Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 197

Thread: MMA vs CLF

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    843
    Quote Originally Posted by lianweizhi View Post
    I've joked on some other forums that I am the "thread finisher", because any thread I posted on always seemed to end after I posted!
    Maybe they were good posts.

    After posting here for a while I believe that there are elements here in the forums that would not know how to respond to an intelligent post.

    Other times they will gang up on you and tell you how wrong you are in going against, for example, the modern crosstraining practices, such as a person training in everything at the same time in order to overcome perceived shortcomings in his core art which he has not even practiced properly to be aware of any shortcomings, to start with.

    So if you are ignored it is probably because you were right and there was no one able to argue with you or there was no one who could add to what you had said.


    No worries.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corner of somewhere and where am I
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by HardWork8 View Post
    Yea, just take a look at some of the "functionally" trained martial artists who frequent these forums
    Speaking of trolls....
    Seriously, you are like that monkey that just keeps throwing his poo at everyone. Do you really have to $h!t everywhere you go? You can't even make one contributive post in this thread. 3 and they are all trash talk. Its funny though, because you have been shown to be a bona fide moron.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie
    MMA is much more sport orientated and fighters are athletes more so than martial artists.
    Its kind of like back in the day, when all swimmers ever did was swim. Then somebody had the genius idea that hey, we can lift weights too! And all of a sudden they were swimming more strongly, and knocking out times that were making jaws drop. Now its common practice that a swimmer has to also build strength and flexibility to get the most of out each stroke. Look at soldiers. They are professional fighters. Just in another light. I'm not talking about the guy that flies the office desk, but the guys crawling in the sand. Now there are some slobs, but most of those guys are in some pretty good shape. The ones that aren't don't make it out too far. That or they do something dumb like pull the plates out of their vest so its lighter but wonder why they got shot half to death...

    The only real thing is MMA guys are more "honest" in their training. What I mean is, if they suck at their training...they...and really everyone that watches them...know they sucked in their training. You get out what you put in. They know they are going to fight. They also know that fighting is a physically arduous activity, so they prepare themselves for that. At least most do, and when they don't its obvious. Look at BJ Penn. When he actually puts in the effort, he's about unbeatable. But (and he's the first one to admit it) there was a while that he was a lazy @$$ and he lost fights because he wasn't training for them. Now I'm not saying TMA don't know this. But well most barely ever, if at all, step foot in the gym. They know they should work out harder, but just don't. Its like when I have a patient come in with COPD, Hypertension, etc. They know they should quit smoking and eat better. Do they change? No...

    You know my first kung fu teacher told me, "You need to think of yourself as an athlete and you need to train like one." Chi gung is great. I like doing Iron mountain. I like stone warrior. I like IP (though to honest I think most people that practice it, it won't really make much difference since they can't hit with it anyways.) But that being said. I'm a small dude. I push 155 on my best day. I will never be able to match up strength wise with even just the naturally big if I don't put in some time on a good strength training routine. And lets not get into cardio. Ugh....I wish they had a pukey smily face to put here...

    That in mind, I wouldn't say MMA is more sport oriented. I mean yeah we all know the UFC venue and all that. But that sport vs street concept is laughable at best. I'd go so far to say that most MMA (remember, most care very little to be in UFC and all that) are more martial artist (and more athlete) than most TMA. It just goes back to being honest in your training.


    Quote Originally Posted by lianweizhi
    The point is, however, that many styles differ from their very core and by diversifying too much you may end up not being particularly good at either style or even degrade your performance in one or the other. I believe in cross training can be good, but a practitioner should be wary of conflicting fundamentals that may disrupt their balance and detract from their bread and butter.
    Differences aren't really as glaring as you might think. There might be some aspects that don't mesh. But lets be real. There's a lot of crap in even just a singular system that really should just be done away with. Trim the fat and all that....
    That said, there might be a different goal in mind. Like say you might be trying to dominate the center while I might like to close it. Or even difference in technical preference. But in physical manifestation the differences are finite. There is only one human body. We have some variation with body mass, some elasticity. But they only teach one anatomy in A & P. That's why afterall we have standards of practice in kung fu. For example...stances. If I do a dan san ma with a punch in mantis or a bow and arrow stance in hung gar, guess what...they are exactly the same. Why? Because I haven't mysteriously grown a third leg. (Ronin don't even go there ) Structure is simply the meeting between physical law and intent of motion.
    This not coincidentally is why I think people need to minimize the amount of time they spend on forms for more live training. Let your fighting tell you what is technically correct. At the end of the day either it worked or it didn't.

    In my opinion the issue isn't so much of style X and style Y don't mesh well. I think the real issue is that 90% of the people don't train either in any realistic light. They sucked all around and were close minded to the realistic demands of training it takes to really be a functional and more important a proficient fighter. Because well, sometimes you only got one chance to get it right...

    And that's what crosstraining is about. Its not about mixing a dozen different systems like some people like to think while flailing their arms in the air and ham handing their keyboard because they have a spasm over the fact that everybody disagrees with them...ahem...hardwork8.....
    Its about taking what you are good at, being HONEST with what both you and your core system lack and finding the most efficient way to correct that weakness (who would you get advice from about how to make money? That rich businessman or the homeless drunk in the corner asking said businessman for change? So are you going to waste years of your life looking for the nonexistent kungfu ground fighting or are you going to go to the bjj gym across the street?). And testing it with live feedback to ensure it is both functional and efficient, not just theorizing about it. That's why kung fu has so much fat now. People making up moves cause they sat in their nice homes and not fighting. When people actually did fight, the systems were much simpler.
    Last edited by SoCo KungFu; 05-27-2008 at 08:22 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu View Post
    Speaking of trolls....
    Seriously, you are like that monkey that just keeps throwing his poo at everyone. Do you really have to $h!t everywhere you go? You can't even make one contributive post in this thread. 3 and they are all trash talk. Its funny though, because you have been shown to be a bona fide moron.



    Its kind of like back in the day, when all swimmers ever did was swim. Then somebody had the genius idea that hey, we can lift weights too! And all of a sudden they were swimming more strongly, and knocking out times that were making jaws drop. Now its common practice that a swimmer has to also build strength and flexibility to get the most of out each stroke. Look at soldiers. They are professional fighters. Just in another light. I'm not talking about the guy that flies the office desk, but the guys crawling in the sand. Now there are some slobs, but most of those guys are in some pretty good shape. The ones that aren't don't make it out too far. That or they do something dumb like pull the plates out of their vest so its lighter but wonder why they got shot half to death...

    The only real thing is MMA guys are more "honest" in their training. What I mean is, if they suck at their training...they...and really everyone that watches them...know they sucked in their training. You get out what you put in. They know they are going to fight. They also know that fighting is a physically arduous activity, so they prepare themselves for that. At least most do, and when they don't its obvious. Look at BJ Penn. When he actually puts in the effort, he's about unbeatable. But (and he's the first one to admit it) there was a while that he was a lazy @$$ and he lost fights because he wasn't training for them. Now I'm not saying TMA don't know this. But well most barely ever, if at all, step foot in the gym. They know they should work out harder, but just don't. Its like when I have a patient come in with COPD, Hypertension, etc. They know they should quit smoking and eat better. Do they change? No...

    You know my first kung fu teacher told me, "You need to think of yourself as an athlete and you need to train like one." Chi gung is great. I like doing Iron mountain. I like stone warrior. I like IP (though to honest I think most people that practice it, it won't really make much difference since they can't hit with it anyways.) But that being said. I'm a small dude. I push 155 on my best day. I will never be able to match up strength wise with even just the naturally big if I don't put in some time on a good strength training routine. And lets not get into cardio. Ugh....I wish they had a pukey smily face to put here...

    That in mind, I wouldn't say MMA is more sport oriented. I mean yeah we all know the UFC venue and all that. But that sport vs street concept is laughable at best. I'd go so far to say that most MMA (remember, most care very little to be in UFC and all that) are more martial artist (and more athlete) than most TMA. It just goes back to being honest in your training.




