A nice film...

[Yum Cha]

Ok, this one is going to develop as I write, because I'm really thinking out loud....

Time:
Many of the great masters trained with their uber great master less than 5 years, sometimes 2 or 3, but we assume there was daily constant training.

so, 3 years x 6 hours daily = 6 years @ 3 hours daily = 12 years at 3 hours every other day....you see where I'm going with this, modern working family man?

Sparring:
I have known many martial artists that didn't spar, but in a fight were efficient, effective and victorious. I've known black-belt kickboxers that got cleaned up in simple streetfights. I reject the weighting to the whole sparring argument, but not the argument itself. Sparring is the middle stage for most Martial Artists. The most dangerous people I know never sparred, they only fought.

Fighting Skill:
People continue to rate Traditional martial arts on fighting ability alone, and I think that is missing one of the great points of difference between. Ultimately, fighting skill is the common denominator, but discipline, fitness, problem solving and focus are other prizes one wins.

Learning to fight is easy, to my mind. 5 or 6 good fights and you'll he head and shoulders above most people on the street, if you don't get you ass kicked 5 or 6 times... To me, simply fighting isn't the measure, but the amount of superiority you can exercise, how easy you can make it.

Long Term Payoff:
So, what is it you get from the longer training? Skill? Understanding? The ability to Teach?

And here's one for you Sanjuro, with you being the 'control': Did you learn your Boxing to a certain level in the same time it took you to learn your SPM to the same level?

Alternatively, few years back when you were banging all the time, as opposed to now, have you added any skills since then? Fighting skills, or otherwise? Intellectually, I'm sure you continued to develop.

Lifetime Pursuit:
No, I still think TCMA offers a lifetime of training and experience, of which fighting is a big part, but not the only part. We go through stages: we fight ourselves to find form, we fight others to test our skills, and in the end, we come back to fighting ourselves again because we realise that is the real challenge - all in the pursuit of some kind of inner peace. Go figure...

Who ever said it was 'magic'?
People talk about TCMA like if it isn't the absolute superior skill, that enables any modern David to defeat any modern Goliath, it isn't valid. TCMA is just one path, one taken often by people who don't have the raw materials to start with, people who are looking for an advantage on terms they can relate to, perhaps to survive, in one form or another. Sport attracts a whole different mindset and individual.

TCMA isn't 'magic powers' which seems to disappoint lots of people, sadly...

What is being lost is not only the skill, but the teachers. Perhaps it is natural selection at work...perhaps its just the market economy at work, and some western sense of value for money, or perhaps its a cultural thing.

I guess what I'm contending is that yes, there are individuals that can be trained to become world class fighters in a few short years, no argument. Terrible good fighters, fair enough.

But, that has very little to do with the training of TCMA. What is the difference between an art and a sport? Art is in the doing, sport is in the competition?

I make no contention the two are exclusive to eachother, just to be clear.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And here's one for you Sanjuro, with you being the 'control': Did you learn your Boxing to a certain level in the same time it took you to learn your SPM to the same level?

Nope, the tools I need had to be developed slower.
SPM is a "finishing" system in my view, not a beginner one.
It pays to have a solid core because SPM is highly specialized.
I was able to using boxing in a manner of weeks when I first started doing it, of course I had already been doing MA for a few years by then.
When I started SPM I had been doing MA for almost 30 years ( to round it off) and I was able to translate certian things right away ( my PE fist, for example, was already "forged" enough to be used), but others needed a certain "re-working" of my "ingrained" fighting method.

[Lai See]

Ok, this one is going to develop as I write, because I'm really thinking out loud....

- HUGE SNIP -

I make no contention the two are exclusive to eachother, just to be clear.

Some good thoughts well presented on the subject.

All I can really add is that some of the 'best' actual fighters I have ever known never trained in anything only had fights and learned from them.
I did say some mind, and the 'best' trained, sparred and had fights. The difference as you allude is/was a faster harder quicker using less energy approach to the whatever the situation was.
The pressing factor being the actual fighting and learning from it. Of course the problem therein is in that very doing because it’s not socially acceptable (in most places) and more than likely going to involve illegality. Not too mention damage.

Sparring will of course make the average person a slightly better scrapper in a short time of training, but then again playing rugby for instance also will make the average person a better scrapper.
In my opinion a better one than the martial arts sparrer given the same criteria.

I agree with your 'weighting' problem with the age old argument Yum.

[MightyB]

From a TV Person's standpoint... I loved it. The camera work, the pacing, the content... it all worked for me. As a matter of fact, I'm jealous... he's making the kind of films that I'd love to make.

My favorite was the old guy with the sleeveless shirt. That's how I want to be when I'm his age. That guy was cool.

[Yum Cha]

From a TV Person's standpoint... I loved it. The camera work, the pacing, the content... it all worked for me. As a matter of fact, I'm jealous... he's making the kind of films that I'd love to make.

