From my research , teachings, and practice I have found that CMA does have groundwork . What does everyone think about the existance of CMA groundwork? Not as sport but as an actual application of the material that we are taught.
Registered User
From my research , teachings, and practice I have found that CMA does have groundwork . What does everyone think about the existance of CMA groundwork? Not as sport but as an actual application of the material that we are taught.
Loud City
CMA groundwork is based on the assumption that if you fall down, the other guy will not follow you to the ground to wrestle. So, it's mostly attacks from the ground targeting a standing opponent, or movements to devised to get back on your feet as quickly as possible once you hit the ground.
Master of Chu Bagua
Or, in an even worse trend, CMA guys with no clue as to how technical groundfighting is watch the UFC too much and figure they know how to fight on the ground when the guy follows him or falls with him, or imitates ground and pound by jumping on top of him, and they end up brawling on the floor, whereas a controlled and calm BJJ guy would make mincemeat out of him without breaking a sweat.
That's my experience anyways. I remember in that first little bit of BJJ I was introduced to by a very good BJJ school, the black belts (2 of 'em in that class) would trounce you in a second, and they'd be so calm, whereas I and the other beginners were huffing and puffing with even the blue belts. You learn how technical it is very quickly. And untrained CMA guys just seem to imitate, with no strategy whatsoever, and therefore pretty much sucks on the ground. Not all of 'em. But most of what I've seen.
I learned some maneuvers on the ground in CMA. Never have someone to practice them with, and never had detailed instruction in how to employ them....so they're pretty much useless. My assessment is pretty much MK's, but I'm not as experienced, so maybe my opinion isn't as well informed.
I fell into that trap before I cross-trained a little in BJJ (very briefly), and then realized I had no friggin' clue what I was doing afterwards. So I stopped that bad habit right away--aiming for the ground. I started trying to keep on my feet when those other guys go for sloppy takedowns and such, to punish them. But when I hit the floor, I try to use the basics I learned (or, didn't learn), and treat it like a learning experience, just to get the feel of it.
Last edited by Shaolin Wookie; 06-17-2007 at 11:49 AM.
Registered User
I do not believe that this is correct. It just does not fall into accordance with Chinese philosophies.Originally Posted by MasterKiller
If kung fu is well rounded and is based on Taoist yinyang principle then there would be many combinations. yang yang or both standing( greater yang ), yin yang one grounded and one standing ( lesser yin), yang yin one standing and one grounded (lesser yang ), or yin yin both grounded (greater yin).
This is the greater and lesser aspects of yinyang principle.
The combinations of yin yang or yang yin would be determined by which of the fighters was the weaker or stronger one on the ground or standing up.
I train UFC.
The art I study has ground fighting. It is not similar to BJJ but it is there. It is based on takedown defense, and striking from the bottom position, with some sweeps thrown in. There is also strikes from one's back at a standing opponent that is trying to get on top of you.
Further, we have takedowns and trips that utilize the mount and especially side-control with arm locks and striking. Often times the best way to neutralize someone is to take them down, bind them up, and subdue them. Utilizing the ground or a wall is very ideal for the application of any type of joint lock and so we train in that aspect as well.
A unique snowflake
Registered User
I do not understand how it is that many CMArtist can say that their art has no ground fighting other than what they bring into it from other styles . The philosophical principles, if applied to the art properly, proves that it does.
I would have to say that it is a lost or extinct aspect of the art for the most part.
How can animal styles not have ground work ??? Most animals are on all fours or on their bellies. It just does not make sense.
Not failing to mention the internal styles of Ba Gua Zhang , Tai Ji Quan , and Xin Yi Quan.
All these arts work with spheres and /or parts of spheres. If you know anything about these arts you know that you are walking in and out and around a sphere.
Why would/ do you think these same techniques can not /do not work on the ground??
If you say that they use only circular movements and not spherical movements then you are only thinking in a limited dimension world. Which is not reality.
They are multi-dimensional and work on all three planes of motion.
Your axis( spine ), dan tien( center of gravity ) appendages, brain, organs, etc ( tools) are in the same place whether you are standing or on the ground.
Master of Chu Bagua
I think CMA doesn't do groundfighting in the usual modern sense. Small joint manipulation doesn't count, nowadays. Sure, a groundfighter will say: I can manipulate your joints, too. But that's just like a CMA'ist saying: hey, I can brawl like a brute on the ground, too. They're ****ed good at getting large joint manipulations that would end a fight with more permanence (armbars, knee locks, ankle locks, etc), but a good finger lock or finger bite is highly underrated, and opens up a very good weakness to exploit.They're faster, and if you're good, you can control the body with the smallest part. Plus, many groundfighters will leave these parts and weaknesses wide open (it is true, and I have seen it firsthand many times). Unfortunately, I didn't have a camera on hand to videotape those classes and sessions.
