like 100 dvd's out now, pretty much everything he knows is out there if you really want to learn it

One of his associates, Greg Nelson, has a 4 dvd set on clinching/wrestling, don't care who you are, you are going to learn a LOT of stuff if you get those

[bawang]

if a completely out of shape timid internal guy goes to an mma gym to train, hes going to feel very intimidated and not feel very motivated to train, especially if there is clash of personalities when small nerd meets his high school jock nemesis.

in big cities people are more tolerant, but in small towns this is hard to do.

[sanjuro_ronin]

MY system is complete and I teach it that way, EVENTUALLY.
No one runs before they can walk.
My system has strikes and locks and throws and submission, it has edge weapons and impact weapons, even firearms if one chooses.
It works on the ground, standing, on sand, even in the water.
It works and has been tested in the ring, the street, vs trained fighters, street brawlers, drug addicts and military personel.
MY systems is complete because I HAVE MADE IT SO with over 30 years of training and testing and experience is OTHER systems and VS other systems.
My system is the way it is because I HAVE MADE IT SO.
So I ask you:
What have YOU DONE with YOUR system?

[lkfmdc]

I'm going to ignore Bawang's trolling and continue :rolleyes:

I am 100% sure if Shihfu Patterson ever worked with a wrestling coach or an MMA guy who good clinch/wrestling he'd find a lot of it is like free style push hands. He'd definitely find many of the principles of his "internal styles" present even if they are never named as such. He'd also find

1) Stuff he is already doing

2) NEW WAYS of thinking about stuff he is already doing

AND FINALLY

3) Stuff that he hasn't been doing

Again, me personally, I am at a loss why someone would chose to miss out on an experience like that, or worse yet, LOOK DOWN UPON IT :confused:

[David Jamieson]

if a completely out of shape timid internal guy goes to an mma gym to train, hes going to feel very intimidated and not feel very motivated to train, especially if there is clash of personalities when small nerd meets his high school jock nemesis.

in big cities people are more tolerant, but in small towns this is hard to do.

Depends on how open the guy is to training.

For instance, if you came to my place to train, I really don't care that you know tai chi. We don't do that. lol

If you go to a place to learn, be ready to learn, the teacher is there to teach.
You should really leave all your baggage at the door when you go to someone else's club because really, the do not give a flying rats ass about what you know. You don't know what they do. period.

Sometimes you have to level set people. If they can't cope with that. good riddance. :)

[bawang]

you guys really need to take a closer look at the gym and pay attention to the subtle details. intimidation is a huge factor and the main reason kung fu guys dont want to train mma. especially in small communities.

[lkfmdc]

"my system" - ie the curriculum we teach at my school - IS complete, it covers

1) striking from detached positions / at range ("kickboxing")

2) clinching/wrestling (standing attached fighting)

3) ground fighting including striking and grappling

4) weapons

I know that the skills we teach "work" because we've been able to apply them successfully in
1. boxing
2. kickboxing
3. sanshou
4. san da
5. brazilian jiu jitsu (with gi)
6. submission grappling (no gi)
7. Muay Thai
8. Mixed Martial Arts
9. challenges
10. street fights

A lot of people call us a "sport school" but honestly I haven't seen many places that have this sort of well rounded success

Now, and here is the important part

1) The curriculum is the result of studying MANY SOURCES

2) In addition to me formulating the program, my ranked students have ALL CROSS TRAINED - in fact I have taken them to cross train! This year alone I took them all to train with both Erik Paulson and Greg Nelson

3) Many of my ranked students have diverse background, one black belt is also a JUDO guy

4) FINALLY - while what we do NOW is strong, if the generations after me rest on their arses if will all decay and they will have to start all over again.

[JamesC]

you guys really need to take a closer look at the gym and pay attention to the subtle details. intimidation is a huge factor and the main reason kung fu guys dont want to train mma.

I disagree. Generally, in the MMA gym I trained at for a few years, we welcomed anyone from other styles to come train. The whole MMA "knucklehead bully" thing does happen i'm sure, but it isn't nearly as prevalent as TCMA practitioners would have you believe.

The intimidation thing probably does happen, but not intentionally. When you are a traditional martial artist and you go train in a MMA gym, you most likely aren't accustomed to the level of intensity on display. MMA gyms spar every workout. They go 75%-100% a LOT of the time, and most traditional guys are just unprepared for this. It's a shock and can be disheartening.

Throw in the fact that you've got some people training there that seem like *******s, but really are just focusing due to an upcoming fight or something.

Not saying the bullying doesn't happen, because it does. But, someone shouldn't want to be part of a gym that takes part in that type of behavior anyway.

[bawang]

The whole MMA "knucklehead bully" thing does happen i'm sure, but it isn't nearly as prevalent as TCMA practitioners would have you believe.



when i was 14 i told my high school coach i wanted to join the wrestling and he told me to go do math equations or something and gave a cold chuckle. all the jock typesteam and bullies in my school were into wrestling and mma. my first real exposure to mma were those videos of kung fu guys being brutally humiliated. so i did not have a good experience about mma early on.

i really wanted to be strong and train but unless you experience it personally you dont know.

even in my freshman year in college in another small town i was intimidated to go to gym. but im trying to overcome that. i still see lots of skinny guys are visibly very intimidated. im talking about people openly talking sh1t about you directly to you, or to a buddy right in front of you.

this type of stuff does happen but its very subtle. and the people who are intimidated of course are gonna try to be invisible .

my experience is with young people in small towns, in big cities maybe its different but small communities are always like this. its especially worse when theres racism involved.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have always been a "dojo hopper".
Given the opportunity I would train anywhere and with anyone, why?
You ALWAYS pick up something good.
When BJJ came out I was less inclined because I was doing Judo and thought that while the ground thing was interesting, I had it in Judo.
I was incorrect and my time in BJJ was great.
Same for my time in Kali or every other MA I have trained in ( I have not studied in all I have trained simply because one only has so much time in ones life).
BUT I do recall the "intimidation factor", even more when I got my first BB.
It felt strange to become a "beginner" all over again and it was intimidating and humbling going from a position of "power" to one of "servitude".
But you know what?
It's all in YOUR head, the other people there just wanna train and have a good time.
Any initimidation issues anyone may have is gone after the first could of workouts.
And what you get FAR OUTWEIGHTS the initial akwardeess.

[JamesC]

You know, when I was training we had a kid that was very quiet, very small, very skinny, and pretty ****y.

He stuck it out for about a year, and after that was wiping the floor with everyone there in grappling.

Ask anyone that grapples a lot and they'll tell you that it's the skinny guys that suck most on the ground. I'll take the Hulk any day over a small guy that knows how to use his entire bony body against me on the ground. They start sinking a choke in on you, you're done.

But, again, we never picked on the guy because that isn't the type of place it was. In fact, if someone started picking on someone like that they would get their ass kicked and probably kicked out of the school.

I hope you can find a gym that isn't run by douche bags. It makes me sad to hear that you've had that type of experience on more than one occassion. It definitely isn't the norm where i'm from.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Every gym I have gone to I have been welcomes with open arms.
Coaches love people that work hard, period.

[bawang]

these guys were from my high school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxYEkXgK8CY

[sanjuro_ronin]

these guys were from my high school.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxYEkXgK8CY

Knowing your area, I believe you.
Just punk kids, that's all.

If they really wanted to fight they'd be competing, right?

[bawang]

Knowing your area, I believe you.
Just punk kids, that's all.

If they really wanted to fight they'd be competing, right?

this was filmed outside the school 2010. we graduated in 07.


im really disappointed in david ross just wanting to promote himself.

you guys really need to understand the mentality of "internal" people. if you cant understand what made them irrationally hate mma you cant have dialogue.

[lkfmdc]

im really disappointed in david ross just wanting to promote himself



oh come on! You can do way better than that! :rolleyes:

your troll-fu is sinking, too much time with the white people ;)




and not trying to understand people and actually having a discussion.



In the world I came from, kung fu people, so called "internal" people INCLUDED were nasty ****s who were more likely to be the intimidatORS . They weren't scared of anything.

You know the wu style people (Ng Kung Yi's gang) are still alive and well in Canada and are still nasty, disagreeable sods

[sanjuro_ronin]

this was filmed outside the school 2010. we graduated in 07.


im really disappointed in david ross just wanting to promote himself.

you guys really need to understand the mentality of "internal" people. if you cant understand what made them irrationally hate mma you cant have dialogue.

I think you misunderstood.
I understand and I know where it comes from.
I am just saying they are wrong to feel that way.

[bawang]

I think you misunderstood.
I understand and I know where it comes from.
I am just saying they are wrong to feel that way.

thanks man i know, i was just referring people reading in general.

i mean people are trying to dissuade internal fanatics by using logic and fact, but it doesnt work because the problem runs very deep and is emotional and psychological for most

[sanjuro_ronin]

thanks man i know, i was just referring people reading in general.

i mean people are trying to dissuade internal fanatics by using logic and fact, but it doesnt work because the problem runs very deep and is emotional and psychological for most

I know a few like that and, in one case, even after beating him, he wouldn't admit to the failing in his training.
He came with the typcial excuses and I openly said that we could go again and he can try ANYTHING he wanted.
He said he didn't want to "kill me" and so we left it at that.
I tried my best to help him understand that if ANYONE was in danger, it was him, but he just smiled and shook his head.
This was AFTER I choked him out and woke him up.

[lkfmdc]

If the weak and the timid have been sold the fantasy that "internal" is the secret to standing up to the strong and the aggressive, it isn't our responsibility to handle them with "kid gloves" - it's still a LIE

[bawang]

if you look down on people like a muslim you are not gonna make them see your point of view

with delusional internal people, acting aggresive and beating their ass only reinforcfes their stereotype of you.

[lkfmdc]

if you look down on people like a muslim you are not gonna make them see your point of view

your trolling is never that funny, and when you veer off into racism, you risk being banned

I'd tone it down, really......

[Mike Patterson]

I'm going to ignore Bawang's trolling and continue :rolleyes:

I am 100% sure if Shihfu Patterson ever worked with a wrestling coach or an MMA guy who good clinch/wrestling he'd find a lot of it is like free style push hands. He'd definitely find many of the principles of his "internal styles" present even if they are never named as such. He'd also find

1) Stuff he is already doing

2) NEW WAYS of thinking about stuff he is already doing

AND FINALLY

3) Stuff that he hasn't been doing

Again, me personally, I am at a loss why someone would chose to miss out on an experience like that, or worse yet, LOOK DOWN UPON IT :confused:

Have done 1, 2 AND 3... Do not look down upon it. We had MANY grappling based people in Tang Shou Tao in my day. My own FATHER is a grapping based guy (judo and old style jujitsu, not BJJ) I used to "burn" with state champion wrestlers just for the fun and conditioning. My entire discourse and ongoing point has been that:

One. There are many ways to do things.
Two. If you don't think old systems have addressed it long before you thought of it in the modern age, you are sorely mistaken.
Three. I will use ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in a fight to win. All is fair game. All tactics are viable IF used at the right time and place.

Said all this before. But I reckon this is a long thread and people either forget or choose to ignore.

All tactics are transitional in a fight. Positions of superiority or control can be eroded by a variety of factors of techincal choice and timing of their usage. To ignore this is futile. To stay inside one's own shell and not explore and contrast outside is a mistake. To continue to laude one's own perspectives as superior is the biggest sin.

Different tools for different situations. If there were one thing/way/perspective that works ALL the time. That's what we would ALL be doing. Geez. It's like talking to trees.

[bawang]

david ross, i am actually training hard these days and trying to be serious. im sorry if you never found me funny. im just asking you to at least try to understand what can deter internal or whatever mcdojo people from wanting to train realistically. im also trying to discuss here.

back in school when i got my ass beat trying to use kung fu i didnt become enlightened. i didnt see the "truth". i just got very angry and felt humiliated.

if you guys are not willingly to sincerely help people who are trapped in internal lie, if you dont understand or empathize with the issues that got them there, then leave them alone and let them be happy.