My favorite was the old guy with the sleeveless shirt. That's how I want to be when I'm his age. That guy was cool.

Oh Yea! Production values were commercial, for sure. I agree, the Bad A$$ in the red wife beater gives me nightmares

[Yum Cha]

Nope, the tools I need had to be developed slower.
SPM is a "finishing" system in my view, not a beginner one.
It pays to have a solid core because SPM is highly specialized.
I was able to using boxing in a manner of weeks when I first started doing it, of course I had already been doing MA for a few years by then.
When I started SPM I had been doing MA for almost 30 years ( to round it off) and I was able to translate certian things right away ( my PE fist, for example, was already "forged" enough to be used), but others needed a certain "re-working" of my "ingrained" fighting method.

3o years? Dude, how old are you? Or did you start at like 5?

What you called a 'finishing' system is a very significant observation in my opinion.

I always grew up thinking Hsing I, Ba Qua and Tai Chi were the 'finishing' systems, the subtle yet complex systems that went beyond technique into 'internal' skills.

But, after years in Pak Mei, I think there are another group of high level styles, or at least skills as well, those developed through the southern white crane path into SPM, PM, and others. I tend to think of it, perhaps incorrectly, as the 'shaolin' or northern internal vs the Southern non secular, (or maybe Omei ?) style.

Internal fast power, vs internal slow power is essentially the difference. Very superficially.

These arts can take whatever skills you have and bring them to a higher level, that's part of the reputation. But, they take longer to learn.

Anyway, that's a round about way of saying, that these extended studies in Traditional arts bear fruit. I'm sure it goes beyond my personal example into many different styles, given the proper training.

Teachers are always accused of holding back, the truth is, you can't put 10 lbs of sh1t in a 5 lb bag...

[Yum Cha]

Some good thoughts well presented on the subject.

All I can really add is that some of the 'best' actual fighters I have ever known never trained in anything only had fights and learned from them.
I did say some mind, and the 'best' trained, sparred and had fights. The difference as you allude is/was a faster harder quicker using less energy approach to the whatever the situation was.
The pressing factor being the actual fighting and learning from it. Of course the problem therein is in that very doing because it’s not socially acceptable (in most places) and more than likely going to involve illegality. Not too mention damage.

Sparring will of course make the average person a slightly better scrapper in a short time of training, but then again playing rugby for instance also will make the average person a better scrapper.
In my opinion a better one than the martial arts sparrer given the same criteria.

I agree with your 'weighting' problem with the age old argument Yum.

Rugby has nothing to do with fighting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT1Mf...eature=related

LOL

[David Jamieson]

it's 10,000 hours or 10 years of continual practice that will bring high proficiency (read: mastery).

Fighting is not the same as painting. It's closer to having a crap really, except there is a fear factor that has to be diminished.

It is NOT complex and in fact the simple most direct fighting systems are the most effective in any era.

Now, becoming proficient at teh art form of choregraphed motions that are symbolic or practical or ritual or yogic etc is another thing entirely, but that has little to do with fighting.

If you want to be a fighter, you have to fight. fighting must be a component of your journey.

If you want to be a swimmer, you must swim. You cannot practice swimming out of water and expect it to be fully developed when you get thrown in.

the argument for long training, lots of sets and antiquated weaponry is dead. It has been shown that for the most part, the preservation of these things is for posterity and has little of any value in modern combatives or conflicts.

thank goodness the martial arts have evolved!
I like to do sets because they interest me and are a nice light form of exercise.

But fight training consists of drills, cardio-vascular endurance, resistance training, sparring, bag work, mitt work, defensive footwork.

weapons of use are knives that can be carried or belts or things at hand. I like to train classical weapons too, but again, as a interest and not with an eye towards actually ever having to use such things in real live combat.

Get real. I've been doing genuine and authentic traditional chinese martial arts for years. They're fun, but they aren't what I would train to be a bonafide fighter.

and just as a final note, it has been my experience that the very worst martial artists are generally students of the traditional martial arts who don't do what is required as stated above to train to fight.

those who do sets exclusively, compliant drills etc are in for the rudest awakenings really, so let that be their clarion call I guess. I got mine years ago and woke up promptly in time to salvage what amounted to not a lot.

[Lai See]

What you called a 'finishing' system is a very significant observation in my opinion.

I always grew up thinking Hsing I, Ba Qua and Tai Chi were the 'finishing' systems, the subtle yet complex systems that went beyond technique into 'internal' skills.

- SNIPPETY SNIP again -

These arts can take whatever skills you have and bring them to a higher level, that's part of the reputation. But, they take longer to learn.

Anyway, that's a round about way of saying, that these extended studies in Traditional arts bear fruit. I'm sure it goes beyond my personal example into many different styles, given the proper training.