    Differences aren't really as glaring as you might think. There might be some aspects that don't mesh. But lets be real. There's a lot of crap in even just a singular system that really should just be done away with. Trim the fat and all that....
    That said, there might be a different goal in mind. Like say you might be trying to dominate the center while I might like to close it. Or even difference in technical preference. But in physical manifestation the differences are finite. There is only one human body. We have some variation with body mass, some elasticity. But they only teach one anatomy in A & P. That's why afterall we have standards of practice in kung fu. For example...stances. If I do a dan san ma with a punch in mantis or a bow and arrow stance in hung gar, guess what...they are exactly the same. Why? Because I haven't mysteriously grown a third leg. (Ronin don't even go there ) Structure is simply the meeting between physical law and intent of motion.
    This not coincidentally is why I think people need to minimize the amount of time they spend on forms for more live training. Let your fighting tell you what is technically correct. At the end of the day either it worked or it didn't.

    In my opinion the issue isn't so much of style X and style Y don't mesh well. I think the real issue is that 90% of the people don't train either in any realistic light. They sucked all around and were close minded to the realistic demands of training it takes to really be a functional and more important a proficient fighter. Because well, sometimes you only got one chance to get it right...

    And that's what crosstraining is about. Its not about mixing a dozen different systems like some people like to think while flailing their arms in the air and ham handing their keyboard because they have a spasm over the fact that everybody disagrees with them...ahem...hardwork8.....
    Its about taking what you are good at, being HONEST with what both you and your core system lack and finding the most efficient way to correct that weakness (who would you get advice from about how to make money? That rich businessman or the homeless drunk in the corner asking said businessman for change? So are you going to waste years of your life looking for the nonexistent kungfu ground fighting or are you going to go to the bjj gym across the street?). And testing it with live feedback to ensure it is both functional and efficient, not just theorizing about it. That's why kung fu has so much fat now. People making up moves cause they sat in their nice homes and not fighting. When people actually did fight, the systems were much simpler.
    Nicely played, SoCo. I definitely agree with you that most TMA simply don't train to fight. Heck, I'll be the first to admit that I don't do enough live sparring. And I pretty much don't do any hard contact or sanshou anymore - I can't be a very good engineer if I get busted in the head too many times!

    To dispute the MMA talk, I have done live sparring with practitioners of varying degrees of skill, and can attest to having been busted up pretty badly as well as shown dominance. My brother is quite adept at joint locking (and not from a non-resisting situation - I mean catching the strike right out of the air during sparring - although he only has about a 30% success rate at this currently) and has excellent fighting endurance and vitality, having practiced sanshou with our sifu for over an hour and a half straight on a daily basis - mind you, not in 2-3 minute rounds, but literally straight time - and he's had a lot of body conditioning as well, I can fire an ideal side kick directly at his midsection and it won't faze him, and I've swung a wooden sword into his forearm block - trust me when I say TMA training can be functional. I'm a little guy myself at 155 pounds, my brother, not so much (he's over 200 pounds), but we both make it a point to build strength in the weight room and we both easily rep over 200 pounds. I guess my point here is that MMAists' aren't the only people that train hard.

    As for "fat" in TMA, there is probably a bit of it, I won't deny that. But as far as my CLF is concerned, we've spent some time in analyzing moves and their applications and it does in fact become second nature to use many of the applications in sparring with and without gloves. The moves make sense when you practice them enough with the right intent and understanding, and very importantly, with someone to try it on as well. From personal experience (on both the giving and receiving end), I know that all ten seeds of CLF work - and if you think about it, why shouldn't they? They are "simple" enough.

    That said, I stick with my original statement that some fundamentals of style X really don't mesh well with style Y. If you've worked hard at style X and know it's concepts very well, it's easy to see differences that aren't just stylistic but actually compromise your mechanics. Using your olympic sports analogy, why are distance runners no good at sprinting and vice versa? Because the fundamentals of the sports are different. There is almost no way for a sprinter to be a good marathon runner without compromising his skill as a sprinter. Similarly, there is no way to be excellent at two conflicting types of martial arts. That said, as I mentioned before, there are elements in other arts that complement each other and are good to "fill in the blanks".

