Claims about MMA

[Fu-Pow]

To put it simply all MMA is, is a "back to basics" TMA approach with the addition of
advanced groundfighting skills (which were never really a part of TMA whether for historical or other reasons.)

"Back to basics"=emphasis on conditioning, sparring and realistic drills vs. the current emphasis on forms and unrealistic application training.


Reply]
Umm, didn't i reacently say just this very thing, almost word for word somewhere on the forum?

Yes, I'm partially paraphrasing what you wrote, good stuff. "Back to basics" is a generic term though. I think I added the part about groundfighting.

FP

[MasterKiller]

The Taiji shoulder strike would be from a standing position typically directed at the center of the chest. Rather than twisting the upper body horizontally, the upper body is kind of rolled vertically and the shoulder slams straight in.
FP

That's similar to how it is applied while "pummeling" for inside position to create space.

Pummeling is when two fighters are standing, are clinched, and they are "swimming" their arms to get both of them on the inside of other's clinch.

Ross even covers it like that on his Punching and Clinching DVD, and uses Xing Yi as the comparison point between CMA and wrestling.

[Fu-Pow]

That's similar to how it is applied while "pummeling" for inside position to create space.

Pummeling is when two fighters are standing, are clinched, and they are "swimming" their arms to get both of them on the inside of other's clinch.

Ross even covers it like that on his Punching and Clinching DVD, and uses Xing Yi as the comparison point between CMA and wrestling.

Is it ever used as an offensive technique, like a punch would be?

FP

[MasterKiller]

Is it ever used as an offensive technique, like a punch would be?

FP

No, just to create space.

This is all I could find on short notice. No shoulder striking here, but it shows the arm swimming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvZux...elated&search=

[Fu-Pow]

The positioning of the shoulder is very similar, in Taiji it would be done with offensive force to try and knock the wind out of the person or to damage the chest area.

What seems different is that the Taiji shoulder strike would come on the end of a "chain" of attack, ie fist, elbow, shoulder. The body is carried along behind it and slams into the person just when they think that they are out of harms way, have deflected the fist and elbow.

FP

[Fu-Pow]

No, just to create space.

This is all I could find on short notice. No shoulder striking here, but it shows the arm swimming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvZux...elated&search=

BTW, that's a very romantic video.

FP

[lkfmdc]

Ross even covers it like that on his Punching and Clinching DVD, and uses Xing Yi as the comparison point between CMA and wrestling.

Ian and I pummel pretty hard in that section, pretty much full blast, you can easily see what it is about, but you can also see that under standing circumstances, it is NOT going to be a KO

[street_fighter]

uses Xing Yi as the comparison point between CMA and wrestling.

Could you explain that please... not quite understanding what you mean.

[MasterKiller]

Could you explain that please... not quite understanding what you mean.

He briefly compares Xing Yi pummeling drills with freestyle wrestling pummeling drills.

[tattooedmonk]

In regards to CMA it seems that the biggest missing piece is groundfighting.



It is and it isn't. In a strict sense of the term Mixed Martial Art....yes. However, based on conversations on this board it seems that many MMAist refuse to define their "system" of martial arts as any kind of "system." And would rather define it as a "format" of competition. I find this kind of silly as everyone kind of has a "system" of martial arts, whether they created it or someone else did.



I think that they are probably less likely foundations as they are addendum's. Taoist, buddhist and confucian concepts are totally fused into Chinese culture whether or not they are thought of as religions.

To give a non-MA example, my friend who is Chinese recently had her father pass away. They are all Christians but they still included Buddhist elements into their funeral service because they are Chinese. To not include them would have been un-Chinese despite their actual religious beliefs.

For a similar reason Chinese martial arts concepts came to be associated with other aspects of Chinese culture despite the fact that the martial artists involved were not really adherents to a particular religion. So for example, the concept of Taiji Quan is to use suppleness to defeat stiffness. This is similar to concepts of philosophy in the Taoist Canon and so the association was made.



Many like myself have been involved in TCMA directly and have come around to see that there is a lot of silliness going on, intentional or not. For example, when I tried to introduce a San Shou sparring program in my old school I was given no support and met with resistance to the point that I had my keys to the school taken away.

It was only through the efforts of myself and like-minded student that any of the younger students actually got an opportunity to spar in a safe and realistic manner. Otherwise they would have never learned jack about self-defense/fighting, only forms and lion dance.



I think the dispute is over what constitutes proper training. Only doing forms and unrealistic application practice is not proper training for the goal of learning self-defense/fighting.



I agree with you. The "bank" of knowledge in TCMA is vast and largely untapped. A MMA "system" could definitely be based on a TCMA. Its just that it needs to be a modernized approach (or actually an old school approach depending on how you look at it).

To put it simply all MMA is, is a "back to basics" TMA approach with the addition of
advanced groundfighting skills (which were never really a part of TMA whether for historical or other reasons.)

"Back to basics"=emphasis on conditioning, sparring and realistic drills vs. the current emphasis on forms and unrealistic application training.

So I think it is totally possible to create an MMA system out of TCMA components as long as it is supplemented by a system that has a significant skill base for groundfighting...in addition to the clinch and striking range.

That's my working hyphothesis. ......

FP

#1 for the most part this is true in most schools.

#2 I understand how most see this, however, these views are not entirely correct.