[lkfmdc]

I really hope you don't take my discussions as disrespect or insult. Maybe it isn't clear but I have a lot of respect for you BECAUSE you have trained guys who have gone out there and "DONE IT"




Have done 1, 2 AND 3... Do not look down upon it.



Doesn't surprise me at all, and I am glad you shared this in a direct manner with the forum.

My point, which is not so much directed at YOU, but rather because some of the things in your previous posts have been seized upon by others as justification for things which are simply not correct

You did notice that at least one person on here took what you said as an indication that you should never stick your head out of the shell of your own particular system?




My entire discourse and ongoing point has been that:

One. There are many ways to do things.
Two. If you don't think old systems have addressed it long before you thought of it in the modern age, you are sorely mistaken.
Three. I will use ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in a fight to win. All is fair game. All tactics are viable IF used at the right time and place.



1. AGREE 100%

2. I studied Shuai Jiao with Jeng Hsing Ping. Chan Tai San taught us tons of standing grappling (trips, sweeps, throws, etc). Of course it is all "there".

I've still found it useful to look at how everyone else is doing it because it makes me aware of what the competition is up to and constantly refreshes my thinking

I mean, also, wrestling is hardly "modern" it is the oldest form of combat in the world

3. EXACTLY - but unfortunately you still have people who use TCMA as a justification for having a closed mind and not really testing themselves. It is to THOSE PEOPLE that my posts are generally directed

Again, it appears you've taken offense to some of what I've written, which I regret, because I actually think we share more common ground than difference

Oh well, still wish you well

[sanjuro_ronin]

david ross, i am actually training hard these days and trying to be serious. im sorry if you never found me funny. im just asking you to at least try to understand what can deter internal or whatever mcdojo people from wanting to train realistically. im also trying to discuss here.

back in school when i got my ass beat trying to use kung fu i didnt become enlightened. i didnt see the "truth". i just got very angry and felt humiliated.

if you guys are not willingly to sincerely help people who are trapped in internal lie, if you dont understand or empathize with the issues that got them there, then leave them alone and let them be happy.

Here's the thing bro, you can't help people that don't think they need or want help.
You have "internal" guys like Dale and Shifu Patterson and others that are the EXCEPTION and not the rule.
Of course "real IMA" would criticize them for being " too external".

The simple issue is this:
What can YOU DO?
never mind your teacher or some long dead teacher who killed 4 people with one toe kick and the breathe of Buddha.
I am talking about what YOU CAN DO when YOUR ass is on the line.

And it seems to me that too many TCMA and IMA in particular, do NOT ask themselves this.

[Dragonzbane76]

You forget that Tiger style fighting has other combat techniques, besides grappling....
didn't say he wasn't. and you admit he wasn't doing grappling which i pointed out?:confused:


I suspect that the reason you misunderstand those techniques has to do with your benchmark of SPORTS rolling, whereas that style was created to trap and maim/kill the enemy in as short as possible, instead of "rolling" for long minutes for the amusement of an audience largely made up of knuckleheads....

"sport rolling" as you so eloquently pointed to is a little more indepth than just rolling on the floor. which shows your lack of knowledge in that area. Look I'm just pointing to the video. I'm not stating anything else. The tech's, he was performing left him on his back in most instances with very little leverage and control. Anyone with six months of wrestling would have easily countered such movements.


Well, either the man was grappling or striking.....Do you think that the master in the video was striking???? LOL! whatever you wish to call it but it wasn't a "pure" form of grappling. Had some clinch mixed in with takedowns.


Well, there is something wrong if you see submission techniques, but are unable to "define" them as grappling....but hey, to each, his own

Locking techniques, with uncontrolled positioning is what i see. but like you said everyone to there own.

[Taixuquan99]

Does Sifu Patterson also need to have a role in our ongoing debate over iron hand, or has he shown sufficient observance of our memes in this thread?

I'd imagine he's waiting to find out.:rolleyes:

[Lucas]

Does Sifu Patterson also need to have a role in our ongoing debate over iron hand, or has he shown sufficient observance of our memes in this thread?

I'd imagine he's waiting to find out.:rolleyes:

where is a stick when you need one...dont try and drag the man into that one too.

[sanjuro_ronin]

One thing that I forgot to mention in all this "huba-balou" was that the head gear in that site is remarkable similar to the Daidojuku / Kudo gear.

[Taixuquan99]

Lucas,

No, you are wrong, it's all about the memes. We cannot let this all collapse into some sort of "hey, let's acknowledge what's actually said" fest. That's called chaos, and it must be stopped.

More memes. I wonder what his opinion on Doo Wai is?

[Lucas]

Lucas,

No, you are wrong, it's all about the memes. We cannot let this all collapse into some sort of "hey, let's acknowledge what's actually said" fest. That's called chaos, and it must be stopped.

More memes. I wonder what his opinion on Doo Wai is?

Martial Artist Forum Poster Formally Known as KC Elbows,

you are killing me man. But I do love our meme..

[JamesC]

There's a debate on iron hand?

I confuse

[Lucas]

There's a debate on iron hand?

I confuse

no!!!!!!!!!

[Taixuquan99]

Judging by people's wildly divergent interpretations of Sifu Patterson's posts, I can only assume they were originally posted in Aramaic.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Judging by people's wildly divergent interpretations of Sifu Patterson's posts, I can only assume they were originally posted in Aramaic.

You mean spoken in Aramaic, written in Koine Greek and Posted in Ancient Latin.

[RWilson]

I really hope you don't take my discussions as disrespect or insult. Maybe it isn't clear but I have a lot of respect for you BECAUSE you have trained guys who have gone out there and "DONE IT"



Doesn't surprise me at all, and I am glad you shared this in a direct manner with the forum.

