Is there such thing as a "STYLE"?

[ginosifu]

With recent threads talking about how style is not needed and unimportant. It made me rethink what we consider a "Style".

1. What is a Style? What are the components that up a make a Style? Is a style different from a technique? Is "Style" just personal flavor? Is "Style' theory or principle?

2. Do we need a "Style"? Is a round kick a round kick no matter what "style"? If what I do wins every time (in the ring or street) is my style the best? What if I have no style? Is there a need for different "Styles" to martial art situations?

Your comments?

ginosifu

[YouKnowWho]

Quite oftern that we have heard people said:

- Totally different philosophy of fighting with my style ...
- The way my style Kicks are not like karate kicks ...
- My style has "no grab" concept ...
- In my style, we just don't do thing like that ...
- ...

The longfist side kick is done differently from the TDK side kick. The longfist roundhouse kick is also done different from the MT roundhouse kick. After you give a fair comparsion, you may find out one method is better than the other, or you may find out that both methods are good in different ways and it's just a trade off. After that comparsion, you should be able to do your kicks in both ways.

If you develop your side kick, roundhouse kick, front kick, ... jab, cross, hook, ... finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, ..., hip throw, single leg, double legs, ... this way (by compare style from style), you will have a toolbox that comtain the best tools.

Now you may want to learn how to use one tool to set up another tool. You then find out that long fist has roundhouse kick, side kick combo, mantis has back fist, hook punch combo, eagle claw has elbow lock, shoulder lock combo. SC has hip throw, inner hook combo. After you have pick up all the combos that's available in all TCMA systems, you then construct those combos yourself that you just can't find in any system, now you will have a system that's more "complete" than any system that exsit on tis planet.

After you have gone through this process, you will never say, "My style kick this way." Instead you will say, "You can kick this way or that way." You train all styles but you are not restricted by any style.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Style is just a word. System says more. A system is governed by principals and concepts. Some people can develop their own Style of applying such principals and concepts. I think if you were familiar with it, you could easily know what system I was using, but from the style in which I apply it you would not be able to tell what it was.
When much younger I hired out my fighting skills. I worked for questionable individuals because I could protect their interests. It was said that I did not mess around and that I could really fight. No one ever mentioned that I was a martial artist or some such. Nothing about gung fu or whatever. It must not have seemed aparent to them. Just that I was able to fight well. Nothing like you would see in a movie at all. How it looks is not important unless you are competing in form. How well it works is all important. Your own style is just how you go about your system of martial art.

[Fa Xing]

I have been reflecting on this somewhat myself lately, and am coming to the conclusion that is style is a very personal way of expressing oneself in combat.

[ginosifu]

Quite oftern that we have heard people said:

- Totally different philosophy of fighting with my style ...
- The way my style Kicks are not like karate kicks ...
- My style has "no grab" concept ...
- In my style, we just don't do thing like that ...
- ...

The longfist side kick is done differently from the TDK side kick. The longfist roundhouse kick is also done different from the MT roundhouse kick. After you give a fair comparsion, you may find out one method is better than the other, or you may find out that both methods are good in different ways and it's just a trade off. After that comparsion, you should be able to do your kicks in both ways.

If you develop your side kick, roundhouse kick, front kick, ... jab, cross, hook, ... finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, ..., hip throw, single leg, double legs, ... this way (by compare style from style), you will have a toolbox that comtain the best tools.

Now you may want to learn how to use one tool to set up another tool. You then find out that long fist has roundhouse kick, side kick combo, mantis has back fist, hook punch combo, eagle claw has elbow lock, shoulder lock combo. SC has hip throw, inner hook combo. After you have pick up all the combos that's available in all TCMA systems, you then construct those combos yourself that you just can't find in any system, now you will have a system that's more "complete" than any system that exsit on tis planet.

After you have gone through this process, you will never say, "My style kick this way." Instead you will say, "You can kick this way or that way." You train all styles but you are not restricted by any style.

YouKnowWho: you just summed up Jeet Kune Do sorta kinda. To take from what stuff you have learned and make it your own is JKD.


Style is just a word. System says more. A system is governed by principals and concepts. Some people can develop their own Style of applying such principals and concepts. I think if you were familiar with it, you could easily know what system I was using, but from the style in which I apply it you would not be able to tell what it was.

Yes, system or style....same difference. Maybe I should have used a title like: "Is there such a thing as a System"

A system or style refers to principles, theories or techniques that are used in conjunction for an overall "theme" while fighting. This theme is controls how every technique is applied.

Some Example of theme based fighting techniques:

Some systems use straight lined movements. Linear style goes forward without any angular or circular stepping.

Some systems pivot on the balls of their feet VS those who pivot on their heels.

Some systems may favor grabbing and throwing VS systems that favor stand up or long range fighting.

My Monkey style focuses on eye scratching, groin strikes, pinching and poking. Take away this and all you have is a Northern Shaolin looking style. Systems or styles were created on purpose, to give different approaches to fighting. Otherwise we all look like robotic zombies doing the same moves on each other.

This is not a bash on MMA, just observances from people that I know: People that are not in any Martial Arts that I speak with say they have watched some spike channel UFC fighting stuff. Everyone is exactly the same in explaining what they saw, male or female, young or old.

"It looked there was no Style at all, it looked like just brawling". This comes from every non MA person that has told me they watched MMA. Not that MMA has no style but mainly the rules take away freedom of expression of style and everyone just reverts back to a very basic kick, punch, grapple.

Now I might like scratching eyes and kicking to the groin, but you may not. Style gives us an option to learn theory / system that are right for you.

ginosifu

[mickey]

Greetings,

The word "style" does not say much except for, maybe, outer characteristics.

The words "gate" or "school" says more.

And the word "catalog" hits it on the head.


mickey

[mig]

With recent threads talking about how style is not needed and unimportant. It made me rethink what we consider a "Style".

