Mantis Vs Wing Chun clip

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by mantis108


That's nothing inheritly wrong with this rationale especially in a self taught environment. However, this may not be the suitable approach to traditional CMA.

Shuai chiao is a traditional CMA, and it takes this approach. Why would it differ for other styles?

Openning a MA magazine today you will find almost all applications that shown are the same to the point that it's boring. This is what the principle base rationale brings. On the one hand, it makes styles more compatible. On the other hand, it makes styles lose their identity, which may or may not be of concern.

I can see your point there, however A style will not lose it's identity. principles are common things, but they don't change the essence of the style. look at the examples I showed. Also, the shearing principle is present in wing chun. will it look the exact same? heck no, because the principle is fitting within the style that is applying it. In addition to that, there are other obvious things, like footwork. My judo/sc and muay thai footwork will never look like my longfist footwork, and none of those will ever look like mantis footwork. Also, there will always be the individual style within the core style. muay thai is muay thai, however, I may prefer knees and the rear leg roundhouse, whereas my coach may prefer elbows and the front leg roundhouse.

Another problem is that it circumvents the checks and blocks there are intended for the TCMA stylists to overcome leading the student to think that he/she knows it all in a relative short time.

how? With a structured curriculum, this should not be the case.

In other words, one of the goals of TCMA is not to blinde side ourselves by following one dimensional thought pattern when dealing with TCMA training process.

I don't see how it's one dimensional. IMO, what's more one dimensional is teaching set applications for techniques. It doesn't encourage a lateral thought process. For example, you may have a sifu who teaches grabbing a strike and pulling your opponent into a strike of your own as the only application of "shoot the bow" The student may get in the habit of only using/seeing that application and never even begin to think that maybe that technique could be a fireman's carry... When you understand a principle, what you can do with it is limitless.

I don't feel stress myself. Because I know my journey and I don't have the need to look elsewhere unlike the case this particular karate club is doing. But it is their journey not mine.

Anyway, We shall see the result.

I apologize, that was a miscommunication on my part. I meant to say that the student shouldn't stress about it.

[Michael Dasargo]

You train the way you fight, and you WILL fight the way you train.

People train for various reasons...sport, hobby, survival...etc.

Follow your nature. An individuals concern should be their own personal development...which ever path that may be.

Live and let live.
M

[SevenStar]

you're very right. you will fight how you train. that's why I like the principle thought process. There are aother factors in that saying to though. You may train to hit lethal pressure points and such, but never train it against a fully resisting opponent, or never get used to dealing with full contact shots, in which case you just lessened your chances of winning. (not talking about mantis - just an example)

Also, I've seen some karate guys in my day who were used to only light contact sparring. When they got into fights, they were just tapping at their opponents and they (the karate guys) got mauled.

[mantis108]

Hi Sevenstar,

Nice rebuttal.

<<<Shuai chiao is a traditional CMA, and it takes this approach. Why would it differ for other styles?>>>

Shuai Chiao IMHO uses as different training protocol than other more common styles of Kung Fu. It is not that it is not traditional. It is just that it's approach is different. As far as I understand it, it is one of the styles that doesn't claim to have ties with Shaolin. There are basically 2 protocols or approaches to TCMA, one is short strike protocols (SSP), which is what Shuai Chiao is. The other is long fist protocols (LFP), which Shaolin styles over time adopted as the major training protocols. SSP doesn't rely on long routines (forms) while LFP is heavily into forms. Shuai Chiao being a SSP style relies heavily on principles instead. The use of routines/forms in TCMA IMHO has its ritualist root in Kalaripayattu, which is also considered as an ancient temple art originated in southwestern India and brought to China by Bodhidharma. In a sense, practicing forms is like reciting sutra, it helps to promote and concentrate devotion (as a form of love), which is one of the the main ingredients for building a style.

For reasons unknown (I could speculate but not at this time), LFP became the more popular method and gained dominance in spreading MA through out China, then Japan and the rest of the world. I would say the popularity comes from LFP appeals to a broad demographic base. SSP is demanding and strenous, which is not necessary everyone's cup of tea. Not that LFP isn't hardcore, but it has a versatility that SSP doesn't have. The truth is even scholars [re: bookworms, nerds] could appreciate forms. and they are the ones who write about things so that glories could be retold and myths are spreaded far and wide in all eternalty. lol...