My point, which is not so much directed at YOU, but rather because some of the things in your previous posts have been seized upon by others as justification for things which are simply not correct

You did notice that at least one person on here took what you said as an indication that you should never stick your head out of the shell of your own particular system?



1. AGREE 100%

2. I studied Shuai Jiao with Jeng Hsing Ping. Chan Tai San taught us tons of standing grappling (trips, sweeps, throws, etc). Of course it is all "there".

I've still found it useful to look at how everyone else is doing it because it makes me aware of what the competition is up to and constantly refreshes my thinking

I mean, also, wrestling is hardly "modern" it is the oldest form of combat in the world

3. EXACTLY - but unfortunately you still have people who use TCMA as a justification for having a closed mind and not really testing themselves. It is to THOSE PEOPLE that my posts are generally directed

Again, it appears you've taken offense to some of what I've written, which I regret, because I actually think we share more common ground than difference

Oh well, still wish you well

How long did you study swai jiao and how many competitions have you won? Just wondering. Swai jow is very interesting. I wish it were taught more.

------------------------------------
Mr. Patterson,

I am not sure why my lost annoyed you but that was not my intention. I brought up "Fu hu gong" because those exercises were taken from another style and made a part of the tan shou do curriculum. Perhaps the curriculum you studied was complete but Bawang has a point. Most people do not study the internal arts in the vigorous way you did. Most just do hsing I forms and stand around building chi.

I was looking at your DVDs on your website. Interesting collection IMO. Why are there not more reflecting the tough training you received in Taiwan? Are you putting out more DVDs in the real training series that has more vigorous exercises to make one stronger?

[taai gihk yahn]

How long did you study swai jiao and how many competitions have you won? Serious question.


Mr. Patterson,

I am not sure why my lost annoyed you but that was not my intention. I brought up "Fu hu gong" because those exercises were taken from another style and made a part of the tan shou do curriculum. Perhaps the curriculum you studied was complete but Bawang has a point. Most people do not study the internal arts in the vigorous way you did. Most just do hsing I forms and stand around building chi.

I was looking at your DVDs on your website. Interesting collection IMO. Why are there not more reflecting the tough training you received in Taiwan? Are you putting out more DVDs in the real training series that has more vigorous exercises to make one stronger?

http://www.woodturnerscatalog.com/woodturners/Images/products/main/tormek-axe.jpg

[YouKnowWho]

The tech's, he was performing left him on his back in most instances with very little leverage and control. Anyone with six months of wrestling would have easily countered such movements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__JYhJJXZr8

The definition of "grappling" used in the MMA is different from the one used in TCMA.

- In MMA, you take your opponent down, get a dominate position, and finish with striking or locking.
- In TCMA, you throw your opponent down, hope that you can cause some damage with your throw. After that, you either take off or finish him with your striking. Even in the "finish" game, you try to maintauin your mobility and always be in "spring" position.

Since you can not have "mobility" and "ground game" at the same time, trying to mix both situations will be confusion.

[Mike Patterson]

I really hope you don't take my discussions as disrespect or insult. Maybe it isn't clear but I have a lot of respect for you BECAUSE you have trained guys who have gone out there and "DONE IT"

Doesn't surprise me at all, and I am glad you shared this in a direct manner with the forum.

My point, which is not so much directed at YOU, but rather because some of the things in your previous posts have been seized upon by others as justification for things which are simply not correct

You did notice that at least one person on here took what you said as an indication that you should never stick your head out of the shell of your own particular system?

1. AGREE 100%

2. I studied Shuai Jiao with Jeng Hsing Ping. Chan Tai San taught us tons of standing grappling (trips, sweeps, throws, etc). Of course it is all "there".

I've still found it useful to look at how everyone else is doing it because it makes me aware of what the competition is up to and constantly refreshes my thinking

I mean, also, wrestling is hardly "modern" it is the oldest form of combat in the world

3. EXACTLY - but unfortunately you still have people who use TCMA as a justification for having a closed mind and not really testing themselves. It is to THOSE PEOPLE that my posts are generally directed

Again, it appears you've taken offense to some of what I've written, which I regret, because I actually think we share more common ground than difference

Oh well, still wish you well

Well.. I don't personally get "offended". I get annoyed when people take one thing out of context of what has been stated and then twist it to suit their own agenda. And yes, I have noticed this happening. But I do very hard try to remain civil. Even if I completely disagree with what someone is saying.

For example, one poster took what I tried to say about scenarios being different and requiring different tactics to achieve advantage (or survival) and then said something along the lines of; "tha'ts like saying we should all just practice eye gouging and kicks to the groin." REALLY? Is that what I said? Is that anything LIKE what I said? No. Eye gouges have their place. Kicks to the groin have their place (although I personally believe that to be a highly overrated target). And anyone stupid enough to try to gouge from a distance is just that, stupid.

Tactical perspectives vary. Some perspectives are not so smart. Once again, this does NOT mean the tool is invalid. Simply a poor understanding of use.

Example: TKD guys love to use high jump kicks. Some are/have been foolish enough to try that as an opening lead. Mistake.

Example: Wrestlers have often tried to adopt a classic "wrestling" stance against me in a fight. Mistake.

Example: I've seen guys who favor ground and pound tactics enter in a conventional manner in a multiple encounter, only to have their ribs kicked in by the primary's friends immediately after for failing to disengage quickly under the new threat. Mistake.

I could go on and on and on. I am no stranger to fighting. Ring or otherwise. I have seen what you see. I have seen striking based practitoners enter a competition where the rules favored grappling and fail. I have also seen grappling based practitioners enter the Kuoshu contests my teams fought in, and fail.

Different tactics for different situations. No one size fits all mentality here. I know better.

People who hold closed minds, whether that be in TCMA or any OTHER system of thought, are foolish in my humble opinion. Yep, saying it again one more time... this time trying my best in ENGLISH. Hope they hear it this time as intended. :)

[Taixuquan99]

Thanks for the response in regards to push hands, Sifu Patterson(and yes, I was meaning fixed in the sense of no stepping). It was a helpful response.