Where small joint manipulation is allowed, a good ground CMAist could break a hand, finger, or wrist pretty quickly. It would pretty much derail the groundfight.
I think it's the difference in waging a war of attrition (small, cripppling damages) vs. a war of complete and utter surrender (armbar). IF you can do both, you're 10X better.
My CMA teacher once demonstrated many groundfighting techniques he could change into (all of them submission based, including armbars, etc.) from a common wrist lock that's pretty easy to apply. All of it was CMA. I was pretty much screwed from the moment the small joint-lock was in place.
Last edited by Shaolin Wookie; 06-17-2007 at 01:06 PM.
Loud City
Too bad reality doesn't support your theory.
Registered User
No , it is too bad YOUR REALITY does not support THIS FACT. So explain to us why it does not??
Loud City
It's your fruity theory, you do the explaining.
Registered User
I believe Masterkiller is right on the money. It's "culturally" not preferrable (ungentleman like behavior) to wrestle a down opponent. There is no binding "philosophies" to say that TCMA should not or thou shalt not ground fight using TCMA. However, there isn't yet a TCMA style that have developed a proficient ground fighting (positional dominance) methodology. Most styles have something as Masterkiller have said pop up from the ground, ground kicks, or ground & pound. There are some rudimentary side control/knee on belly esque and primitive mount stuff but not enough to rival BJJ ground grappling specialist IMHO.
I also believe that it is a gross misuse of the Yinyang principle here. Yinyang and Wuxing theories, or worldview of Yijing (classic of change) for that matter, can definitely be applied in groundfighting. But that's for people who are interested in more advanced academic pursuit once they have a solid working knowledge of ground fight (positional dominance with submission skill). It is not as superficial as outlined I would caution. It doesn't really help to mystify both fighting and philosophical work even if it is possible to consolidated as one IMHO.
Just a thought
Mantis108
Contraria Sunt Complementa
對敵交手歌訣
凡立勢不可站定。凡交手須是要走。千着萬着﹐走為上着﹐進為高着﹐閃賺騰挪為
妙着。
CCK TCPM in Yellowknife
TJPM Forum
Registered User
Ba Gua Zhang alone to prove that CMA has groundwork. I will use the philosophical , psychological and the physiological aspects of Taoism to prove what should already be known to the practitioners and masters of this art.
.....By the way, there is nothing mystical about it.
I could also use ground dragon , monkey, and many other styles.
Yin /yang principle can be used to describe all the dual aspects of our existence.
Standup fighting / groundfighting. Real basic ,not too hard to figure out, and is exactly how it is used.
I am truelly amazed about the fact that this aspect of the art is soooooo lost or unheard of by all of you.
Guess your schools do not teach the 3 "p's" of the arts. The philosophy of Taoism alone rules the Internal arts.
This is tooo funny.
Unregistered User
agreed
why would you follow your opponent to the ground when you can just stab him with your straight sword...
A man has only one death. That death may be as weighty as Mt. Tai, or it may be as light as a goose feather. It all depends upon the way he uses it....
~Sima Qian
Master pain, or pain will master you.
~PangQuan
"Just do your practice. Who cares if someone else's practice is not traditional, or even fake? What does that have to do with you?"
~Gene "The Crotch Master" Ching
You know you want to click me!!
Unregistered User
to me, it seems that the link between stand up and the ground has been utterly lost or forgotten by the majority of CMA practitioners.
this blame falls on the masters.
all the more reason to cross train.
seriously, how many CMA schools out there can actually claim as extensive of a ground fighting/submission program as your average MMA school can?
show me one, then show me proof, then ill still doubt you....
A man has only one death. That death may be as weighty as Mt. Tai, or it may be as light as a goose feather. It all depends upon the way he uses it....
~Sima Qian
Master pain, or pain will master you.
~PangQuan
"Just do your practice. Who cares if someone else's practice is not traditional, or even fake? What does that have to do with you?"
~Gene "The Crotch Master" Ching
You know you want to click me!!
Omnipotence rules
So, you accept that someone could come up with 'evidence', yet you have entirely no interest in examining it? Since you have clearly shown your willingness to stack the deck on this question for your position, why would anyone want to bring evidence to you in the first place?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote