The problem with traditional CMA is...

[David Jamieson]

Bob-

My presentation is akin to a cane across the back of the slouching meditator.

I really ain't saying anything new. I am addressing what I see to be a real problem in tma inasmuch as they will leave behind that which is of value in favour of keeping face and all too often.

That's the driving point in my argument and I would love nothing more than to see tma step up and ktfo some dudes as is the point of martial art in the first place. However, the record shows that this is the oddity and not the norm. I believe it should be the other way around.

[KC Elbows]

The ones that dismiss it (the ones I know, anyway) dismiss it because of it's training methods. And even then, they don't dismiss ALL CMA. If you can spar and show that you cam make what you use work, they respect it.

It's my opinion that the form should be tertiary to applying the style. The style cannot be encapsulated in the form, because the style cannot be expressed unopposed, and the style cannot be encapsulated in a two man set, because no second man can be archetypal of all opponents. I think the so-called traditional approach, a title that is obviously questionable, is to train in isolation a skill that can only be gained in tandem. I find it doubtful that traditional chinese warriors in armor were so hesitant to fight unscripted as current ideas of tradition would have us believe. Especially unarmed.

[David Jamieson]

It's my opinion that the form should be tertiary to applying the style. The style cannot be encapsulated in the form, because the style cannot be expressed unopposed, and the style cannot be encapsulated in a two man set, because no second man can be archetypal of all opponents. I think the so-called traditional approach, a title that is obviously questionable, is to train in isolation a skill that can only be gained in tandem. I find it doubtful that traditional chinese warriors in armor were so hesitant to fight unscripted as current ideas of tradition would have us believe. Especially unarmed.

the martial arts of then compared to now in traditional formats are obviously quite different. The soldier versed in h2h even 100 years ago trained in a completely different fashion from the way trad schools train now. They trained to not be killed and to kill. This is not true of pretty much any ma school either either tma or mma or what have you. Unless of course you are talking about spec ops training in the various military forces in which case, killing is the focus and the training is geared towards that. Soldiers don't train to box or wrestle, they train to frag yer ass and some of them go on to refining that skill to fairly high levels that would make civ maists look like tools in many respects.

[KC Elbows]

the martial arts of then compared to now in traditional formats are obviously quite different. The soldier versed in h2h even 100 years ago trained in a completely different fashion from the way trad schools train now. They trained to not be killed and to kill. This is not true of pretty much any ma school either either tma or mma or what have you. Unless of course you are talking about spec ops training in the various military forces in which case, killing is the focus and the training is geared towards that. Soldiers don't train to box or wrestle, they train to frag yer ass and some of them go on to refining that skill to fairly high levels that would make civ maists look like tools in many respects.

I'm not sure which point you are countering of my post. It seems to me that nothing in my post precludes learning non-lethal techniques. In fact, they require even more of the kind of training I'm referring to, not more forms.

EDIT- Are you saying that tmaists are better now because they don't have to train killing techniques? Also, what modern military trains good hth people? Most of the military I've known who were good in hth were into that before they got in.

[WinterPalm]

Sevenstar, you make some good points. I admit I overgeneralize on what MMA people feel or say about TMA.

As to shadow boxing, my point was that a form contains a technique, and that when done in the form, is stretched out, in a very low stance, and performed at full speed and then abruptly stopped without hitting any surface. Similar to shadowboxing except shadowboxing is training the application from a fighting stance and although it is done for repetitions, it is not trained like in TMA. I suppose the benefit of the TMA is that the form contains the ideal, as opposed to the real. Therefore, you train this technique in such a manner so as to develop speed and strength in a compromised position so that when applied to sparring, it is very quick and has been ingrained from a compromised standpoint that fighting with it becomes so much easier to execute, of course once you get past some initial reluctance and fear.

But I certainly value shadowboxing, as I do hitting the bag and other components. But for conditioning. Take an iron ring training session. Your are in affect hitting your body and arms with iron or brass rings that are vastly harded than any other opponent you will face. This gives a definite advantage over being hit my bone, muscle, etc. IT also builds some very good concentration and determination, as do many forms. However, I am not going to sell sparring short here. Without any doubt that is integral to training in a combat art. I would not consider training without it. But the forms can give one both solo time to train similar skill sets to sparring, as does shadowboxing, but contains within, pending the discipline of the practioner is there, an example from which to draw all the components one needs to fight. Also, if one spars all the time they will both lose technique and get wrapped up in an almost tag match, which has happened to me and I've seen happen to others, and, if you are sparring people that have some skill, even with basic padding there is going to be more injuries.

Personally I can see the value in both traditional and modern approaches, and each and every one of us will find what works for them and enjoy it.

These past few posts have been very long but I'm really enjoying this thread and am articulating feelings that is giving me even more insight.

[Oso]

All nice posts, all thought-provoking ideas...all missing the mark.

The problem with Traditional Chinese Martial Arts is that..(ready?).......

THEY ARE NOT BEING TAUGHT TRADITIONALLY !!!!!!!

I really have to credit Dixon Fung for this, as it comes from a conversation we had awhile back. Basically, you need to look at history.
In ancient China when kingdom fought kingdom, do you think that they taught forms first, or drills, drills, drills, fighting application,etc?
Fast forward to when China fought Ming vs Ching Dynasty-if you trained your soldiers, would you teach forms firs, or drills,drills,drills, and fighting application?
Fast forward again, Euraopeans invade, China is fighting in the streets, do you teach your men forms first, or drills, drills, drills, and fighting application?
Fast forward again, school fighting school-do you teach your students forms first, or drills, drills, drills and fighting application? (you see a pattern yet?)
Ok, fast forward one more time..to the past 50 or so years..
You are no longer fighting for your lives, you are fighting to promote

.......................................snip....... ........................................

Philosophy can help you understand yourself, others around you who get lost in the world of materialism, and how we get distracted by clinging to twisted beliefs.
But it is not to get caught up in being Kwai Chang Caine, or Bruce LeRoy.
It is there to help you get through the tempering of the spirit. "To strengthen the steel, you must first put it through fire."
This is TRADITIONAL CHINESE MARTIAL ARTS
. And when done correctly, when done traditionally,
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH TRADITIONAL CHINESE MARTIAL ARTS !!!!!!

great post...

I don't ever go on too much about my early training. It was supposed to be Hung Gar. The thing is, when I finally met someone else, a couple of years after not learning from that teacher any more, and told them I had studied hung gar for 7 years they asked to see a particular form....I was like...uhhh, I never learned any...and so I was told that I couldn't have been learning hung gar if I didn't know any forms.

it was as TT says...drills, drills, drills...and then some more drills then fighting.

I was doing 'kung fu' for 8 or more years before i learned a form...

[MonkeySlap Too]

Hmmm, it depends on the CMA. There are some methods require that you develop a certain structure or physic first, and only then can you drill. Before that basic level is acheived, you are considered pretty useless.

Ironically, these are the CMA I respect the most.

But yeah, this forms obsession, it's destroyed CMA. I've had people come to me and 'show' me all the 'styles' they 'knew'. Then I'd invite onto the floor to see how eight years of forms without true training in those systems fares against an eight-month student. It's never pretty, but at least it is fast.

[David Jamieson]

kc- i wasn't countering your post, i was standing on it.

I shoulda probably been a little further back than the widespread use of the gun to define h2h training or weapons training or even more specifically, martial training in military forces. Although, even after this there was still close combat training.

Nowadays, training is centred on marksmanship moreso than h2h and you are correct, a lot of guys who are into it are into it already. Though there is, at least where I live, training that addresses close combat skills in the specialty levels following bootcamp.

The body conditioning methods of kungfu are imo one of the gems of it, the tactical alive applications are not so much methodologically speaking. Seeing as there isn't a lot of alive training in many systems of chinese martial arts. At least, it doesn't seem so until much time has passed.

Not forgetting that there are a lot of people in many martial arts schools who themselves do not want to fight and do not even want to experience what it is like. They are there for more esoteric reasons or perhaps it is fair to say some are just trying it out, scoping it, that kind of thing. Probably every school has at least one or two players that can bang though. More often than not it is these same guys who are into martial art, for the martial part.

streamlining and making your system work in a combat or sportive combative setting is a challenge and it is an important level in anyones training. I feel a lot of traditionalists are missing the bus on this these days. But I also see that maybe the momentum of what's going on may change some of these ways of thinking and modalities of training.

But the conditioning methods in trad shaolin, or goju, or a number of other ancient arts are good. If you have to be a punching bag, you may as well be able to take it.

[KC Elbows]

Hmmm, it depends on the CMA. There are some methods require that you develop a certain structure or physic first, and only then can you drill. Before that basic level is acheived, you are considered pretty useless.

Ironically, these are the CMA I respect the most.

Would you say in most such systems, the physics you're talking about is usually contained in a series of chi kungs, and the forms are usually just those chi kungs applied over and over with slight variations that could be implied in the chi kungs?

For example, the palm changes in pa kua, or the five fists in hsing yi.

[KC Elbows]

kc- i wasn't countering your post, i was standing on it.
Nowadays, training is centred on marksmanship moreso than h2h and you are correct, a lot of guys who are into it are into it already. Though there is, at least where I live, training that addresses close combat skills in the specialty levels following bootcamp.

To be sure, the same is true all over. A friend of mine was a recon marine, and trained recon marines after that. He was very skilled hand to hand, but he came to them already more skilled in hth than the training was intended to make him. While he picked up some basic ground work, he was a greater asset to them as a hth trainer than they were to him in that field. Many members of his unit went to train with him when they got out. While he is a better hth fighter than me, the others from that unit are not generally as good. This is not a slam on them, or me bragging, but simply due to the fact that, while they certainly had more hth than boot camp, there is a limit to what modern militaries place on hth.

streamlining and making your system work in a combat or sportive combative setting is a challenge and it is an important level in anyones training. I feel a lot of traditionalists are missing the bus on this these days. But I also see that maybe the momentum of what's going on may change some of these ways of thinking and modalities of training.

To be sure. However, I think, because it is easier to simply train forms oneself, and train others on forms, and never touch the heartof the system, that will always be the tendency, so that forms based kung fu styles will always have a problem with that. On the flip side, many krav maga schools are no more martial- they simply practice applications endlessly without any more aliveness. So I guess there is a flip side.

[MaxwellUppercut]

Well i dont know maybe ive just been lucky to find a good school, which is Jim Fungs wing chun school in sydney, and after doing that for awhile i must say it ticks me off all these people saying that kung fu is to flowery etc and does not work in real fights, because i know that the people at decent levels in that school truly kick ass. But the main problem i think with most wing chun fighters is they think " I dont train in ground fighting because no one can take me to the ground" Well in some ways they have a point, because one of my friends is high level in wing chun and its preety much impossible to take him to the ground with out getting smashed real badly, but what if your in a multiple attacker situation and one of them tackles you to the ground from behind? Then the wing chun fighter is going to get slammed., no matter whether they can kill someone with one punch ( Which many can ). So i would say learn to grapple as well, because its actually really cool and turns you into a psychotic fighter, hehehehe some of the moves make you feel like an assasin, just sneak up behind someone put them in a choke hold and drag them off into the bushes in complete silence........ hehehehe i like it .

[David Jamieson]

Well i dont know maybe ive just been lucky to find a good school, which is Jim Fungs wing chun school in sydney, and after doing that for awhile i must say it ticks me off all these people saying that kung fu is to flowery etc and does not work in real fights, because i know that the people at decent levels in that school truly kick ass. But the main problem i think with most wing chun fighters is they think " I dont train in ground fighting because no one can take me to the ground" Well in some ways they have a point, because one of my friends is high level in wing chun and its preety much impossible to take him to the ground with out getting smashed real badly, but what if your in a multiple attacker situation and one of them tackles you to the ground from behind? Then the wing chun fighter is going to get slammed., no matter whether they can kill someone with one punch ( Which many can ). So i would say learn to grapple as well, because its actually really cool and turns you into a psychotic fighter, hehehehe some of the moves make you feel like an assasin, just sneak up behind someone put them in a choke hold and drag them off into the bushes in complete silence........ hehehehe i like it .