    Anyhow, I think I've rambled on enough about this. I don't really have anything against MMA, but TMA and in particular TCMA can definitely be done right, but you are definitely right about being honest in your training and your purpose.
    Last edited by lianweizhi; 05-27-2008 at 10:32 AM. Reason: spelling error
    Grantis Mantis
    Grant's Pad

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    843
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu View Post
    Speaking of trolls....
    Speaking of the devil...LOL!

    Quote Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu
    Seriously, you are like that monkey that just keeps throwing his poo at everyone. Do you really have to $h!t everywhere you go?
    Well, if you bother to take your head out of the intellectual toilet then you wont get hit!

    Quote Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu
    You can't even make one contributive post in this thread.
    My contribution in this thread so far has been to agree with another poster whose views I share.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu
    Its funny though, because you have been shown to be a bona fide moron.
    False and Misleading statement. In my opinion a "bona fide moron" would best describe a person such as yourself who claims to practice traditional kung fu but somehow thinks that forms are an outdated mode of training. Someone who would not recognize the kung fu internals,even if they fell on his thick skull and hence makes jokes about "chi f@rts" etc.

    Now that is a "bona fide moron"!

    Now, enough digression and lets stick to the thread subject!

  5. #35
    cjurakpt Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by lianweizhi View Post
    That said, I stick with my original statement that some fundamentals of style X really don't mesh well with style Y. If you've worked hard at style X and know it's concepts very well, it's easy to see differences that aren't just stylistic but actually compromise your mechanics. Using your olympic sports analogy, why are distance runners no good at sprinting and vice versa? Because the fundamentals of the sports are different. There is almost no way for a sprinter to be a good marathon runner without compromising his skill as a sprinter. Similarly, there is no way to be excellent at two conflicting types of martial arts. That said, as I mentioned before, there are elements in other arts that complement each other and are good to "fill in the blanks".
    I don't know - UI think that it's not so much conflicting types of martial arts per se, but task specific parameters - for example, your runner / sprinter analogy deals with two types of human movement: running over time and sprinting, meaning that the neuromuscular system adapts to context specific types of movements (not to mention the aerobic / anaerobic demands being vastly different for each); meaning that, in theory, it could be just as difficult for a CLF guy to adapt to aikido as it could be for him to adapt to badminton: it's not that aikido conflicts w/CLF per se, but that they are just different enough skill sets to make transfer irrelevant; of course, w/the Olympic analogy you are talking about a degree of specialization that essentially precludes transfer, whereas a "non-Olypmic" CLF guy wouldn't necessarily be that specialized

    however, here's what I think: I think that a CLF guy might have a better shot at aikido than another at that is similar to CLF to the point where some of the stuff overlaps, where others don't - that's because w/the aikido, it's so completely different, the body doesn't go into "CLF mode" when trying to acquire the skill; on the other hand, if you took, for example, two different CLF branches, the pattern of the guy's so choih might be similar enough to the other branches so as to cause confusion and actually make it harder to change from one version to another; the analogy is that if you speak German, it's easier to learn French than Dutch, because in Dutch a lot of the sounds are similar / same, but the meanings are not, leading to confusion (true story, from a German prof in college)

    as a counter argument though, a WC guy may have no trouble picking up bok mei because the tend to work in the same range, but on the other hand he might get stuck on the subtle differences between the way they work in that range - so it's not clear cut, IMHO (and therefore, don't think we can necessarily draw any conclusions about a given art's compatibility with another per se)

    the other thing to consider is that certain individuals might have affinity for similar arts: for example, a TKD guy might have no trouble picking up Northern Shaolin, whereas a a WC guy might work easily into an arnis system: the movements are very different in both, but they share many commonalities that might speak to an individual's innate skills and affinities

    so, to summarize: I do agree that people can have trouble picking up different arts, but I don't think it's because "art A" is not inherently compatible w/ "art B", it's in context of how individual practitioners acquire, retain and transfer motor skills; otherwise, if we want to back up an argument that an art w/certain characteristics is not compatible with another, we'd have to come up with some sort of principle that would be predictive: take two arts at random, analyze them for content, structure, etc., then run an experiment to see if the theory holds: I mean, just to say arts are incompatible isn't really enough: you'd have to et specific and then provide evidence to substantiate that, right?

  6. #36
    cjurakpt Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCo KungFu View Post
    And that's what crosstraining is about. Its not about mixing a dozen different systems like some people like to think while flailing their arms in the air and ham handing their keyboard because they have a spasm over the fact that everybody disagrees with them...ahem...hardwork8.....
    Its about taking what you are good at, being HONEST with what both you and your core system lack and finding the most efficient way to correct that weakness (who would you get advice from about how to make money? That rich businessman or the homeless drunk in the corner asking said businessman for change? So are you going to waste years of your life looking for the nonexistent kungfu ground fighting or are you going to go to the bjj gym across the street?). And testing it with live feedback to ensure it is both functional and efficient, not just theorizing about it. That's why kung fu has so much fat now. People making up moves cause they sat in their nice homes and not fighting. When people actually did fight, the systems were much simpler.
    that just about sums it up...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    843
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCoKungFu
    So are you going to waste years of your life looking for the nonexistent kungfu ground fighting.....
    That statement has proven once and for all that you don't know j@ck Shiet about kung fu. And anyone who agrees with that statement knows even less than you, if such a phenomenom is at all possible.
    Last edited by HardWork8; 05-28-2008 at 10:01 AM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    koko
    Posts
    2,723
    Oh brother, Basement Boy strikes again...

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    843
    Quote Originally Posted by unkokusai View Post
    Oh brother, Basement Boy strikes again...
    At just about now, you should be getting a PM from Sanjuro Ronin or one of his forum kickboxer boyfriends, telling you to ignore me.

    You see, if you ignore me then I might just go away and stop embarassing the pseudo kung fu-ist kickboxers who have been going around these forums for a long time, pretending to "know kung fu", giving advice on the kung fu while all the time hiding their lack of kung fu knowledge behind technical scientific jargon (a common tactic used by SUPERFICIAL FAKES in whatever area of life and for centuries at that), doing their best to project a false high tower of kung fu "widom".

    Without any exception non of these kick boxers have any solid understanding of the kung fu internals.

    Most of these people practice nothing but glorified kickboxing and their comments("no groundfighting in kung fu"; "forms are out-dated";"internals don't exist and/or are fantasy";"traditional kung fu is not functional";etc,etc,etc.) reflect this and they have been EXPOSED and their sore rear ends are the proof.

    As somebody who doesn't even practice kung fu you may find the above statement hard to relate to but then you are a young man with plenty of time and you don't even pretend to be a kung fu expert.

    However, the problem is that many of these Kung Fu kickboxers DO or at least imply that they are experts!

    There you go now.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by lianweizhi View Post
    so much (he's over 200 pounds),
    That said, I stick with my original statement that some fundamentals of style X really don't mesh well with style Y. If you've worked hard at style X and know it's concepts very well, it's easy to see differences that aren't just stylistic but actually compromise your mechanics. Using your olympic sports analogy, why are distance runners no good at sprinting and vice versa? Because the fundamentals of the sports are different. There is almost no way for a sprinter to be a good marathon runner without compromising his skill as a sprinter. Similarly, there is no way to be excellent at two conflicting types of martial arts. That said, as I mentioned before, there are elements in other arts that complement each other and are good to "fill in the blanks".
    .
    True, but that sprinter ( or marathon runner if we take the opposite view) can pick up something that may make him a better sprinter.
    Thing is, the majority of systems compliment each other far more than they don't.
    Heck look at Kyokushin and Taiji for example, two totally different systems and pathways but I assure you they compliment each other quite nicely.
    Our good friend Dale Dugas has done Uechi ryu and know does Bagua, two very different systems and yet I am sure there is some "uechi" still in him.