1. What is a Style? What are the components that up a make a Style? Is a style different from a technique? Is "Style" just personal flavor? Is "Style' theory or principle?

2. Do we need a "Style"? Is a round kick a round kick no matter what "style"? If what I do wins every time (in the ring or street) is my style the best? What if I have no style? Is there a need for different "Styles" to martial art situations?

Your comments?

ginosifu

Are you talking what happened in the 60's or 70's about the full introduction of martial in USA regarding styles who became predominant in the martial arts?. Or are you also considering what many systems or styles were common in Southern China and other parts of China, Korea, Japan and Southeast Asia? There is the tradition with some philosophical flavors that doesn't apply in today's world. I think today is a different story and styles or even systems are just relics as today we have more to compare, more information to learn and even videos to see what's what. Not always the best but at least we get the gist of whoever is pretending to show off their style. Just wondering...

[YouKnowWho]

Some Example of theme based fighting techniques:

Some systems use straight lined movements. Linear style goes forward without any angular or circular stepping.

Some systems pivot on the balls of their feet VS those who pivot on their heels.

Some systems may favor grabbing and throwing VS systems that favor stand up or long range fighting.

We can also call those "common sense" instead of style or system difference.

If your opponent is

- stronger than you, you attack his side door, otherwise you attack his front door.
- taller than you, you attack his lower body, otherwise you attack his upper body.
- a striker, you force him to play the grappling game, otherwise you force him to play the striking game.
- weaker than you, you use your own force and run him down.
- stronger than you, you borrow his force and still run him down.
- moving toward you, you let him in and give him a "head on collusion".
- moving away from you, you follow him and give him a "rear end collusion".
- ...

IMO, whether you pivot on the balls or pivot on the heels is not important. It's the end result that should be judged. If your style only teaches you how to do jab and cross but not hook punch, your style has serious problem.

[taai gihk yahn]

Chaung Tzu:

'Heaven and Earth are the same as a finger; the myriad things are the same as a horse. Affirmation lies in affirming; denial lies in our denying. A way comes into being through our walking upon it; a thing is so because people say it is so. Why are things so? They are so because we declare them to be so. Why are things not so? They are not so because we declare them to be not so'.

'nuff said...

[MightyB]

With recent threads talking about how style is not needed and unimportant. It made me rethink what we consider a "Style".

1. What is a Style? What are the components that up a make a Style? Is a style different from a technique? Is "Style" just personal flavor? Is "Style' theory or principle?

2. Do we need a "Style"? Is a round kick a round kick no matter what "style"? If what I do wins every time (in the ring or street) is my style the best? What if I have no style? Is there a need for different "Styles" to martial art situations?

Your comments?

ginosifu

There are styles and systems. To say anything less is to disrespect those who've devoted their lives to those systems.

There are also people. People do crazy arse things. In the end - you are who you are, but without the people who've devoted their time to perfect the different styles - you end up not having anything to "borrow".

When he died, BL was just starting to figure out Wing Chun.

It's all Kung Fu. :)

[YouKnowWho]

If you only have

- 1 girlfriend, you will always talk about, "my girl like this and my girl that".
- 2 girlfriends, you start not to talk much about any of your girls.
- 10 girlfriends, you will say that all girls are the same. They are just a ...

If you are a computer science major, you have to learn:

- Fortran
- Basic
- Algol
- Pascal
- Cobal
- PL1
- Lisp
- Assemble language
- C
- C++
- SOM
- Java
- ...

No matter which language that you use for your software design, you still use logic such as:

- If ... Then ... Else ..
- While ... Do ...
- Repeat ... Until ...

[MightyB]

If you only have

- 1 girlfriend, you will always talk about, "my girl like this and my girl that".
- 2 girlfriends, you start not to talk much about any of your girls.
- 10 girlfriends, you will say that all girls are the same. They are just a ...

1 girlfriend will make you crazy.
10 will drive you insane.

[sanjuro_ronin]

WHAT we do is a system, HOW we do it is our STYLE.
You can have multiple styles within a system.
A system is a systematic pattern of things, in the case of MA it comprises of techniues and principles, HOW those principles and technqiues are applied by the INDIVIDUAL is what equals "style".

[ginosifu]

There are styles and systems. To say anything less is to disrespect those who've devoted their lives to those systems.

MightyB: I should have been a bit more specific. I was mainly interested in SYSTEM. Do we need Praying Mantis system or Shoryn Ryu Karate or Tang Soo Do? Systems or styles separate everyone into differently themed MA.

Some here say that there is no need for separate systems, more of just generalized MA where everyone can pick and chose what techniques are best for themselves.

So now why did people of the past (all ethnic groups and countries) create systems that are very differrent from each other?

I see YouKnowWho's point but still disagree. If you study Shaolin or Wing Chun or Shuai Chiao and you don't like how they kick.... then don't train in their system anymore! Most all CMA systems are COMPLETE with every situation covered with techniques to fill every need. However, not every CMA teacher has all the info in the system. Some people have gone off and not learned everything from their Sifu and Sigung.

CMA is very vast and made to teach the masses. If we were at a temple or military post, they would teach a plethera of techniques to all. Not all techniques are right for each individual, so kick A a is good for you but kick B is good for me. That is why there are so many different styles and systems.

There is really no need to *******ize all CMA just for the sake of extrapolating stuff what you like.

ginosifu

[ginosifu]

WHAT we do is a system, HOW we do it is our STYLE.
You can have multiple styles within a system.
A system is a systematic pattern of things, in the case of MA it comprises of techniues and principles, HOW those principles and technqiues are applied by the INDIVIDUAL is what equals "style".