The clinch can often lead to the ground. Maybe your friend hasn't come up against a decent shooter yet who can also get to the ground quickly.

The ranges being stand-up/clinch/ground are not all dealt with in tma systems.

mma deals with all these ranges and likely, kungfu should too.

[AndyM]

mma deals with all these ranges and likely, kungfu should too.

It's all there if you know where to look.

MMA is an approach to training, whereas Kung Fu, while it should perhaps literally mean the same, is taken by most to mean fancy silk pyjamas and mysterious rituals.

There's many an internet MMA dude who should be wearing pyjamas (tucked up with Teddy and kissed goodnight by mommy).
It's easier for them to see Kung Fu in these terms than look any deeper.

It's all evolution.
Who cares who invented the wheel?
We all use them, so let's just get on with it.

[David Jamieson]

It's all there if you know where to look.

MMA is an approach to training, whereas Kung Fu, while it should perhaps literally mean the same, is taken by most to mean fancy silk pyjamas and mysterious rituals.

There's many an internet MMA dude who should be wearing pyjamas (tucked up with Teddy and kissed goodnight by mommy).
It's easier for them to see Kung Fu in these terms than look any deeper.

It's all evolution.
Who cares who invented the wheel?
We all use them, so let's just get on with it.

I agree, there's a lot of wannabe this and that's on the net, but all internet posturing aside I would have to say It's not all there despite how hard you look. There is something there and there is a lot of good stuff and yes, it's the approach to training and even more importantly, the method.

There are also some kungfu clubs that do make the bridge and maintain both the traditional and the modern aspect of martial art. I can think of a couple of kungfu sifu who take this walk and have had pretty good success in both areas. But for the most part, there is still too much face game and not enough free application of tactics in kungfu systems. It is the heirarchical structure, face games, and a few other factors that bar this in many cases. Face games are imo one of the greatest hinderances to the growth of chinese martial arts and the ushering of them into their seat as a top line of study for martial proficiency.

In the meantime, long time ractitioners of traditional will continue to be schooled in the combat venues until they get over that hump.

[Oso]

Hmmm, it depends on the CMA. There are some methods require that you develop a certain structure or physic first, and only then can you drill. Before that basic level is acheived, you are considered pretty useless.

Ironically, these are the CMA I respect the most.

But yeah, this forms obsession, it's destroyed CMA. I've had people come to me and 'show' me all the 'styles' they 'knew'. Then I'd invite onto the floor to see how eight years of forms without true training in those systems fares against an eight-month student. It's never pretty, but at least it is fast.

not sure if this was a response to my last post or not...

we certainly did conditioning: lot's of horse, lot's of body striking...getting hit or kicked in the body was 'punishment' for doing something wrong. My old teacher was a freak about control. If you went harder OR lighter then exactly what he said then we got in a horse, did a specific chi kung and then he hit you in the belly. It started as back fists with the whole arm then went to round kicks and eventually straight kicks as we got better.

It's been a while but I seem to remember that as we were taught strikes and blocks they were paired (this strike needs this block etc.) then there was a lot of repetition of each strike w/ each block. Then it would be two attacks in succesion each being answered by a block...then three...then four....this was done at first stationary then as a line drill then as a randomly moving drill...by the time we were randomly moving and doing 3 and 4 step combinations we were basically sparring and then free sparring was just a step beyond that.



Forms: yea, I spend a lot of time wondering about that. I generally don't care how my students LOOK when doing the forms as long as they get how the movements are supposed to work. But then, I have the students who are only interested in the exercise and not the fighting so I tend to try to get them to LOOK better and the students who want to learn to use it to understand it more by way of drills and sparring.