    It really doesn't take much to "tailor" a system, after all, that's what the old time masters used to do, tailor a system to each student.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    843
    Quote Originally Posted by lianweizhi View Post
    As for "fat" in TMA, there is probably a bit of it, I won't deny that. But as far as my CLF is concerned, we've spent some time in analyzing moves and their applications and it does in fact become second nature to use many of the applications in sparring with and without gloves. The moves make sense when you practice them enough with the right intent and understanding, and very importantly, with someone to try it on as well. From personal experience (on both the giving and receiving end), I know that all ten seeds of CLF work - and if you think about it, why shouldn't they? They are "simple" enough.
    From you description of how you approach your kung fu training I would say that you train in what is rarity nowadays and that is, an authentic kung fu school that teaches real kung fu that is combat oriented. You must realize that most people nowadays are not so lucky. See the Mcdojo/Kwoon phenomenom.

    That is why a lot of martial artists go around thinking less of kung fu as opposed to other more modern MAs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liangweizhi
    That said, I stick with my original statement that some fundamentals of style X really don't mesh well with style Y. If you've worked hard at style X and know it's concepts very well, it's easy to see differences that aren't just stylistic but actually compromise your mechanics. sprinter......there is no way to be excellent at two conflicting types of martial arts.
    Agreed 100%. The key phrase there is "if you've worked hard at style X..." presumably meaning that you have gained deep/deeper understanding. I find that people with superficial understanding of a profound system are more likely to go and search answers in irrelevant systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liangweizhi
    That said, as I mentioned before, there are elements in other arts that compliment each other and are good to "fill in the blanks".
    Following this same point of view, I would fill in the blanks by training in other kung fu styles as these are more likely to share common ground with my core art.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    True, but that sprinter ( or marathon runner if we take the opposite view) can pick up something that may make him a better sprinter.
    Thing is, the majority of systems compliment each other far more than they don't.
    Heck look at Kyokushin and Taiji for example, two totally different systems and pathways but I assure you they compliment each other quite nicely.
    Our good friend Dale Dugas has done Uechi ryu and know does Bagua, two very different systems and yet I am sure there is some "uechi" still in him.

    It really doesn't take much to "tailor" a system, after all, that's what the old time masters used to do, tailor a system to each student.
    Most definitely! There are definitely things that you can learn from other systems that will enhance your CLF ability. Also, what Cjurakpt said about similar styles being harder to assimilate is pretty much what I was trying to say about styles conflicting. As in my example with Chang Quan and CLF, both are styles with quite a few long range attacks, but how you drive those moves and execute them are quite different. Also, Cjurakpt's statement about specialization is right on the head as well - I don't think the struggles to adapt would really manifest themselves unless your muscle memory and understanding of your initial art is pretty well ingrained - it's at this point that doing something differently will cause dissonance. If you weren't very used to doing things that way to begin with, then it won't hinder you as much to do things a different way. But then it comes full circle because by doing things the different way, you'll probably never be good at the first way.

    Anyhow, as I've said before, I'm not opposed to cross training - but just trying to cook up a mishmash of stuff might not be the end-all either. Actual MMA as we know it today isn't really a mix of everything out there, if you think about it. It's fundamental striking, throws, and grappling, but very refined from hard practice. As many posters have mentioned before on this forum, that's probably what CMA used to be as well, and still can be, if we work at it in an honest way and with the proper guidance and direction!
    Grantis Mantis
    Grant's Pad

