Need to drop stereotypes of CMA
Quote:
Now unfortunately this usually isn't the case with most trad martial arts - so what you have to consider is this, are low contact drills or sparring in the kwoon as realistic as an actual NHB fight in a ring? Which is closer to reality?
Our school practices full contact and was doing so long before the UFC came along. The idea that cma dont do full contact, well for the most part in the US they dont, they have either been commercialized into the sport dance BS or some Karate practioners learned a butterfly kick and proclaims to be a KF instructor. I have gone to most of the KF school in my area and found none have full contact sparring sessions.
Quote:
The closer you train to reality, the better and more prepared you will be for reality i.e. if you want to learn how to swim, you swim. With fighting, it is oft frowned upon to go out and pick fights, so your training has to be as close to reality as possible.
I'm not of the oppinion that UFC style training does not prepare you to fight, but training for UFC or any event with rules trains you to confine your thought patterns within the rules. And although we do not maim each other at our school we don't have a set of rules when it comes to sparring. Common sense and benevolence toward your peers is the only principle. This frees the mind to persue any and all techniques up to a point in their execution, rather then eliminating them all together. Unlike the UFC a nut shot is completely fine, because you are expected to know how to protect them when you become eligible to spar.
Quote:
Strange that you would be so bad at figuring, considering that is the mainstay of your training.
What is funny you MMA guys think MMA is something new when MA systems have been training like this for centuries. The Shaolin Monastary (before the PRC version) is well known for exchanging knowledge with other MA systems. It not the idea of MMA that is idiocy just the idea that it is something new.
who wins a fight is dependent on many things, training, heart, tenacity, conditioning etc.. All BJJ'ers or MMA practioners are not going to get the best of all KF pracitioners and vice versa. To think that a KF pracitioner cant get the best of a BJJer or MMA is just ignorance. If you base your assumption on the UFC or MMA your limiting your hypothesis to a miniority in the MA community.
Re: Need to drop stereotypes of CMA
Quote:
Originally posted by reemul
Our school practices full contact and was doing so long before the UFC came along. The idea that cma dont do full contact, well for the most part in the US they dont, they have either been commercialized into the sport dance BS or some Karate practioners learned a butterfly kick and proclaims to be a KF instructor. I have gone to most of the KF school in my area and found none have full contact sparring sessions.
it's not only commercialized schools that don't spar. It's no secret that many traditional schools shun sparring for various reasons, and that applies to japanese styles as well as chinese. In japan, it was actually a SPORT style introduced sparring.
I'm not of the oppinion that UFC style training does not prepare you to fight, but training for UFC or any event with rules trains you to confine your thought patterns within the rules. And although we do not maim each other at our school we don't have a set of rules when it comes to sparring. Common sense and benevolence toward your peers is the only principle. This frees the mind to persue any and all techniques up to a point in their execution, rather then eliminating them all together. Unlike the UFC a nut shot is completely fine, because you are expected to know how to protect them when you become eligible to spar.
In all actuality, there is nothing wrong with confining your thought patterns, as you put it. How long have you trained? In that time, how many techniques have you learned? Of those, how many have you mastered? Of those, how many do you use in EVERY sparring session? I bet your thought patterns are fairly confined also, when you look at it that way.
As far as eliminating techniques, how necessary are the techniques that are eliminated? Keeping with your example of a nut shot, those often times are not fight enders. Adrenaline does a good job of hiding pain of such things. I've taken a nut shot in a fight, and didn't feel it until after the fight. Consequently, it didn't do the guy much good. These techniques that your thought patterns aren't confined to really don't leave you any better off than me, for example.
What is funny you MMA guys think MMA is something new when MA systems have been training like this for centuries.
No we don't, however, no they haven't. Not all of them, anyway. Many styles did hard contact drilling, but not actual sparring, particularly battlefield styles. They were learning to kill and could not practice such techniques safely.
The Shaolin Monastary (before the PRC version) is well known for exchanging knowledge with other MA systems. It not the idea of MMA that is idiocy just the idea that it is something new.
Once again, we don't claim it's anything new. However, it's odd that these centuries old systems that were founded on such exchanges in large part no longer do them....
who wins a fight is dependent on many things, training, heart, tenacity, conditioning etc.. All BJJ'ers or MMA practioners are not going to get the best of all KF pracitioners and vice versa. To think that a KF pracitioner cant get the best of a BJJer or MMA is just ignorance. If you base your assumption on the UFC or MMA your limiting your hypothesis to a miniority in the MA community.
you're turning this thread into something it's not. nobody brought that up.
Depends on what you train for
Quote:
In all actuality, there is nothing wrong with confining your thought patterns, as you put it. How long have you trained? In that time, how many techniques have you learned? Of those, how many have you mastered? Of those, how many do you use in EVERY sparring session? I bet your thought patterns are fairly confined also, when you look at it that way.
I think you and I are just coming from two different schools of thought here. In Shaolin KF You strive to free your mind so that all you practice comes forth without effort without conflict and without hesitation.
Given your practice as stated, it seems to me the focus is on primarily the physical, conditioning. The mindset seems to be for every attack there are specific counters. (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Re: Depends on what you train for
Quote:
Originally posted by reemul
I think you and I are just coming from two different schools of thought here. In Shaolin KF You strive to free your mind so that all you practice comes forth without effort without conflict and without hesitation.
Given your practice as stated, it seems to me the focus is on primarily the physical, conditioning. The mindset seems to be for every attack there are specific counters. (please correct me if I'm wrong).
no, that's dead wrong. you are taught to be quite spontaneous. But, as I mentioned in the post you quoted, you aren't gonna master all of your techniques, and you won't be using them all either. so you are limited in what you will do. If you only train a willow palm a few times a week, or only in your forms, you won't use one in a fight, most likely. Take a judo practitioner. There are over 60 throws in the judo curriculum.
The avg competitor masters maybe three of them, and has about 8 that he will use on a regular basis. others he will use on occasion if the opportunity is blatantly presented, and there are some techniques that he will never use. the techniques they use are used quite spontaneously, but after years of competing, you have certain techniques you prefer and use most often. for example, when someone attempts a throw where they must turn their back to me, I usually counter with tani otoshi. Do I have to? know. I know more than that one. But, I do that one so much that 90% of the time it just automatically comes out. The only art I've seen dealing with specific counters is kenpo.
Re: Not much to logic here
Quote:
Originally posted by reemul
MA Technique is science, if you do it right it will work.
Not really. Let's not forget that the science is a double edged sword. your technique may be perfectly correct, but if mine is also and I counter, then your technique didn't work. Perhaps MA isn't an exact science...
There is no time machine that is going to take you back to a time when the techniques had proven themselves to make you believers and it wouldn't matter any way to see someone else do it.
Here we go with the living in the past thing again... I really don't care what wong fei hung, chang tung sheng, harry wu, su dong chen or anyone else could do - can you reproduce their results? If not, then you really don't know that their technique will work for you - you are merely theorizing. That applies to any MA. If I had never stepped into a ring or competed in a shiai, I wouldn't know that MT or judo techniques were working for me, or which ones suit me best. I would only be theorizing based on what I have been taught. I prefer to have tested those theories BEFORE I am confronted in the street.
It seems your arguments are based on the fact that you have not witnessed the techniques in question. Nothing said here in the forums is going to change that.
tha's not true either. I don't have to apply an arm bar fully to know I can break your arm with it - that's obvious. I don't have to poke your eyes out to know that an eye gouge can be effective. That's obvious also. BUT, the difference between those two techniques is that I utilize an armbar every single day in class. I know that I can get myself in position to use that technique against a fully resisting opponent. You can't say the same about flesh ripping, eye gouges, etc. because you really have no safe way to train them.