The problem with traditional CMA is...

[AndyM]

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.

You contradict yourself in those two paragraphs.

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.

Possibly indicitave of your own, if not most people heres experience, but there are a fortunate few, amongst which I do not really count myself, whose experience is different.

[David Jamieson]

You contradict yourself in those two paragraphs.





Possibly indicitave of your own, if not most people heres experience, but there are a fortunate few, amongst which I do not really count myself, whose experience is different.

Not sure where I contradict myself by saying that there are a few that made or are making the bridge to realistic tactical application of the art form that is their system of kungfu. imo and personal observation, this is not true of the greater majority of the whole.

Secondly, I've already pointed at a few of the flaws in teh methodology of my own and have also indicated that this is a trend in most of the schools I've visited, and practitioenrs from those schools.

there are one or two exceptions to the rule in tma, but I'd reiterate that the classical mess is still just that.

[MaxwellUppercut]

Well my friend who does wing chun also does grappling, so he is a bit of a monster on the ground as well as standing up. But you know how hard it is to get a good wing chun fighter into a clinch situation, its preety much impossible trust me, i try to get him into a clinch so i can trip him and take him to the ground but he is just to skill full, i really cant do it he always traps me or just throws me off because the angles in his arms are so perfect. So i always just end up taking him down by going for his ankles and takling him by surprise, this works but then he kicks my ass in grappling too Oh well one day ill beat him. But Jim Fungs school is actually having confrences in china where there thinking about adding ground fighting techniques into the style which also use wing chun principles, i hope they do, that would be really cool, but i wonder how it would work?

[SifuAbel]

So to put this thread in a nutshell (and hopefully to bed) we can say that it boils down to:

1: Schools that don't fight.

2: Schools that don't train with the fighting spirit as the mission, regardless of "method".

3: Schools that don't fight with hard contact at some point.

4: Circular, endless, tangent, "reasoning" as shown above.

[MaxwellUppercut]

circular, endless tangent reasoning.... sorry i dont get it....

[AndyM]

Not sure where I contradict myself by saying that there are a few that made or are making the bridge to realistic tactical application of the art form that is their system of kungfu. imo and personal observation, this is not true of the greater majority of the whole.

Then just say some Kung Fu good, most Kung Fu bad.
It saves a lot of time and Waffles.

[TenTigers]

Hey guys, this isn't a new concept. The expression,"Fa Kuen, Sow Geurk"-"Flower Fists, Embroidered Feet" has been in CMA for eons. Evidently others have also spent lots of time and waffles.
(time and waffles? WTF does that mean?)

[AndyM]

(time and waffles? WTF does that mean?)

It means- say what you mean without attempting to baffle the casual viewer with literary ambivalence, while at the same time reccomending a lower Carbohydrate diet.
Sorry if that has a negative affect on anyones store of Chi.

Speak plain, know what you are talking about, and cut the crap!

[David Jamieson]

andy-

language allows us to go into detail.

too say some kungfu good, most bad. is not exactly the point i am trying to make because frankly, it all has potential to be very good.

my points are indicating a need for change and are soliciting feedback in regards to how to make that change.

there is nothing wrong with being erudite and certainly nothing wrong with using the appropriate words to express the detail idea.

It is not the failing of the speaker that the listener may not completely understand but it is up to the speaker to massage the message so that the wider audience may understand it.

Did you have trouble understanding anything here because someone was waxing eloquent in their verbiage on the matter?

Leave the dumbing down to others. I prefer to speak to the level of the audience that is reading this stuff or listening to it. Imo, many here if not the majority are more than capable of understanding complexity in ones way of presenting their ideas.

[AndyM]

andy-


Did you have trouble understanding anything here because someone was waxing eloquent in their verbiage on the matter?

Classic example of what provoked me to respond right there!
You need a surgical team (maybe with time travelling equipment) to extract you from your own arse.

I can understand you fine, but you are the stereotypical example of what is wrong with Kung Fu.

You feel the need to dress up even your words in fancy silk pyjama's and perform literary flips and tumbles before simply saying Yes or No.

Leave the dumbing down to others. I prefer to speak to the level of the audience that is reading this stuff or listening to it. Imo, many here if not the majority are more than capable of understanding complexity in ones way of presenting their ideas.

Yes, but you make it a tedious procedure, by using vocabulary and grammar one does not yet comprehend.

[David Jamieson]

TCMA is for killing and not for sport. For example:

- long weapon fight
- short weapon fight
- dagger fight
- flying dagger throwing and dodging
- one against many fight
- group fight
- entering strategy
- finish strategy

Which do not exist in most of the foreign MA.

There are 3 level of fighting:

- friendly challenge
- tournament competation
- survival

TCMA has them all.

Whether one trains all those situation or not is individual's problem but not the problem of TCMA.

The TCMA forms competation is the major problem. After one had won gold metals in the form competation and people start to call him "master", he would be afriad to compete in fighting for the rest of his life.

Before the age of 30, anybody should not concern about winning or losing. It's just the period of time to "accumulate experience". Everybody would lose in his earlier stage. Hopefully, he will have more winning and less losing when time goes by.

Lose face? compare to Geroge Bush, all American are loser because there is only one president in US.

If we put the whole earth population in one ring, there will be only one winner came out of that ring. After that person is dead, the whole earth are full of "losers".

foreign ma? tcma is foreign ma to most people on this board.

also, f16's, f18's the gun in all it's variations and the associated skills with using them in tactical situations are much more efficient ways of killing than spears and daggers. So, in that sense, tcma is like a rendezvous black powder club when it comes to "killing". Hardly effective or efficient in that sense and if the boxer rebellion taught us anything, it's that tcma is not the best way to advance your cause through violence.

in other words, tcma has almost 0 role in ones survival, but certainly is a great candidate for adaptation into more sportiveness and venues of that like as opposed to being some esoteric back room delusion as is so often portrayed in regards to the realities of life and death.

There's no time to find that Kwan Dao in a street fight.

Forms and how they are doled out, explained and taught is indeed part of the problem. I think that has been addressed fairly thoroughly in this thread.

the competition format of tma in general is all too often goofy politics perpetrated by those who arrange these competitions. They are not put forward as what they are and they are dressed up as something they are not.

AndyM- I have no idea what you're going on about other than you are asking me to dumb down what I say. I don't think it's required. The more distinct and targeted the verbiage, the less likely the phrase is subject to interpretation ergo the intention and meaning of the message is more intact for the reader for the most part.

I think people get it. But if you have a personal problem with it, then that's your's to own and isn't really my concern. What can I say, read more? Go back to school? I don't know, I'm ok with adult conversation and a higher level usage of the language.

[negativecr33p]

David Jamieson said:



I basically agree with most of this...and my purpose is to expand upon the thought, not contest the post.

so, a list of random, incohesive thoughts on the subject:

There is a problem is lack of 'pressure testing' the techniques.

There is a problem of over complication of movement.

There is a problem of 'traditionalists' argueing that CMA needs to be 'maintained' with no changes.

There is the problem with ego that, IMO, stems from not getting your ass whupped enough times because you've never stepped up.

I think Judo is a great example of a traditional art that went modern. Judo is the result of the modernization of a traditional art that culminated in a martial style that can stand the test of the street as well as the ring.

CMA is not going to get anywhere if the only people we ever fight are other CMA peeps.

................


I'm probably going to get called names and otherwise catch a bunch of crap by uber traditionalists and probably be told that I really don't know CMA...but that's fine.

The one point, I diverge on from David's post is that I still believe that TCMA can be used as an effective fighting method against any other method, the training paradigm needs to change though.

My goal is to take my traditional kung fu and make it work and more importantly, at this stage of my life, make it work for my students.

Thank you. I completely agree. http://www.jkd-kbh.dk/sbg2.wmv

[WinterPalm]

That last clip was hilarious! Thanks for posting that it made my day!

[SifuAbel]

Round and round we go, where it stops, nobody knows..................

"There is a problem is lack of 'pressure testing' the techniques.'

Dainty words for hard sparring. NEXT! This has been said a billion times.

"There is a problem of over complication of movement."

To me kung fu is rather straight forward and simple. All I see are blocks, strikes, kicks, throws and locks. There is plenty of variation in all; but so what?
You can get caught up in making it overcomplicated or not. Thats not the style's fault.

"Change"

This usaully means making things sloppy. Change what? A clean punch to a sloppy one? A clean kick to a sloppy one? Change from no sparring to hard sparring?(which is a given) To go from having many options to just a few?

This is where the "dumbing down" begins. Suddenly, its O.K. to do less and less.

I asked for a specific example of what you are trying to convey. So far its just vague generalizations.

[Shaolinlueb]

or how about

theres nothing wrong with CMA. sorry if you have had a bad experience.