I'm sorry I don't have a central meme that I can force fit your responses into in order to carry on some argument from last month that you have nothing to do with. I'm not a very good forum member.

[Mike Patterson]

How long did you study swai jiao and how many competitions have you won? Just wondering. Swai jow is very interesting. I wish it were taught more.

------------------------------------
Mr. Patterson,

I am not sure why my lost annoyed you but that was not my intention. I brought up "Fu hu gong" because those exercises were taken from another style and made a part of the tan shou do curriculum. Perhaps the curriculum you studied was complete but Bawang has a point. Most people do not study the internal arts in the vigorous way you did. Most just do hsing I forms and stand around building chi.

I was looking at your DVDs on your website. Interesting collection IMO. Why are there not more reflecting the tough training you received in Taiwan? Are you putting out more DVDs in the real training series that has more vigorous exercises to make one stronger?

Wellll.... one, you quote a "thread" on a discussion forum as proof of your point. I can hardly accept THAT as any sort of evidence of anything.

Two... you talked about not seeing anything other than "kickboxing" in my people's movement... and although I could have (as I have done many times with other people) gone through the video and given specific timestamps of this or that principle, technique, footwork, throw, etc., that are clearly NOT kickboxing... I dismissed your commentary as uninformed.

If I am mistaken, please feel free to clarify for me why you have the eyes to judge the clips in the manner you did.

Oftentimes, I deal with people in these forums who talk a good game, but really have nothing in terms of actual skill and experience to validate what they say.

My apologies if I were overly curt.

And in answer to your queston; yes, I am continually working on things for the "real training series". It has been very well received thus far.

[Hardwork108]

My point, which is not so much directed at YOU, but rather because some of the things in your previous posts have been seized upon by others as justification for things which are simply not correct
Please clarify!


You did notice that at least one person on here took what you said as an indication that you should never stick your head out of the shell of your own particular system?
Again, who? Where?




I mean, also, wrestling is hardly "modern" it is the oldest form of combat in the world
I believe that the proponents of modern MMA and the pushers of "there is no ground fighting in TCMA", including yourself - should remind themselves of the above fact every morning. ;)


3. EXACTLY - but unfortunately you still have people who use TCMA as a justification for having a closed mind and not really testing themselves. It is to THOSE PEOPLE that my posts are generally directed
I don't recall seeing any posts by sifu Patterson that criticized cross testing.:confused:

In fact I believe he has cross tested what he knows a lot more than some people who are posting in this very thread. ;)


Again, it appears you've taken offense to some of what I've written, which I regret, because I actually think we share more common ground than difference


I believe that Sifu Patterson is seeing right through your (polite) agenda. You want him to come out and support your school's modern MMA approach, by admitting that the old and/or major TCMA systems have "overlooked" various combat aspects for which only the modern MMA has solutions.

Of course, you are not the only one in this thread who has tried to get such responses from sifu Patterson.

I believe that this whole thing is all silly and childish.

Thinking that you have to study all the MAs under the sun to be able to defeat them shows a lack of appreciation for the profoundness of the TCMAs and their core principles as regards combat.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with cross testing, but even cross testing - in my humble opinion - is more about understanding your core TCMA style and its combat faculties and principles, then understanding the "other" guy's style, even if that is part of the education.

Missing this basic insight does not reflect well on those who claim TCMA knowledge, specially those who want to "improve" on them through cross training!

[Yum Cha]

Two... you talked about not seeing anything other than "kickboxing" in my people's movement... and although I could have (as I have done many times with other people) gone through the video and given specific timestamps of this or that principle, technique, footwork, throw, etc., that are clearly NOT kickboxing... I dismissed your commentary as uninformed.
...
And in answer to your queston; yes, I am continually working on things for the "real training series". It has been very well received thus far.

I thought the videos were pretty classic old school TCMA tournament stuff. Some had more protection than others. You could see style in the good fighters, as Mike's demonstrated quite nicely, developed through their schools, as opposed to generic kickboxing. Didn't look like just kickboxing to me at all. As for internal vs external, there's a lot more to it.

Firstly, Mike's fighters had strategy, a strategy that related to their style, thus, the throws, the straight arm, straight blast attacks, and of course, capitalising on their power. They had stuff that wasn't 'stock' that worked because it wasn't expected.
It appears to be flat footed, closed body power, not simply speed or opportunity. Most fighters had little in the way of arching punches. Elbow down, straight punches are driven by core muscles supporting the arms. His fighters are consistently shoulders in front of hips demonstrating they use core.
And, what else is noteworthy is the relaxed nature of his fighters, calmer and better at targeting. That's a function of breathing, strategy, experience and confidence. Shall we call that 'Internal" as well?

So, as the debate about internal goes on, and I'm an absolute non-fan of the temple dancers. Those fighters seem to exhibit what I interpret as internal power. Full body coordination in a balanced structure, capturing of core muscle power as well as extremity power. Relaxation and controlled breathing. Confidence and focus.

And, in defence, anybody that looks at a few young guys in their first 5 years of training and extrapolates that to the pinnacle of the concept is on the wrong path. You can see the evolution of some of those fighters over 5 years, it doesn't stop...

Oh, now for another flame war....does wrestling use internal power? Full on, I reckon, on occasion.

[Dragonzbane76]

wow this thread took a nose dive. :rolleyes:

was enjoying the talks.

[Hardwork108]

didn't say he wasn't. and you admit he wasn't doing grappling which i pointed out?:confused:
You misunderstood. I was just trying to point out that when a TCMA stylist goes to the ground he will have in his arsenal other techniques, as well as the grappling ones, that he can use!




"sport rolling" as you so eloquently pointed to is a little more indepth than just rolling on the floor.
So are the TCMAs, and we are in a TCMA forum, not a grappling or MMA one... ;)


which shows your lack of knowledge in that area.
Right back at you, as regards the TCMAs, and again, we are in a TCMA forum and not grappling or MMA one...;)


Look I'm just pointing to the video. I'm not stating anything else. The tech's, he was performing left him on his back in most instances with very little leverage and control. Anyone with six months of wrestling would have easily countered such movements.
So, by just watching that video you have concluded that anyone with six months of wrestling experience could go to China and defeat that master? Interesting....


whatever you wish to call it but it wasn't a "pure" form of grappling. Had some clinch mixed in with takedowns.