So there is a notable difference as we compare styles and approaches. It would not be accurate IMHO to generalize on TCMA by grouping them as one group of MA. We have to be aware of the diversity of TCMA.

<<<I can see your point there, however A style will not lose it's identity. principles are common things, but they don't change the essence of the style. look at the examples I showed. Also, the shearing principle is present in wing chun. will it look the exact same? heck no, because the principle is fitting within the style that is applying it. In addition to that, there are other obvious things, like footwork. My judo/sc and muay thai footwork will never look like my longfist footwork, and none of those will ever look like mantis footwork. Also, there will always be the individual style within the core style. muay thai is muay thai, however, I may prefer knees and the rear leg roundhouse, whereas my coach may prefer elbows and the front leg roundhouse.>>>

I think that is a need to discern system and style. If principles transcend systems and styles, why are we having so many systems and even more styles?

<<<how? With a structured curriculum, this should not be the case.>>>

The way I see it, structured curriculum is like a skeleton. You will need the muscularture to move the skeleton. Without the muscularture, the checks and blocks that students go through, the skeleton is just a pile of bones.

<<<I don't see how it's one dimensional. IMO, what's more one dimensional is teaching set applications for techniques. It doesn't encourage a lateral thought process. For example, you may have a sifu who teaches grabbing a strike and pulling your opponent into a strike of your own as the only application of "shoot the bow" The student may get in the habit of only using/seeing that application and never even begin to think that maybe that technique could be a fireman's carry... When you understand a principle, what you can do with it is limitless.>>>

You have a point. but... In the example that you gave, I would say that it would not be the teacher's fault. The teacher did his job by teaching what the "principle" outlined as permitted within the construct of the system and/or style. It's a guideline. He definitely has the right to reserve furthering the guideline. This will bring us to the issue of the integrity of the system and of the teacher. I think that issue deserves another thread. It is nothing worse to me than a student needs me to spoon fed him/her. I don't think you can make a good figther out of a spoon fed automaton. Personally, I don't blame it on others for not seeing further. It is my solemn duty as a human being to expand and explore new grounds (within reason of course). If the teacher is a true guiding light the need for me to exlpore on my own is minimal. I will be more than happy to follow him til the very end. But I also needs to be responsible for my choices and not to blame it on others for my concious choices.

<<<I apologize, that was a miscommunication on my part. I meant to say that the student shouldn't stress about it.>>>

No offence taken, my friend, no need for apologies.

Regards

Mantis108

[Michael Dasargo]

There are aother factors in that saying to though. You may train to hit lethal pressure points and such, but never train it against a fully resisting opponent, or never get used to dealing with full contact shots, in which case you just lessened your chances of winning. (not talking about mantis - just an example)

Also, I've seen some karate guys in my day who were used to only light contact sparring. When they got into fights, they were just tapping at their opponents and they (the karate guys) got mauled. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree. Hence the statement:

You train the way you fight, and you will fight the WAY YOU TRAIN.

M

[darksands]

I didnt see any Peach Stealing!!!

[mantisben]

The Shaolin Monks had a reputation for being excellent fighters. Did they do full-contact sparring with their fellow monks?

[Tieh]

Did they?

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by mantis108

Shuai Chiao IMHO uses as different training protocol than other more common styles of Kung Fu. It is not that it is not traditional. It is just that it's approach is different. As far as I understand it, it is one of the styles that doesn't claim to have ties with Shaolin. There are basically 2 protocols or approaches to TCMA, one is short strike protocols (SSP), which is what Shuai Chiao is. The other is long fist protocols (LFP), which Shaolin styles over time adopted as the major training protocols. SSP doesn't rely on long routines (forms) while LFP is heavily into forms. Shuai Chiao being a SSP style relies heavily on principles instead. The use of routines/forms in TCMA IMHO has its ritualist root in Kalaripayattu, which is also considered as an ancient temple art originated in southwestern India and brought to China by Bodhidharma. In a sense, practicing forms is like reciting sutra, it helps to promote and concentrate devotion (as a form of love), which is one of the the main ingredients for building a style.

For reasons unknown (I could speculate but not at this time), LFP became the more popular method and gained dominance in spreading MA through out China, then Japan and the rest of the world. I would say the popularity comes from LFP appeals to a broad demographic base. SSP is demanding and strenous, which is not necessary everyone's cup of tea. Not that LFP isn't hardcore, but it has a versatility that SSP doesn't have. The truth is even scholars [re: bookworms, nerds] could appreciate forms. and they are the ones who write about things so that glories could be retold and myths are spreaded far and wide in all eternalty. lol...

So there is a notable difference as we compare styles and approaches. It would not be accurate IMHO to generalize on TCMA by grouping them as one group of MA. We have to be aware of the diversity of TCMA.

Very informative, I did not know that. Thanks!

I think that is a need to discern system and style. If principles transcend systems and styles, why are we having so many systems and even more styles?

because we are human and have individual thoughts, rather than collective. there are only so many principles, but as the shearing example showed, different people interpret it in different ways. Hence, several systems and styles. At the root, however, shearing is still shearing.

The way I see it, structured curriculum is like a skeleton. You will need the muscularture to move the skeleton. Without the muscularture, the checks and blocks that students go through, the skeleton is just a pile of bones.

I agree with that. I'm not so sure that a lack of those checks and blocks will cause the student to prematurely think he knows it all though.


You have a point. but... In the example that you gave, I would say that it would not be the teacher's fault. The teacher did his job by teaching what the "principle" outlined as permitted within the construct of the system and/or style. It's a guideline. He definitely has the right to reserve furthering the guideline. This will bring us to the issue of the integrity of the system and of the teacher. I think that issue deserves another thread. It is nothing worse to me than a student needs me to spoon fed him/her. I don't think you can make a good figther out of a spoon fed automaton. Personally, I don't blame it on others for not seeing further. It is my solemn duty as a human being to expand and explore new grounds (within reason of course). If the teacher is a true guiding light the need for me to exlpore on my own is minimal. I will be more than happy to follow him til the very end. But I also needs to be responsible for my choices and not to blame it on others for my concious choices.

nicely put.

[/B]

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by mantisben
The Shaolin Monks had a reputation for being excellent fighters. Did they do full-contact sparring with their fellow monks?

It really doesn't matter, either way.

1. training then was WAY different from what you are seeing in many schools today. They had more time, different mindsets, etc.

2. we really don't know what they're fighting was like. bozteppe is known for being a bruiser, but have you seen the footage of him fighting william cheung?

[mantisben]

Originally posted by SevenStar


It really doesn't matter, either way.
...

After what I've read on this very informative thread - excellent posts by knowledgable Martial Artists - if Shaolin Monks didn't do full-contact sparring, how did they become known for being such great fighters? Was it all simply propaganda meant to give credibility to some kind of "Fighting Monks of Shaolin" legend?

Although we don't know - at least I don't know - what their fighting was like, there are MANY accounts (legend, or otherwise) of how effective their fighting and training methods were.

Still, I'm curious as to what others might think, or know, of the effectiveness of the training methods (there were many) of Shaolin. Was their training geared towards effective combat, or was effective combat a by-product of their training?

I believe an appropriately trained Martial Artist can train in lethal strikes to vital points, and deliver them effectively and successfully, without actually killing another human-being. Without PROVING to the UFC-Reality-Fighting-I-Won't-Believe-It-'Til-I-SEE-Someone-Die-From-Such-A-Strike crowd. Would PROVING such a strike can be delivered be GOOD?

Nooo...

If someone PROVED IT, From what I know of human-nature (which isn't much), more people will seek training on how to kill a man with one strike, and they'd compete against one another and KILL each other for money and recognition, while Blood-Thirsty spectators paid to see it happen, place bets on who would be the victor, and cheer them on. Fight Promotors would encourage Martial Artists to continue to fight in such matches for the spectators entertainment, and their own Bank Accounts.

Sound familiar? It should...

I'd like to add that I don't any lethal strikes, train in any lethal strikes, or can even deliver an EFFECTIVE strike...

P.S.: The latter part of this post has nothing to do with the Wing-Chun/Praying-Mantis Sparring clip. My respect to both the Wing-Chun and the Praying Mantis Exponents.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by mantisben

if Shaolin Monks didn't do full-contact sparring, how did they become known for being such great fighters? Was it all simply propaganda meant to give credibility to some kind of "Fighting Monks of Shaolin" legend?

Although we don't know - at least I don't know - what their fighting was like, there are MANY accounts (legend, or otherwise) of how effective their fighting and training methods were.

I doubt anyone intentionally tried to start any legend. Unfortunately, I'm not a scholar on the history of shaolin - whom did they defeat that gave them such a reputation? Were they fighting trained exponents? exponents of their same style?
There are some people very knowledgable in this area on the shaolin forum - maybe we can pose this question there...