Thank you for clarifing that for me.

ginosifu

[RWilson]

Style is just a word. System says more. A system is governed by principals and concepts. Some people can develop their own Style of applying such principals and concepts. I think if you were familiar with it, you could easily know what system I was using, but from the style in which I apply it you would not be able to tell what it was.
When much younger I hired out my fighting skills. I worked for questionable individuals because I could protect their interests. It was said that I did not mess around and that I could really fight. No one ever mentioned that I was a martial artist or some such. Nothing about gung fu or whatever. It must not have seemed aparent to them. Just that I was able to fight well. Nothing like you would see in a movie at all. How it looks is not important unless you are competing in form. How well it works is all important. Your own style is just how you go about your system of martial art.

You sound like a character from one of the Final Fantasy games. Were you a member of Soldier like Sephiroth and Cloud?

[David Jamieson]

often , I find dictionaries to be handy. :p

Style = expression
System = series of methods that produce expected results.

[Ray Pina]

There are two styles

Each system wil have it's own style based on its preference for problem solving (kicks vs punches. Grappling/control vs striking). A man looking for a single leg opportunity will have different posture, even cadence than a man looking to score a crushing leg kick.

Within a system, an individual will develop his own style, techniques and set ups that they prefer. Movements that favor their body types.

A great experience is learning different systems and incorporating their style into your style.

[ginosifu]

often , I find dictionaries to be handy. :p

Style = expression
System = series of methods that produce expected results.

Self expression is not what I was looking for. I guess I just should have stated System.

I have studied several styles. Although I may be using only Monkey System / Theory, I express my fighting with my own "Style" because of my experiences.

The thread was supposed to about SYSTEMS. Should there be a universal system? Like a World Martial Art, where everyone one punches the same and kicks the same? Should we Jeet Kune Do all CMA? Or should we keep Shaolin as Shaolin and Wing Chun as Wing Chun etc.

ginosifu

[David Jamieson]

Self expression is not what I was looking for. I guess I just should have stated System.

I have studied several styles. Although I may be using only Monkey System / Theory, I express my fighting with my own "Style" because of my experiences.

The thread was supposed to about SYSTEMS. Should there be a universal system? Like a World Martial Art, where everyone one punches the same and kicks the same? Should we Jeet Kune Do all CMA? Or should we keep Shaolin as Shaolin and Wing Chun as Wing Chun etc.

ginosifu

universal system exists. It is just conflict and it can happen at low levels or insanely intense levels. I think we just slice ourselves off the loaf and call ourselves a slice instead of a piece of the loaf, we are all still bread!

sorry, that's a crappy analogy, but at the same time not.

heh heh.... :)

[Punch.HeadButt]

Should there be a universal system? Like a World Martial Art, where everyone one punches the same and kicks the same? Should we Jeet Kune Do all CMA? Or should we keep Shaolin as Shaolin and Wing Chun as Wing Chun etc.

If such a standardization took place, it would only be a matter of time (most likely a very short period) before someone decided to change some aspect of what is being taught to suit them for whatever reason, and then another change is made and another by various people for various reasons with different emphasis...eventually enough differences are made that someone decides it warrants a different name...and then you have a different "system".

Regardless of what is needed, any product/project of human endeavor is "alive", and martial arts is no different. Besides, "needs" change. I think having different "systems" is just a convenient way to categorize and differentiate the inevitable variations that naturally occurred. Whether or not they're categorized as different systems, the variations would have happened and will continue to.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Self expression is not what I was looking for. I guess I just should have stated System.

I have studied several styles. Although I may be using only Monkey System / Theory, I express my fighting with my own "Style" because of my experiences.

The thread was supposed to about SYSTEMS. Should there be a universal system? Like a World Martial Art, where everyone one punches the same and kicks the same? Should we Jeet Kune Do all CMA? Or should we keep Shaolin as Shaolin and Wing Chun as Wing Chun etc.

ginosifu

You will never have a universal system in THAT way.
Look at boxing, it is ONE unified system and yet you will find different styles of suing that system.
Judo is another example.
In the end we all do punch ( for example) the same ( physics and biomechanically).
There is only one system of Karate ( in terms of principles and techniques), but look at all the different styles that came from the various interpretations of that system.

[YouKnowWho]

If you study Shaolin or Wing Chun or Shuai Chiao and you don't like how they kick.... then don't train in their system anymore!
If you don't train more than 1 system, how will you be able to know the difference?

- Is XingYi Beng Chuan better than boxing jab?
- Is mantis Quan Chui better than boxing hook punch?

You have to train both in order to know the PRO and CON.


Most all CMA systems are COMPLETE with every situation covered with techniques to fill every need.
This is our major disagreement. IMO, there is no complete system that exist on this planet.

- Judo has no kick.
- Wrestling ha no punch.
- Boxing has no lock.
- TKD has no throw.

They all good in certain area but none of those system is "complete". The TCMA systmes may have more grey area but to assume that kick, punch, lock, throw exist in all TCMA systems will not be realistic.


should we keep Shaolin as Shaolin and Wing Chun as Wing Chun etc.

You can learn

- WC all your life, you still won't be able to develop your locking skill.
- Shaolin your life, you still won't be able to develop your throwing skill.

So what will you do? You learn joint locking from eagle claw, and throwing from SC. After that you have learned at least 4 styles. When you use

- WC Tang Shou and Pak Sou to set up an eagle claw ebow lock, are you keeping WC as WC and eagle claw as eagle claw?
- Shaolin Quan Chui to set up your hip throw, are you keeping Shaolin as Shaolin and SC as SC?

If you just want to stay in your comfort zone as a "striker", you may not have this problem. The moment that you want to cross that boundary between the "striking" and "throwing", you will not be able to keep thing as simple any more.

Now you have 2 new drills

- WC Tang Shou, Pak Sou, followed by eagle claw elbow lock.
- Shaolin Quan Chui followed by SC hip throw.

If you train those drills daily. What system/style are you training?

[MightyB]

If you really take the time and make the effort to master 1 style - you'll have mastered them all.