Stop mincing words!

It was either grappling or it wasn't!




Locking techniques, with uncontrolled positioning is what i see. but like you said everyone to there own.

I guess you will never know until you "touch hands". That is why looking at videos and finding "short comings" is of limited value.

[RWilson]

Wellll.... one, you quote a "thread" on a discussion forum as proof of your point. I can hardly accept THAT as any sort of evidence of anything.

Two... you talked about not seeing anything other than "kickboxing" in my people's movement... and although I could have (as I have done many times with other people) gone through the video and given specific timestamps of this or that principle, technique, footwork, throw, etc., that are clearly NOT kickboxing... I dismissed your commentary as uninformed.

If I am mistaken, please feel free to clarify for me why you have the eyes to judge the clips in the manner you did.

Oftentimes, I deal with people in these forums who talk a good game, but really have nothing in terms of actual skill and experience to validate what they say.

My apologies if I were overly curt.

And in answer to your queston; yes, I am continually working on things for the "real training series". It has been very well received thus far.


I quoted Tim Cartmell's website as proof. But here is "proof". I have studied judo and friends of mine have studied swai jiao. "Fu hu gong" are body weight exercises that aid individuals in utilizing core muscles, and integrate the body to be used as a single unit. This single unit is best used for wrestling. Can it benefit strikers? Sure. Striking benefits strikers. I do not need to quote the Shen wu discussion board to know what is in front of me. Judo does many of those. Hsing I, ba Gus, and tai chi do forms. They generally do not drag themselves around on the floor and the generally do not develop fighters with good wrestling ability.


Lkmdc started this thread saying the same things about the Kuo shu clips. Look on page 1 at the first post. He is a san da coach and his "eyes" saw the same thing. I am not taking anything away from your fighters. All I am saying is that they resemble kickboxers. Perhaps real fighting looks like kickboxing regardless of what style you started with.

[Lucas]

Maybe kickboxing just looks like fighting :p

Seriously though, what is kickboxing really? Did someone fashion a brand new style of martial art one day and call it kickboxing? Or is kickboxing really a term used for mixed striking competition? All kickboxing is, is a fight comprised of punching and kicking techniques, elbows and knees. We're talking muay thai, karate, kungfu, savate, etc.

What does the sport of kickboxing turn into if you add grappling?

[Hardwork108]

Maybe kickboxing just looks like fighting :p

Seriously though, what is kickboxing really? Did someone fashion a brand new style of martial art one day and call it kickboxing? Or is kickboxing really a term used for mixed striking competition? All kickboxing is, is a fight comprised of punching and kicking techniques, elbows and knees. We're talking muay thai, karate, kungfu, savate, etc.

Except for the fact that kung fu (and even some karate) have more than kicks, punchs, elbows and knees in their arsenal. The term "kick boxing", by definition is a limited paradigm and does not do justice to how the TCMA's should be viewed in their full glory.


What does the sport of kickboxing turn into if you add grappling?
It turns into the SPORT of MMA!

[omarthefish]

... All I am saying is that they resemble kickboxers. Perhaps real fighting looks like kickboxing regardless of what style you started with.
Oh give me an f'ing break already.

WTF are you guys waiting for? Shaw Bros. stuff? Mr. Patterson's stuff is about as far away from "kickboxing" as you can get. :mad: Did y'all even watch his clips? From a Sanda perspective or from a Muay Thai perspective, they are doing nearly everything wrong. They are switching right and left guards willy nilly. They are fighting from Santi for the most part which is nothing at all like a Muay Thai or kickboxing stance. Whatabout the bagua stuff? Did you not see his fighter darting around the ring with classic Bagua circle walking footwork and then shooting in with stabbing kicks applied off a turn rather than any sort of "kickboxing" stance?

The only thing his guys were doing that was even vaguelt "kickboxing" was that they were kicking. . . and punching. . . .

They were not using the jab to set up the cross/hook combination.
They were not keeping their rear hand glued to their jaw.
They were not throwing muay thai leg kicks.
They were not entering with classic kickboxing combos like jab-cross-roundhouse.

Go back and watch at least the first fighter from this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5wzaDgYQZA

Starts at about 1 minute in.

It looks NOTHING like "kickboxing". ;)

No wonder he can't be bothered to go into the details with some of you guys.

[omarthefish]

Maybe kickboxing just looks like fighting :p

Seriously though, what is kickboxing really? Did someone fashion a brand new style of martial art one day and call it kickboxing? Or is kickboxing really a term used for mixed striking competition? All kickboxing is, is a fight comprised of punching and kicking techniques, elbows and knees. We're talking muay thai, karate, kungfu, savate, etc.

Not when I use the term. In America we had kickboxing as an actual professional sport which had it's roots in the old knock down Karate days. Full contact Karate, especially in the old Kyuokshin tournaments of the early 60's grew into PKA stuff. Then later you had K-1 which, lets be honest, reall grew out of the same roots. The American's of the 60's just weren't as good kickers as the Japanese (on average) and tended to fight much more like traditional boxing with kicks mixed in. Since PKA fights didn't allow low kicks and few American's were flexible enough to be effective with high kicks in those days they even had to institute minimum kicks per round rules.

K-1 saw a bigger influx of Muay Thai trained fighters but really, Kyokshin guys have been borrowing and interacting with Muay Thai since the very beggining. Either way, you can see basically the same style of fighting in K-1 today as was in American Kickboxing back in the day. People like to laugh at those dudes from the 60's but go back and watch some of the better fighters. Dudes were solid.

Anyways, "kickboxing" to me means basically a Karate foundation with American boxing handwork and evasiveness and more recently, the addition of Thai style leg kicks.

Various kickboxing of the early 70's/80's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bFJcvMtFas

Benny "The Jet" vs. Howard Jackson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTDYP1qPJ1M&feature=related

Joe Louis (fighting starts about 2:30 or so)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k_5ZEZobic&feature=related

[B.Tunks]

Not when I Anyways, "kickboxing" to me means basically a Karate foundation with American boxing handwork and evasiveness and more recently, the addition of Thai style leg kicks.

That would be pretty accurate up until the early 90's. Kickboxing now is a fairly evolved beast and a pretty distinct one at that. I agree with you that the term 'kickboxing' is widely misused though and what gets called so here would definitely not be labelled the same by actual kickboxers.

[Mike Patterson]

I quoted Tim Cartmell's website as proof. But here is "proof". I have studied judo and friends of mine have studied swai jiao. "Fu hu gong" are body weight exercises that aid individuals in utilizing core muscles, and integrate the body to be used as a single unit. This single unit is best used for wrestling. Can it benefit strikers? Sure. Striking benefits strikers. I do not need to quote the Shen wu discussion board to know what is in front of me. Judo does many of those. Hsing I, ba Gus, and tai chi do forms. They generally do not drag themselves around on the floor and the generally do not develop fighters with good wrestling ability.


Lkmdc started this thread saying the same things about the Kuo shu clips. Look on page 1 at the first post. He is a san da coach and his "eyes" saw the same thing. I am not taking anything away from your fighters. All I am saying is that they resemble kickboxers. Perhaps real fighting looks like kickboxing regardless of what style you started with.

Actually, that is not exactly what was said. I thought you had been following this discussion closely.

But seriously? You are going to come at me with "I have studied judo and friends of mine have studied swai jiao."?

Okay, pal. Post a clip that shows me your movement in actual fighting context. Any kind. And then we'll talk. If you can't, you're "opinion" has just lost all credibility with me.

[Mike Patterson]

Oh give me an f'ing break already.

WTF are you guys waiting for? Shaw Bros. stuff? Mr. Patterson's stuff is about as far away from "kickboxing" as you can get. :mad: Did y'all even watch his clips? From a Sanda perspective or from a Muay Thai perspective, they are doing nearly everything wrong. They are switching right and left guards willy nilly. They are fighting from Santi for the most part which is nothing at all like a Muay Thai or kickboxing stance. Whatabout the bagua stuff? Did you not see his fighter darting around the ring with classic Bagua circle walking footwork and then shooting in with stabbing kicks applied off a turn rather than any sort of "kickboxing" stance?

The only thing his guys were doing that was even vaguelt "kickboxing" was that they were kicking. . . and punching. . . .

They were not using the jab to set up the cross/hook combination.
They were not keeping their rear hand glued to their jaw.
They were not throwing muay thai leg kicks.
They were not entering with classic kickboxing combos like jab-cross-roundhouse.

Go back and watch at least the first fighter from this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5wzaDgYQZA

Starts at about 1 minute in.

It looks NOTHING like "kickboxing". ;)

No wonder he can't be bothered to go into the details with some of you guys.


I thought the videos were pretty classic old school TCMA tournament stuff. Some had more protection than others. You could see style in the good fighters, as Mike's demonstrated quite nicely, developed through their schools, as opposed to generic kickboxing. Didn't look like just kickboxing to me at all. As for internal vs external, there's a lot more to it.

Firstly, Mike's fighters had strategy, a strategy that related to their style, thus, the throws, the straight arm, straight blast attacks, and of course, capitalising on their power. They had stuff that wasn't 'stock' that worked because it wasn't expected.
It appears to be flat footed, closed body power, not simply speed or opportunity. Most fighters had little in the way of arching punches. Elbow down, straight punches are driven by core muscles supporting the arms. His fighters are consistently shoulders in front of hips demonstrating they use core.
And, what else is noteworthy is the relaxed nature of his fighters, calmer and better at targeting. That's a function of breathing, strategy, experience and confidence. Shall we call that 'Internal" as well?

So, as the debate about internal goes on, and I'm an absolute non-fan of the temple dancers. Those fighters seem to exhibit what I interpret as internal power. Full body coordination in a balanced structure, capturing of core muscle power as well as extremity power. Relaxation and controlled breathing. Confidence and focus.

And, in defence, anybody that looks at a few young guys in their first 5 years of training and extrapolates that to the pinnacle of the concept is on the wrong path. You can see the evolution of some of those fighters over 5 years, it doesn't stop...

Oh, now for another flame war....does wrestling use internal power? Full on, I reckon, on occasion.

Oh my GOD! There IS intelligent lifei n this forum! ;)

[Hardwork108]

That would be pretty accurate up until the early 90's. Kickboxing now is a fairly evolved beast and a pretty distinct one at that. I agree with you that the term 'kickboxing' is widely misused though and what gets called so here would definitely not be labelled the same by actual kickboxers.

The term kickboxing is misused here in the forums because the people who cannot distinguish between TCMA fighting and the typical kick boxing encounter have OBVIOUSLY not had genuine TCMA tuition to help them distinguish between the two, on one hand, and then you have the subtle business agenda of some who say, "there is no difference between kickboxing and kung fu fighting, so why don't you come and train the former in my gym, instead of spending a longer time period studying the actual TCMAs".

I just wonder the message this constant "MMA is better"; "Kick boxing is better" under currents (or is it over-currents?), send to newbies who come here to find out about genuine TCMA training and related information.

I mean for how much longer are we going to have the same threads repeated????

How much longer are we going to be told that in order to defend against a Bengali Wrestler we need to go to the other side of the world and "cross train" in Bengali wrestling, as our style of TCMA will not have the answer?

How much longer are we going to have to put up with clueless comments as regards the TCMAs - comments usually made by "scientific" pseudo kung fu-ists/MMA-ists and kickboxers?

Why can't these people come to a kung fu forum, and just for once ASK genuine (not loaded) questions about authentic TCMA methodologies, in order to LEARN something (and believe me they need to)????


OK, end of rant! Sorry. :o


.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don;t get you guys sometimes.
Kickboxing is a generic term for "punching and kicking".
Every striking system is "kick boxing" if the strike with all 4 limbs.

Shifu Patterson's clips show what HIS kung fu looks likes when trained and used in full contact environment.
That is what it is, full contact Kung Fu in a Koushou ruleset.
It's kickboxing in the sense that there is "kick and boxing" and that is it.
It has a flavour all it's own.
Just as MT does in pure MT rules and how it has a different "flavour" under K-1.
Its still MT and Shifu Patterson's kung fu is still kung fu.
No matter how "kickboxish" it MAY or MAY NOT look.

Talk about splitting pubes !

Seriously people.

[David Jamieson]

Gentlemen:

Keep it civil.

Unproductive posts have been removed.

Don't make me work to hard! :mad:

[taai gihk yahn]

Oh give me an f'ing break already.

WTF are you guys waiting for? Shaw Bros. stuff? Mr. Patterson's stuff is about as far away from "kickboxing" as you can get. :mad: Did y'all even watch his clips? From a Sanda perspective or from a Muay Thai perspective, they are doing nearly everything wrong. They are switching right and left guards willy nilly. They are fighting from Santi for the most part which is nothing at all like a Muay Thai or kickboxing stance. Whatabout the bagua stuff? Did you not see his fighter darting around the ring with classic Bagua circle walking footwork and then shooting in with stabbing kicks applied off a turn rather than any sort of "kickboxing" stance?

The only thing his guys were doing that was even vaguelt "kickboxing" was that they were kicking. . . and punching. . . .

They were not using the jab to set up the cross/hook combination.
They were not keeping their rear hand glued to their jaw.
They were not throwing muay thai leg kicks.
They were not entering with classic kickboxing combos like jab-cross-roundhouse.

Go back and watch at least the first fighter from this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5wzaDgYQZA

Starts at about 1 minute in.

It looks NOTHING like "kickboxing". ;)

No wonder he can't be bothered to go into the details with some of you guys.

this at least gets closer to the heart of the matter, insofar as it breaks down the task-parameters in regards to the delivery system; in other words, what IS obvious from the Kuoshu fights is that Patterson's fighters have a plan, and were operating out of that plan; it wasn't just "well, I've been doing forms and so I guess now that I am fighting I am going to try to look like my forms"; at least this puts it into the realm of further analysis, in terms of "well, does the plan WORK"? which is pretty much what Patterson has been saying, in terms of looking at what you are doing and adjusting accordingly; of course, then we get back to the "does my system, as it currently stands, have the necessary tools to deal effectively with the particular problem(s) I am encountering - be that within a rule set or outside of one"; if one can look at the in an objective manner, then u very quickly can decide if u can stay "at home", or if u need to go visiting somewhere else; the BIG difference these days is the level of communication and resources that fighters have available to them, in terms of seeing a wide variety of things and ways to deal with them; so for example, 200 years ago, if u were a TCMA guy and u encountered someone from another system, Chinese or otherwise, if u came up against something u never saw before or weren't equipped to handle, the way u solved that problem may have been limited to what resources u had - typically it was to look deeper within ur own system for the answer - the thing is, the answer that u came up with may not have been the best potential one, but as u had nothing to compare it to, u had to make do; these days, u can rapidly ascertain multiple solutions, and see which one(s) works the best; as such, the need to go deeper into one's own system is not mandatory, and may not even be particularly efficient: why plumb the depths of a southern short hand system for a solution to managing a skilled shot, when u can just look at the systems that regularly deal with them and train accordingly? of course, nothing precludes digging deeper, nor does it preclude taking the information gleaned elsewhere and infusing the prionciples of what u already do onto that (so, for example, if u learn to sprawl or ****zer against a shot from people w tons of experience doing it, you might after having acquired the skill, look into integrating the "internal" mechanics u have been training in taiji/bagua/hsing-i, and perhaps u will find that by doing so u gain some sort of tactical advantage against an attacker who does a shot well and is used to being defended against well...);

in this way, you get away from the exclusionary and superiority complex that oft seems to be the case , and into a much more responsive mode of operation; meaning that there is a middle way between slavish adherence to one's system and total abandonment thereof...

[wenshu]

And, what else is noteworthy is the relaxed nature of his fighters, calmer and better at targeting. That's a function of breathing, strategy, experience and confidence. Shall we call that 'Internal" as well?

So, as the debate about internal goes on, and I'm an absolute non-fan of the temple dancers. Those fighters seem to exhibit what I interpret as internal power. Full body coordination in a balanced structure, capturing of core muscle power as well as extremity power. Relaxation and controlled breathing. Confidence and focus.
.

Just like high level exponents of every single sport in the whole of human history. . .

Seriously, you could be talking about Tiger Woods (before his exposure as a philanderer with a taste for Denny's hostesses). Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70eU840lc38), Formula One and NASCAR drivers exhibit the same high level of respiratory/thoracic muscular control, mental focus and grace under pressure.

Aside from some footwork and tactics the kuoshu stuff still looks like san da. Apparently some people do expect traditional combat to look like a scene choreographed by Lau Kar Leung. Certain people are also exceedingly well disposed towards holding two conflicting, diametrically opposed viewpoints at the same time /*cough hardwork cough*/.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I will say this, from my experience:
All that movement that happens BEFORE to fighters "clash" is irrelevant.
They can bagua circle, sanchin crab walk, ho chin men two step, all of that is irrelevant until the distance is closed and contact is made.
Maybe to the inexperienced that could throw of their game a bit, but to an expereinced fighter, it means very little.

I once fought a Capoeira guym he did the jinga and some flips and nice moving arouns and all that and I found it very cute and impressive and IF that had been my first fight, I probably would have been "intimidated".
It wasn't my first fight.
He stopped the "fanciness" after our first "clash".

I may be misunderstanding the "3years experience fighting" but if I am understanding it right, it seems that the guys with more experience ( Like Mario), looks a bit more "standard".