Teachers are always accused of holding back, the truth is, you can't put 10 lbs of sh1t in a 5 lb bag...

That's interesting about the 'big three' because its exactly what I had always considered 'was' and thus what I was going to 'finish' with.
I was however wrong, in many ways.

Again I totally agree with the 'skills honing skills' attributes, certainly for Lung Ying and Pak Mei personally, although very different ones each and yet like a starter and a main course meant to compliment. I hardly ever have desert anyway.

I suppose I should stop agreeing really and argue about something for the sake of it.

[Lai See]

it's 10,000 hours or 10 years of continual practice that will bring high proficiency (read: mastery).

Fighting is not the same as painting. It's closer to having a crap really, except there is a fear factor that has to be diminished.

It is NOT complex and in fact the simple most direct fighting systems are the most effective in any era.

Now, becoming proficient at teh art form of choregraphed motions that are symbolic or practical or ritual or yogic etc is another thing entirely, but that has little to do with fighting.

If you want to be a fighter, you have to fight. fighting must be a component of your journey.

If you want to be a swimmer, you must swim. You cannot practice swimming out of water and expect it to be fully developed when you get thrown in.

the argument for long training, lots of sets and antiquated weaponry is dead. It has been shown that for the most part, the preservation of these things is for posterity and has little of any value in modern combatives or conflicts.

thank goodness the martial arts have evolved!
I like to do sets because they interest me and are a nice light form of exercise.

But fight training consists of drills, cardio-vascular endurance, resistance training, sparring, bag work, mitt work, defensive footwork.

weapons of use are knives that can be carried or belts or things at hand. I like to train classical weapons too, but again, as a interest and not with an eye towards actually ever having to use such things in real live combat.

Get real. I've been doing genuine and authentic traditional chinese martial arts for years. They're fun, but they aren't what I would train to be a bonafide fighter.

and just as a final note, it has been my experience that the very worst martial artists are generally students of the traditional martial arts who don't do what is required as stated above to train to fight.

those who do sets exclusively, compliant drills etc are in for the rudest awakenings really, so let that be their clarion call I guess. I got mine years ago and woke up promptly in time to salvage what amounted to not a lot.

I agree with most of that which you have posted, except I am unclear as to this bit "If you want to be a fighter, you have to fight. fighting must be a component of your journey." and possibly only because I am unsure whether you refer to athletic contests or bloke trying to tear your head off in the pub, or indeed both.
Whilst the premise of the above simply cannot be argued with, its the context, because if you seriously want to learn to fight head tearing bloke you need to practice fighting against head tearing bloke whilst he is trying to do what it says on his tin. Nothing else will do. Full contact sparring etc etc will help but it won't 'do'. Using your swimming analagy full contact sparring/contests still arent quite in that particular stretch of water.
I think the difference is in the admission of what it is one really trains for.
But there, just some thoughts.

[sanjuro_ronin]

3o years? Dude, how old are you? Or did you start at like 5?

I am going to be 41 this September

[MightyB]

... fighting to train, but training with the intent to fight. I don't think that's the case with 90% of the TCMA practitioners out there. Maybe 98%.

IMO you have to honestly train with the intent to fight... otherwise you're wasting yours and everyone else's time with something that amounts to little more than a yogic dance class mixed with a little pseudo-scientific yoda psychology in the guise of... martial arts. It's not MA.

The biggest hurdle to overcome is not knowing if you're training with the intent to fight because you may think that you are... but you're not. That can be found out easily in hard sparring or sport. You should be able to hold your own in that type of venue. And, if you're too old for that- someone in your gym isn't and they should be "holding their own" in a sport venue. That's a little vicarious validation, but still worthwhile meaning that at least what you're training has the capacity to work in a real fight.

[sanjuro_ronin]

... fighting to train, but training with the intent to fight. I don't think that's the case with 90% of the TCMA practitioners out there. Maybe 98%.

IMO you have to honestly train with the intent to fight... otherwise you're wasting yours and everyone else's time with something that amounts to little more than a yogic dance class mixed with a little pseudo-scientific yoda psychology in the guise of... martial arts. It's not MA.

The biggest hurdle to overcome is not knowing if you're training with the intent to fight because you may think that you are... but you're not. That can be found out easily in hard sparring or sport. You should be able to hold your own in that type of venue. And, if you're too old for that- someone in your gym isn't and they should be "holding their own" in a sport venue. That's a little vicarious validation, but still worthwhile meaning that at least what you're training has the capacity to work in a real fight.

Oh my...
Someone has unlocked the secret tao !!!

[Lai See]

... fighting to train, but training with the intent to fight.

Which is precisely what I meant by 'admitting what one really trains for'. Albeit that you put it more concisely. Right ............ outside you .....

[Yum Cha]

I am going to be 41 this September

Ok, so you did start at 5-10 yrs of age, hardcore!