[dirtyrat]

This is our major disagreement. IMO, there is no complete system that exist on this planet.

- Judo has no kick.
- Wrestling ha no punch.
- Boxing has no lock.
- TKD has no throw.

They all good in certain area but none of those system is "complete". The TCMA systmes may have more grey area but to assume that kick, punch, lock, throw exist in all TCMA systems will not be realistic.


I knew a judoka who stop an aggressive dog with a kick to the throat a long time ago. poor doggie....

bare knuckle boxing teaches how to wrench their opponents elbow if the opportunity presented itself in the clinch

TKD do have throws hidden in their forms providing you have a knowledgeable instructor.

a lot has been lost in regards to TCMA but i believed at one time they did have answers to the problems faced by today's practitioners.

i do agree however that cross training is valuable in helping you to understand your primary system.

[ginosifu]

If you don't train more than 1 system, how will you be able to know the difference?

- Is XingYi Beng Chuan better than boxing jab?
- Is mantis Quan Chui better than boxing hook punch?

You have to train both in order to know the PRO and CON.


This is our major disagreement. IMO, there is no complete system that exist on this planet.

- Judo has no kick.
- Wrestling ha no punch.
- Boxing has no lock.
- TKD has no throw.

They all good in certain area but none of those system is "complete". The TCMA systmes may have more grey area but to assume that kick, punch, lock, throw exist in all TCMA systems will not be realistic.



You can learn

- WC all your life, you still won't be able to develop your locking skill.
- Shaolin your life, you still won't be able to develop your throwing skill.

So what will you do? You learn joint locking from eagle claw, and throwing from SC. After that you have learned at least 4 styles. When you use

- WC Tang Shou and Pak Sou to set up an eagle claw ebow lock, are you keeping WC as WC and eagle claw as eagle claw?
- Shaolin Quan Chui to set up your hip throw, are you keeping Shaolin as Shaolin and SC as SC?

If you just want to stay in your comfort zone as a "striker", you may not have this problem. The moment that you want to cross that boundary between the "striking" and "throwing", you will not be able to keep thing as simple any more.

Now you have 2 new drills

- WC Tang Shou, Pak Sou, followed by eagle claw elbow lock.
- Shaolin Quan Chui followed by SC hip throw.

If you train those drills daily. What system/style are you training?

YouKnowWho:

Again I disagree with your analysis that there is no complete systems. Northern Shaolin (Gu Ru Zhang lineage) has everything anyone will ever need in a Martial pursuit.

It has one of the largest repertoire of kicks known to MA.
It has the 108 Techniques (Throws) of Shaolin. Similar to the 108 locks of the Eagle Claw style.
A comprehensive Chin Na and grappling system.
A REALLY in depth Chi Gung system.
Weapons for those wanting an in depth knowledge in that field.

Hung Gar is in a close second. Likewise they everything you will need to fighting: Kick, punch, grab and throw + Iron Wire for Chi Gung and all the weapons training you need..

I don't know what systems you have encountered, but if they don't have it all, it's probably not the system but the teacher. Sometimes people don't finish the systems and go off on their own with out finishing the system.

The only system I have that was not complete was Yang Tai Chi, but that was not the system, it was the teacher, he only had so much information and that was it. I had to go out and learn from other teachers to complete my Tai chi.

Shuai Chiao is even a complete system. After learning all they could from GM Chang, my teacher hooked up with his Grandson (David Chang), for a more in depth system. David Chang works with head of the Taiwan police organization in his city and noted for teaching police capture and control methods.

ginosifu

I don't see where you need

ginosifu

[Lee Chiang Po]

You sound like a character from one of the Final Fantasy games. Were you a member of Soldier like Sephiroth and Cloud?

I am not familiar with either. Could you be more explicite?

[Dragonzbane76]

A comprehensive Chin Na and grappling system.

sorry gino, i'm going to disagree with you repectfully. I've yet to meet a TCMA that comes close to any grappling system present in BJJ/wrestling/judo. It might have a very bland mix of stuff but I can almost bet it does not have an in depth look into submission, locks, positioning, body leverages, guard sweeps, bridging, rubber, etc. closest would be Shuai Chiao and it still does not delve into ground basics like those systems presented. Not starting a flame war just my belief, when I meet the man whom can prove me wrong I will be the first to say you are right. :)

[YouKnowWho]

Northern Shaolin (Gu Ru Zhang lineage) has everything anyone will ever need in a Martial pursuit.

It has one of the largest repertoire of kicks known to MA.
It has the 108 Techniques (Throws) of Shaolin. Similar to the 108 locks of the Eagle Claw style.
A comprehensive Chin Na and grappling system.
A REALLY in depth Chi Gung system.
Weapons for those wanting an in depth knowledge in that field.

I had a Northern Shaolin school (Bei Shaolin Kung Fu Institute) in Austin, Texas back in 1973.

http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/5153/breaky.jpg (just look at those guy's hair style.)

The Northern Shaolin (I prefer to call it longfist) has lots of kick, punch, and lock. But as far as the throw, I'm not too sure about that. As I have said that I don't argue with my style brothers. I have spent all my life in longfist and SC. When we discuss subject such as "throws in the Nothern Shaolin system", It's like to use my own hand to slab on my own face. I want to protect the honor of my longfist system. But my SC background wants me to tell the truth.

Many Nothern Shaolin brothers believe that all throws are hidden in the forms. I can only say that my IQ is just too low to recognize it.

I was quite proud with my Nothern Shaolin joint locking skill (One of my longfist brothers even published a Shaolin Chin Na book). Oneday I met an eagle claw master. During the discussion of the small circle wrist lock, he asked me what if my opponent raises his elbow and turn his body. I then realized that the eagle claw system has much more locking detail than the longfist system has.

[Lucas]

Yes and my style is the best :)

[MightyB]

I had a Northern Shaolin school (Bei Shaolin Kung Fu Institute) in Austin, Texas back in 1973.

http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/5153/breaky.jpg (just look at those guy's hair style.)

The Northern Shaolin (I prefer to call it longfist) has lots of kick, punch, and lock. But as far as the throw, I'm not too sure about that. As I have said that I don't argue with my style brothers. I have spent all my life in longfist and SC. When we discuss subject such as "throws in the Nothern Shaolin system", It's like to use my own hand to slab on my own face. I want to protect the honor of my longfist system. But my SC background wants me to tell the truth.

Many Nothern Shaolin brothers believe that all throws are hidden in the forms. I can only say that my IQ is just too low to recognize it.

I was quite proud with my Nothern Shaolin joint locking skill (One of my longfist brothers even published a Shaolin Chin Na book). Oneday I met an eagle claw master. During the discussion of the small circle wrist lock, he asked me what if my opponent raises his elbow and turn his body. I then realized that the eagle claw system has much more locking detail than the longfist system has.

So now all you have to do is choose what You are. What's to stop you from sharpening that with the skills you acquired through cross training?

You're much better at kung fu and throwing than I am (seen the vids) so maybe I'm not qualified to say this but... you did see where there were throws in long fist. The long fist guys weren't good at them and your teacher misinterpreted the set ups and the rest of the students were terrible at them... yet you saw the throws in there and you knew through your SC training how to execute them properly. I see this in Mantis when I practice Judo, so I know you had to see it. Mantis has a lot of Osoto Gari, they don't really know how to apply it, but it's there. Someone knew how to apply it at one time - otherwise it wouldn't be there. Guess what, I choose to be Mantis, my Osoto is better than the other Mantis guys. Get what I'm saying?

[ginosifu]

sorry gino, i'm going to disagree with you repectfully. I've yet to meet a TCMA that comes close to any grappling system present in BJJ/wrestling/judo. It might have a very bland mix of stuff but I can almost bet it does not have an in depth look into submission, locks, positioning, body leverages, guard sweeps, bridging, rubber, etc. closest would be Shuai Chiao and it still does not delve into ground basics like those systems presented. Not starting a flame war just my belief, when I meet the man whom can prove me wrong I will be the first to say you are right. :)

I agree with you that most CMA do not dwelve as deeply into chokes, submissions, wrestling etc etc. Yes you are right, not even Shuai Chiao goes as deeply into the submission and wrestling techniques.

However, I am comfortable with what I was given in Northern Shaolin. We have enough Chokes, submissions (some but not a lot of ground work) that I would feel that I could defend myself in most situations.

I have never learned any BJJ or MMA but me and my fighters have gone into the octagon and done well. We don't focus on MMA but if need be we can handle our own.


I had a Northern Shaolin school (Bei Shaolin Kung Fu Institute) in Austin, Texas back in 1973.

http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/5153/breaky.jpg (just look at those guy's hair style.)

The Northern Shaolin (I prefer to call it longfist) has lots of kick, punch, and lock. But as far as the throw, I'm not too sure about that. As I have said that I don't argue with my style brothers. I have spent all my life in longfist and SC. When we discuss subject such as "throws in the Nothern Shaolin system", It's like to use my own hand to slab on my own face. I want to protect the honor of my longfist system. But my SC background wants me to tell the truth.

Many Nothern Shaolin brothers believe that all throws are hidden in the forms. I can only say that my IQ is just too low to recognize it.

I was quite proud with my Nothern Shaolin joint locking skill (One of my longfist brothers even published a Shaolin Chin Na book). Oneday I met an eagle claw master. During the discussion of the small circle wrist lock, he asked me what if my opponent raises his elbow and turn his body. I then realized that the eagle claw system has much more locking detail than the longfist system has.

YouKnowWho: I don't know your Northern Shaolin lineage but, mine is thru Joh Ervin and Kwong Wing Lam. Maybe it is because of their backrounds, my teachers have an in depth knowledge of NS and it's Throws.

We never "Pulled" from forms, I was always taught specific throws similar to SC throws. Some of the names may be a bit different but a chopping throw is the same in SC as in NS. The human body is the same no matter what system you pratcice. You may set up and enter differently but you can only throw people so many ways.

NS has some throws I never learned in SC!

ginosifu

[YouKnowWho]

Mantis has a lot of Osoto Gari,

The front cut (ACSCA term), or chop (USSCA term), or Osoto Gari(Judo term) almost exists in all MA systems. It may be the most common throw across all systems. Since the hip throw is the mother of all throws, by using hip throw as the reference point, we may be able to get a "fair" comparsion.

[Hardwork108]

Chaung Tzu:

'Heaven and Earth are the same as a finger; the myriad things are the same as a horse. Affirmation lies in affirming; denial lies in our denying. A way comes into being through our walking upon it; a thing is so because people say it is so. Why are things so? They are so because we declare them to be so. Why are things not so? They are not so because we declare them to be not so'.

'nuff said...

I wonder how that philosophy would be applied if we were discussing different STYLES of cooking and how a man who has a sophisticated palate would read that same philosophy, as compared to a man who was raised on cheap greasy food?

Ie. "Fast food" martial arts (even if effective) as compared to profound TCMAs (even if effective).

[Dragonzbane76]

I have never learned any BJJ or MMA but me and my fighters have gone into the octagon and done well. We don't focus on MMA but if need be we can handle our own.

Glad to hear that. Happy at least some people in the traditional communities are pressure testing what they have.

[Jimbo]

YouKnowWho:

Again I disagree with your analysis that there is no complete systems. Northern Shaolin (Gu Ru Zhang lineage) has everything anyone will ever need in a Martial pursuit.

It has one of the largest repertoire of kicks known to MA.
It has the 108 Techniques (Throws) of Shaolin. Similar to the 108 locks of the Eagle Claw style.
A comprehensive Chin Na and grappling system.
A REALLY in depth Chi Gung system.
Weapons for those wanting an in depth knowledge in that field.

Hung Gar is in a close second. Likewise they everything you will need to fighting: Kick, punch, grab and throw + Iron Wire for Chi Gung and all the weapons training you need..

I don't know what systems you have encountered, but if they don't have it all, it's probably not the system but the teacher. Sometimes people don't finish the systems and go off on their own with out finishing the system.

The only system I have that was not complete was Yang Tai Chi, but that was not the system, it was the teacher, he only had so much information and that was it. I had to go out and learn from other teachers to complete my Tai chi.

Shuai Chiao is even a complete system. After learning all they could from GM Chang, my teacher hooked up with his Grandson (David Chang), for a more in depth system. David Chang works with head of the Taiwan police organization in his city and noted for teaching police capture and control methods.

ginosifu

I don't see where you need

ginosifu


My question is, what constitutes having learned a complete system? IMO, it would mean having a solid understanding and the ability to apply a given system's principles/skills in one's own natural and versatile way, including a wide enough range of skills. That would be my take in a nutshell.

Or does it mean having learned all the potential forms, weapons, etc., in a given system? CLF is an extremely versatile system, but if you combine its various lineages, it has over 100 forms. Nobody has time to learn, much less practice 100 forms, and you don't need that anyway.

In our own lineage, there is an excellent system in applying its principles, but there is SO much information just in skills applications alone. You develop the ability to use a wide range of skills, but you can't absorb and use it all equally, and you're not really expected to. You can learn over such a wide range, but because people differ, so will many of the skills they absorb. Although they're all guided by the same basic principles. Under pressure, only so much from each category of skills can come out, anyway. You're mostly expected to learn so much if you're planning to be an instructor, which I was for a time. Now that I no longer teach, I only train those aspects that suit or interest me.

I have heard that Cha Chuan traditionally has ten forms, but that few masters of that art had ever learned all ten. Does that mean they aren't complete, even if those masters had developed a deep understanding of and ability to fight with the skills they've mastered? Or would somebody who maybe has learned/practiced all of a given system's material, but never developed the ability to use it in an instinctive way?

[ginosifu]

My question is, what constitutes having learned a complete system? IMO, it would mean having a solid understanding and the ability to apply a given system's principles/skills in one's own natural and versatile way, including a wide enough range of skills. That would be my take in a nutshell.

Or does it mean having learned all the potential forms, weapons, etc., in a given system? CLF is an extremely versatile system, but combining its various lineages, it has over 100 forms. Nobody has time for 100 forms, and you don't need that anyway.

In our own lineage, there is an excellent system in applying its principles, but there is SO much information just in skills apps alone. You develop the ability to use a wide range of skills, but you can't absorb and use it all equally, and you're not really expected to. You can learn over such a wide range, but because people differ, so will many of the skills they absorb. Although they're all guided by the same basic principles.

I have heard that Cha Chuan traditionally has ten forms, but that few masters of that art had ever learned all ten. Does that mean they aren't complete, even if those masters had developed a deep understanding of and ability to fight with the skills they've mastered? Or would somebody who maybe has learned/practiced all of a given system's material, but never developed the ability to use it in an instinctive way?

Completion of the system is when you have complete comprehension of all theory and principle. There will always be more drills and skill apps to learn and such. Forms are nice but not needed for the modern Sifu IMO. I use forms for basic skills, demonstrations and tournaments but they are not a requirement for learning the whole system

ginosifu

[Iron_Eagle_76]

My question is, what constitutes having learned a complete system? IMO, it would mean having a solid understanding and the ability to apply a given system's principles/skills in one's own natural and versatile way, including a wide enough range of skills. That would be my take in a nutshell.

Jimbo has chi blasted the correct!!:p

The thing is this, you can learn and know something but it may take years to master it. What I mean by mastering it is to hone one's skills to the point that it becomes instinct and natural reaction. The continued development of these skills is what truly makes someone be able to know and master a system.

In regards to forms, the breaking down and application of the form is what truly constitutes one's willingness to master it. Form collectors are just that, collectors of categories of techniques that may know them but can they show the application for them and even more importantly use them reactivly and during live training. I will take the knowledge of 10 forms and their breakdown and useage over 100 forms for just collecting and "showing off".

TCMA has four elements of fighting that should be taught: Da (Upper Body Striking-Using fists, open hands, elbows, fingers, forearms). Ti (Lower Body Striking-Kicks, Knees, Sweeps, Stomps). Shuai (Wrestling, Throws, Sweeps). Na (Seizing-Chokes, Joint Locks, Submissions).

Now the key to this is to focus on those subsets of fighting and develop them according to your weakness or your level of interest. And also to cross train and pick up the elements your system does not have or where the training was simply touched upon or was not in depth.

Here is the thing, if you came from a system that has all of these, great, you were lucky. Not all of us did and we made up for the defiecienies by training other systems. This does not "pollute" or take away from what you learned, quite the opposite actually. It improves your "style" or "system" to be more in line with what all areas of unarmed combat should focus on.

[YouKnowWho]

This does not "pollute" or take away from what you learned, quite the opposite actually. It improves your "style" or "system" to be more in line with what all areas of unarmed combat should focus on.

This is an important point. Is it a plus or minus if a Taiji guy corss trains "hip throw"? People may say that bending head down is against Taiji principle. But to have a flexiable waist can be good for "health" even if we don't talk about combat benefit.

[Ray Pina]

Glad to hear that. Happy at least some people in the traditional communities are pressure testing what they have.

Yes. That is impressive, especially without BJJ added into the mix. When and where were these events?

Not so easy to do without BJJ. Must have very good takedown defense, etc.

[ginosifu]

Yes. That is impressive, especially without BJJ added into the mix. When and where were these events?

Not so easy to do without BJJ. Must have very good takedown defense, etc.

My match was 7or 8 years ago at a event center here in Cleveland. Amateur local stuff, nothing big. Over the years I have had several students go on to amateur bouts. One in particular was Tony Groys, he went on to fight and was recognized by some of those MMA websites out there. Another set of brothers were Jay and Josh Fragoso... Big boys about 230 each, man when they whacked you.... you knew it.

I have been lucky in my MA career, I had teachers that either fought full contact or knew anti grappling. I myself wrestled (High School Style) since the age of 12 and collegete style after that.

Also I was doing San Shou all along, so I was already used to fighting grapplers.

ginosifu

[Ben Gash]

So Gino, you're saying that Kung Fu is a history lesson, and preservation of a stylistic aesthetic is more important than efficacy? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[ginosifu]

So Gino, you're saying that Kung Fu is a history lesson, and preservation of a stylistic aesthetic is more important than efficacy? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I think that Style (System is probably what I should have used), is culmination of techniques, drills, patterns that follow a theme. After a full comprehension of the systems techniques drill and applications, you should be able to apply this theme in combat. These systems were created during periods when war and combat were common place in everyday life.

I don't think we need to Jeet Kune Do everything just cuz you did not get what you wanted out of the system you were studying. Sometimes your teacher just did not get all of the information himself. Or maybe you did not stay long enough to receive all of the information your teacher had to offer. Many times a "System" should all of the answers for any Martial situation, it just the people using it that do not understand it fully.

I don not know every system and if they are complete (Punch, Kick, Grapple and Throw). Maybe I was lucky to have teachers who were into fighting and knew all aspect of fighting from stand up to grappling etc etc.

I think a lot of people just give up too quickly if thy don't get what they want from a system or teacher. They get a little stand up style and get a little submission style and get a little internal style but never really stick with something and see it to the end.

ginosifu

ps: I hope I answered your question?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

WHAT we do is a system, HOW we do it is our STYLE.
You can have multiple styles within a system.
A system is a systematic pattern of things, in the case of MA it comprises of techniues and principles, HOW those principles and technqiues are applied by the INDIVIDUAL is what equals "style".

I do believe you just quoted me from a debate we had in 1998.

[B.Tunks]

Mantis has a lot of Osoto Gari, they don't really know how to apply it, but it's there. Someone knew how to apply it at one time - otherwise it wouldn't be there. Guess what, I choose to be Mantis, my Osoto is better than the other Mantis guys. Get what I'm saying?

Come on man. Really? You're talking about literally tens of thousands (much higher when you take into account China) of practitioners world wide, almost all of which you have had no exposure to. On top of that, you come from a great lineage so I am shocked to know that you needed to learn these applications from judo.

BT

[MightyB]

Come on man. Really? You're talking about literally tens of thousands (much higher when you take into account China) of practitioners world wide, almost all of which you have had no exposure to. On top of that, you come from a great lineage so I am shocked to know that you needed to learn these applications from judo.

BT

It's an illustration of a point through an allegory statement. But it holds true to this discussion which is "yes, there's such a thing as style" and "yes, it's ok to cross train and still remain true to one style" and weirder yet, "even if you did cross train, it's possible that you did so without leaving the confines of your beginning style". Hence my osoto gari statement. My example is that Mantis has tons of osoto gari, I do Judo which forces competition and specialization in osoto gari - which I learned is one of the most difficult throws to apply in competition even though it's easy to learn, and yes - because of said experience, I still do mantis where I initially learned osoto gari but I've been able to perfect osoto to a degree that you can't do in mantis alone because Judo or SC forces you to compete using a limited framework of moves therefore you develop a specialization in those moves to a much higher degree. For another example from non TCMA - BJJ wins nearly 100% in groundwork but is terrible at throws when compared to Judo. A person from either style could cross train in their opposite and become better than the majority of their contemporaries in their "deficient" skill.

[YouKnowWho]

I am shocked to know that you needed to learn these applications from judo.
The application for "front cut (Osoto Gari)" is simple. The training method that's used in Judo is much more effective than the solo form training used in mantis. If mantis people can train all throws like Judo guys do then mantis guy can compete Judo tournaments and win.

A simple example will be

- How to counter "front cut (Osoto Gari)"?
- If your opponent escapes out of your "front cut (Osoto Gari)", what will you do next?
- ...

If the mantis system can dig deeper into this move as Judo guy do, there will be no need to look for elsewhere. You can't develop your throwing skill just from the solo form training.

[B.Tunks]

It's an illustration of a point through an allegory statement. But it holds true to this discussion which is "yes, there's such a thing as style" and "yes, it's ok to cross train and still remain true to one style" and weirder yet, "even if you did cross train, it's possible that you did so without leaving the confines of your beginning style". Hence my osoto gari statement. My example is that Mantis has tons of osoto gari, I do Judo which forces competition and specialization in osoto gari - which I learned is one of the most difficult throws to apply in competition even though it's easy to learn, and yes - because of said experience, I still do mantis where I initially learned osoto gari but I've been able to perfect osoto to a degree that you can't do in mantis alone because Judo or SC forces you to compete using a limited framework of moves therefore you develop a specialization in those moves to a much higher degree. For another example from non TCMA - BJJ wins nearly 100% in groundwork but is terrible at throws when compared to Judo. A person from either style could cross train in their opposite and become better than the majority of their contemporaries in their "deficient" skill.

Thanks, I understand your point. Firstly, I am an advocate of cross training. secondly I respect judo and acknowledge it's superiority over Tanglang in many facets. In my opinion Tanglang has an approximate equivalent of osotogari but it is not osotogari. Tanglang does not control, grip, bind or destabilise in the same manner as judo and the set ups are completely different. For the purposes of this argument I understand your comparison. From your own words, what you are using is in fact 100% judo osotogari and I do not understand why you need to think of it as Tanglang. There is nothing wrong with learning a technique elsewhere and using it.

From what you wrote above it is clear to me that you did not learn to apply Tanglang destabilisation techniques by application in free-sparring against a fully resistant opponent. If that is the case then this is a deficiency in the training methodology and is no fault of your own. In traditional TLQ (despite what some may have come to believe) every technique must be learnt and drilled solo, pair drilled, it's counter drilled solo and paired then applied against a resistive opponent in graduated free sparring. If in fact you did study this particular technique in this fashion, why didn't you arrive at functional mastery? It is a very simple technique. If this one failed then what about the rest?

If you did develop technical proficiency but the judo method was superior and therefore you substituted it, then you are using judo osotogari not the Tanglang equivalent. Again, nothing wrong with that at all but I don't understand how you can then compare what you are doing against other TLQ people and rate your TLQ skill higher. Not only that, who are you comparing yourself against and how are you doing it? Not every body studied in the manner that you did and it would take several years of travelling around the world for you to discover that.

Sorry, seems very nit picky and petty but it was spurred by your blanket statement which immediately placed you in position of technical superiority over thousands of people without any back up for the claim. Again, I'm glad you are searching for answers and doing so by training to fight (to me it's the right path), I just think that maybe it would be better to admit deficiencies rather than to cover them. If a method from another art is superior then adopt it, but call a spade a spade.

T

[B.Tunks]

The application for "front cut (Osoto Gari)" is simple. The training method that's used in Judo is much more effective than the solo form training used in mantis. If mantis people can train all throws like Judo guys do then mantis guy can compete Judo tournaments and win.

A simple example will be

- How to counter "front cut (Osoto Gari)"?
- If your opponent escapes out of your "front cut (Osoto Gari)", what will you do next?
- ...

If the mantis system can dig deeper into this move as Judo guy do, there will be no need to look for elsewhere. You can't develop your throwing skill just from the solo form training.


Solo training is the most basic and least useful method of learning application, apart from the bag or pad or pad striking component (I left out that vital method from the list in my previous post). If training consists only of solo drilling then it is empty. If you do not train counters to every move then your training is empty. If you do not apply in free sparring, as above.

Of course TLQ does not dig as deep into throwing as Judo - no art does.

Of course you cannot develop throwing skill from solo form training. Solo form training should be the smallest percentage of any combat training. Training throwing without a partner is impossible and without a resistant partner, useless.

BT

[MightyB]

If you did develop technical proficiency but the judo method was superior and therefore you substituted it, then you are using judo osotogari not the Tanglang equivalent. Again, nothing wrong with that at all but I don't understand how you can then compare what you are doing against other TLQ people and rate your TLQ skill higher. Not only that, who are you comparing yourself against and how are you doing it? Not every body studied in the manner that you did and it would take several years of travelling around the world for you to discover that.


Allegory - Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social, religious, or political significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.
Thus an allegory is a story with two meanings, a literal meaning and a symbolic meaning.

Don't read too much into what I write. The points I was trying to express, 1- crosstraining is good, point 2 you can do it within the framework of your style without betraying the style.

[B.Tunks]

Don't read too much into what I write. The points I was trying to express, 1- crosstraining is good, point 2 you can do it within the framework of your style without betraying the style.

I agree with both.

BT

[David Jamieson]

I agree with both.

BT

same. living it. :)

[Lokhopkuen]

With recent threads talking about how style is not needed and unimportant. It made me rethink what we consider a "Style".

1. What is a Style? What are the components that up a make a Style? Is a style different from a technique? Is "Style" just personal flavor? Is "Style' theory or principle?

2. Do we need a "Style"? Is a round kick a round kick no matter what "style"? If what I do wins every time (in the ring or street) is my style the best? What if I have no style? Is there a need for different "Styles" to martial art situations?

Your comments?

ginosifu

Style=training method.

[lance]

With recent threads talking about how style is not needed and unimportant. It made me rethink what we consider a "Style".

1. What is a Style? What are the components that up a make a Style? Is a style different from a technique? Is "Style" just personal flavor? Is "Style' theory or principle?

2. Do we need a "Style"? Is a round kick a round kick no matter what "style"? If what I do wins every time (in the ring or street) is my style the best? What if I have no style? Is there a need for different "Styles" to martial art situations?

Your comments?

ginosifu

Yes , ginosifu there is such thing as style , which evolve from different countries like Japan , china , phillipines , korea , thailand , indonesia , america , okinawa , africa . These styles all had a history , fighting and self defense techniques , which included their own punching , striking , and kicking techniques and their own use of using certain parts of the body for striking and defending . The founder of these styles all passes their own knowledge of the arts they developed down to generations of people who wanted to learn how to defend themselves and to take care of themselves through mental discipline , physical conditioning and etc , etc .

Because , every country had their own unique way of fighting and self defense .
It ' s up to the individual person themselves to really pick out what martial art they really like to learn . They can either stick to the style as a traditionalists or just pick out what techniques they really like and put it to their own personal use , and move on to the next art of their choice and do the samething . Doing this is what I call non - traditionalist . So the individual does have their own personal choices as to how they would like to approach the art of their choice .
Or the person themeselves can take the time and learn and research all the combative arts of the world and still be able use all the techniques and put it to their own advantages . When you learn more than one fighting arts you also learn more than one way of defending yourself .
And yes , you may come across one obstacle , the techniques you learn may not even work for you so before end up trashing it , experiment with the techniques first , if it works for you , fine you keep it . If it does ' nt work for you at all , no matter how much you try to make it work for you , then trash it . And the logical thing is that there is no sense trying to make the techniques work for you , eventhough it really does ' nt work for you at all . So trash it . I ' m sure the instructors will understand it .

[MightyB]

Style=training method.

I like this.

In the end - you got good kung fu or you don't.


Style is just what got you there.