I believe an appropriately trained Martial Artist can train in lethal strikes to vital points, and deliver them effectively and successfully, without actually killing another human-being. Without PROVING to the UFC-Reality-Fighting-I-Won't-Believe-It-'Til-I-SEE-Someone-Die-From-Such-A-Strike crowd. Would PROVING such a strike can be delivered be GOOD?

The point isn't to prove anything to the world. I don't enter shiai and kickboxing matches to prove to the world that I can fight. I do it to test myself - to keep pushing myself. I know that if I'm going to win, I have to train hard, and the people wanting to be me are training just as hard. The thing with the above mentioned lethal strikes is that I can't be sure that I can do them in a fight. I know I can knee someone. I know I can roundhouse. I know I can throw someone. I know because I've done it several times, full contact against resisting opponents. I've never done an eye gouge under such circumstances, nor any pressure point/cavity strikes under those circumstances, and consequently I'm not sure I can pull them off effectively.


If someone PROVED IT, From what I know of human-nature (which isn't much), more people will seek training on how to kill a man with one strike

There's a japanese proverb: ichi-go ichi-e; one encounter, one chance. MA have been striving for a one punch kill since the inception of MA. And actually, I think there are alot of people that are capable of it. The problem is pulling it off against someone who doesn't want you to kill them. It's hard enough to kill someone with one bullet - they run, zig zag, hide behind things, etc. naturally it's much harder to do so with only your bare hands. If you train to have the power to do so, however, then you can still be assured that you will have the striking power to do plenty of damage when you do hit them. Training doesn't guarantee victory, one strike death, etc. - it only improves your chances.

and they'd compete against one another and KILL each other for money and recognition, while Blood-Thirsty spectators paid to see it happen, place bets on who would be the victor, and cheer them on. Fight Promotors would encourage Martial Artists to continue to fight in such matches for the spectators entertainment, and their own Bank Accounts.

nah. Eye gouging was actually allowed in the early UFCs, as well as alot of other things. In pride, you are still able to kick/knee a downed opponent.

[ironox]

I thought this was just 2 young students playing around. i was surprised to find that one or both are Sifu Level as stated in other replies. Very Little wing chun or mantis technique in this video.

[shenyingwu]

LoL, you guys like keeping your hands open like that, sometimes its fun to punch peopels hands when they're open, lol mess up their fingers lol

[JAFO]

Speaking from one (of many) Wing Chun perspective....

I know next to nothing about NPM, so I have no comment or opinion about that end of the encounter. My comments are directed entirely in reference to the efforts of the other participant.

I really saw no effort in actually seeking the bridge in an effort to control it, or working on collapsing the structure. I saw no footwork in support of structure, no real structure to support, no guarding of the centerline and maybe only one kick that shows up in any of the forms - a low side kick to the knee. I don't know of any circular roundhouse-type kicks in WC, I don't know of any footwork in any of the forms that involves bobbing and 'dancing'. There's definitely no tolerance for ducking or clinching under the armpit (breaks his own structure). I didn't see a single combination involving a trap, a Pak, a Lop against a bridge, an attack up the center or any attempts to pull the NPM guy off his center. If anything, it seems like he was trying to go around the center rather than through it. He definitely was not agressive enough in seeking simultaneous bridges or the preferred distance and it actually looks like he was avoiding them.

Note that none of the elements I noted above have anything to do with specific techniques and variances between the various WC lineages. I'm only commenting on the basic WC concepts and principles. Why train in a style if we aren't going to use it?

I guess what I mean to say is that I have seen Wing Chun 'sparring' (if you want to call it that) with similar levels of contact that actually looked like Wing Chun. I'd almost say that some of the older JKD fighters look more like WC than this. Step-drag up the center, kicking from structure, entering from the outside gate, going for the Lop (grab-n-pull), double bridges, moving from the outside gate to the inside to the outside again, sticking, etc.

This appears to me as something very different than from what I am familiar for Wing Chun. Although a sifu, perhaps he wasn't trying to do the WC thing - does he also train in something else on the side? Personally, if I were interested in this style of fighting, it seems like I'd perfer a kickboxing or Muy Thai or Sanshou regimen as they seem to do that much more cleanly, assertively, with better form, and with more coherent combinations. But that's just my opinion.