#3 This you are incorrect about. They are interdependant of each other. I was refering to the philosophical aspects and not the religious ones. The religions are based on the foundations made by the philosophies.

#4 we know why the Chinese and other ethnic groups have been converted to Christianity.

#5 I had similar experience . I was constantly reprimanded for showing how to do the techniques( properly) using a higher level of force and was constantly
not allowed to spar because of my level of contact and force.

#6 You see this is the problem , most of these people think this is what TMA / CMA is about. They do not know what forms are for and how to use them properly, spend all their time trying to look pretty, and argueing over lineage and other non-intrinsic crap.

I agree for the most part with your working hypothosis.

I guess the BUZZ phrase is now "BACK TO BASICS".

My first instructors in CMA all felt this way . My new ones are totally this way.
I have always felt this way.


I would rather have ten techniques that I can fight with than 1000 techniques fighting me!!!

[Fu-Pow]

#3 This you are incorrect about. They are interdependant of each other. I was refering to the philosophical aspects and not the religious ones. The religions are based on the foundations made by the philosophies.

I am glad that we see eye to eye on most of these issues.

On this particular issue I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from. In regards to philosophy and religion there is less of a divide in China than in the west. Chinese religions often look more like philosophy than what we would think of in terms of monotheistic religions. On the other hand some variations of Buddhism resemble what we would think of as religion.

My point is that in a culture as old as China there are certain aspects of the culture that may have religious or philosophical undertones but are really now just part of the mainstream culture.

For example, in the west you here phrases like "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", "haste makes waste" or "cleanliness is close to godliness." These are all proverbs that probably have Judaeo-Christian religious or philosophical underpinnings to them but just because you live by them doesn't make you a "follower" or devotee of a particular religion or philosophy.

Likewise in China there are ideas that may have originated in the some religious or philosophical underpinning but eventually they became part of the mainstream "wisdom." For example, Taiji, Wu Xing, Baat Gua are all Daoist concepts but also used and understood widely through the culture.

So while these ideas definitely had some influence on martial arts my guess is that it was probably after the fact. Despite what the myths may say about Shaolin or Bodhidharma or Zhang Seng Feng in reality most martial arts had there origins in the Chinese military and amongst the villagers of China. Not with philosophers or even those who were literate enough to be familiar with the religious or philosophical texts.

Anyways, interesting but not all that important.

FP

[tattooedmonk]

I am glad that we see eye to eye on most of these issues.

On this particular issue I'm not sure exactly where you are coming from. In regards to philosophy and religion there is less of a divide in China than in the west. Chinese religions often look more like philosophy than what we would think of in terms of monotheistic religions. On the other hand some variations of Buddhism resemble what we would think of as religion.

My point is that in a culture as old as China there are certain aspects of the culture that may have religious or philosophical undertones but are really now just part of the mainstream culture.

For example, in the west you here phrases like "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush", "haste makes waste" or "cleanliness is close to godliness." These are all proverbs that probably have Judaeo-Christian religious or philosophical underpinnings to them but just because you live by them doesn't make you a "follower" or devotee of a particular religion or philosophy.

Likewise in China there are ideas that may have originated in the some religious or philosophical underpinning but eventually they became part of the mainstream "wisdom." For example, Taiji, Wu Xing, Baat Gua are all Daoist concepts but also used and understood widely through the culture.

So while these ideas definitely had some influence on martial arts my guess is that it was probably after the fact. Despite what the myths may say about Shaolin or Bodhidharma or Zhang Seng Feng in reality most martial arts had there origins in the Chinese military and amongst the villagers of China. Not with philosophers or even those who were literate enough to be familiar with the religious or philosophical texts.

Anyways, interesting but not all that important.

FP

Me too.

I understand where you are coming from , but the fact is that these philosophical theories,concepts, principles, etc. existed long before the actual fighting styles ever did and were ingrained in the culture even without the concious knowledge of their connections to a religious or philosophical belief systems.Especially Taoism and Confucianism, considering that they proceeded Buddhism in China. ( Although some believe that Buddhism started in China first)

I know, that to many, the common belief and understanding is that these styles developed independantly from the philosophies, however , I have done plenty of research in this area to see that there are far too many connections and associations to one another for it to be merely coincidental.

We should have some dialog about the connections with Buddhism, Taoism , Confucianism and Tai Ji , BaGua, and Xin Yi sometime. I am sure we could help each other understand this stuff a little better.

The stories about Boddhi Dharma and Zhang San Feng are just that stories and whether these people truely existed or not really does not matter, it is the spirit that is envoked when hearing these stories and the ideas behind them that are most important.

[Royal Dragon]

I guess the BUZZ phrase is now "BACK TO BASICS".


Reply]
Hee, hee, hee I started a Buzz Phrase!!!!

[tattooedmonk]

I guess the BUZZ phrase is now "BACK TO BASICS".


Reply]
Hee, hee, hee I started a Buzz Phrase!!!!

Well the phrase has been around for along time, but now it is a BUZZ phrase....with your help. You get some of the credit.

[sanjuro_ronin]

No, the Iron Palmer does parlor trick breaking. If he tried to actually fight for real, he would be just as likely to break his hand as the boxer. I have yet to see the guy who breaks things in demos be able to step out back and strike through a brick wall in the alley outside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulXzfJq3Dd0