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Agreed, most people I know that cross train in one thing or another tend to do cross train on something that is "missing" or something that "catches" their eye or they believe will compliment what they do.
    Most are very intelligent about it.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  14. #44
    cjurakpt Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by lianweizhi View Post
    what Cjurakpt said about similar styles being harder to assimilate is pretty much what I was trying to say about styles conflicting. As in my example with Chang Quan and CLF, both are styles with quite a few long range attacks, but how you drive those moves and execute them are quite different. Also, Cjurakpt's statement about specialization is right on the head as well - I don't think the struggles to adapt would really manifest themselves unless your muscle memory and understanding of your initial art is pretty well ingrained - it's at this point that doing something differently will cause dissonance. If you weren't very used to doing things that way to begin with, then it won't hinder you as much to do things a different way. But then it comes full circle because by doing things the different way, you'll probably never be good at the first way.
    well, yes and no - again, when you want to talk about acquisition of a novel motor skill, you have to look at the factors that are centered on the individual: intrinsic ability to process information, be it visual, auditory and / or kinesthetic is probably the most important (some people's neuromuscular systems are just more adept at motor skill acquisition in general); within that, is the ability of the individual to learn a skill that is relatively similar or dissimilar to what they had done previously: so some people are going to have any easier time doing CLF and learning bagua, some won't, for precisely the reason that the skills are dissimilar; likewise, some CLF people may thrive on the similarities of their CLF branch and another, otheres may be confused by this similarity;

    therefore, it's probably more about how a "style" is taught to someone that makes a bigger impact than the actual parameters of a given style: meaning that, if you gave me two different MAists, I will have to adapt the way that I teach them taiji based on what I am able to discern is the manner in which each learns best - personally, I don't care if they have done TKD, bagua or western fencing, I will tap into whatever strengths they have and utilize them - meaning that for someone who is good at lateralizing, I might compare how the taiji is similar to what they have done, so they could draw on their past skill; for others, it might make more sense to contrast how it is different, so that they do not bring in the patterns they used from their old style, which might interfere with the new inormation;

    so while I did state before that the specific parameters of a given style might make it easier or harder for a given individual to learn based on their intrinsic ability and past experiences, I don't believe that any two given styles are inherently incompatible: for that to be the case, one would have to demonstrate specifically why this is so and then derive a general principle based on that which would be reproducible

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by cjurakpt View Post
    well, yes and no - again, when you want to talk about acquisition of a novel motor skill, you have to look at the factors that are centered on the individual: intrinsic ability to process information, be it visual, auditory and / or kinesthetic is probably the most important (some people's neuromuscular systems are just more adept at motor skill acquisition in general); within that, is the ability of the individual to learn a skill that is relatively similar or dissimilar to what they had done previously: so some people are going to have any easier time doing CLF and learning bagua, some won't, for precisely the reason that the skills are dissimilar; likewise, some CLF people may thrive on the similarities of their CLF branch and another, otheres may be confused by this similarity;

    therefore, it's probably more about how a "style" is taught to someone that makes a bigger impact than the actual parameters of a given style: meaning that, if you gave me two different MAists, I will have to adapt the way that I teach them taiji based on what I am able to discern is the manner in which each learns best - personally, I don't care if they have done TKD, bagua or western fencing, I will tap into whatever strengths they have and utilize them - meaning that for someone who is good at lateralizing, I might compare how the taiji is similar to what they have done, so they could draw on their past skill; for others, it might make more sense to contrast how it is different, so that they do not bring in the patterns they used from their old style, which might interfere with the new inormation;

    so while I did state before that the specific parameters of a given style might make it easier or harder for a given individual to learn based on their intrinsic ability and past experiences, I don't believe that any two given styles are inherently incompatible: for that to be the case, one would have to demonstrate specifically why this is so and then derive a general principle based on that which would be reproducible
    Well said! I can't argue with that!

    The only thing I have left to say is that in order to cross train properly then, you probably have to have a teacher as good as yourself who can identify ways to help your secondary style complement your core. Frankly, I'd say that the majority of "cross trainers" who haven't dedicated themselves to one style and simply dabble in anything until they decide that "this is no good" will bother with finding that good teacher or even getting good at anything enough for it to make a difference anyway!

    I had to laugh when you commented that "some people's neuromuscular systems are just more adept at motor skill acquisition in general"... it's funny cuz it's true...
    Grantis Mantis
    Grant's Pad

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •