Is complex and advanced necessarily better

[brothernumber9]

IMO, fundamental education, and the teacher make an art complex.
Fundamental education, in that a person has learned enough, not necessarily and not even primarily in martial arts, but in life experience, that they can make intelligent logical correlations of what is grounded in worldly reality and what is fluff, or at least more so than not. It can become more apparent after being in the TMA community for a while, meaning being aware of other schools/styles/training out there, and observing.

The teacher, if they make it complex, it will be complex, especially if the student lacks fundamental education, or is gullible enough to become entrapped in the hocus pocus and all the Carradine-esque confucian like statements.

When I first started training, I came upon VHS videos of Hai Deng doing a one finger handstand against a wall, and poking holes in sand bags. I saw "monks" licking glowing red hot iron shovels and showing visibly impressive feats of flexiblity, and what looked like the ability to resist damage from wooden and metal attacks. I read stories of Wang Ziping growing a tree, and as it grew, jumping over it daily until he could jump over a seven foot tall tree, and defeating russian a Russian strong man with his kung fu. I thought if I could learn the "secret" , I would be "the deadly".
After a few months when I got into sparring at the school, both my Sifu and the chief sparring instructor let me know that there was no "d3adly". Just to keep training and improving.
Down the line, I discovered there was plenty of fluff in what I was learning, probably even more so now than then. But there was also some really good solid "simple" things that were and are taught, and although fighting can be attributed a lot to the individual, it still says something about the system if a bunch of individuals succeed well under the same training. So either, the place just attracted already decent fighters, or the training/teaching/learning had something to do with it as well. I believe it was the latter.

Although an already long post here, I'll continue to the next point.
I still think it is plausible for there to be a great training method, but very few with the ability to teach it properly. For something to be considered great is really subjective, and can be independent of how well one or some can teach it. There is also the possibilty that something is at or not far from it's inception, so it could be logical that there wouldn't be many to teach it, and of those few, it is certainly reasonable that a minority may actually be able to teach it (communicate it) well.

[YouKnowWho]

1 is better than 1,2, and 1,2 is better than 1,2,3. If you can use

- double legs to take your opponent down in 1 step that will be the best.
- single leg to get your opponent's leading leg, and then hook his back leg to take him down in 2 steps that will be the next best.

Simple is alway better. You can kill twice as mang enemies within a certain amount of time.

[nospam]

There's no quick or right answer, but your questions raise a larger problem with gung fu in general. In my estimation, many hard styles have become just as protracted as soft or internal styles. Historically, hard or external styles were the quickest road to self-defense. They didn't involve the lengthy study of body harmonization through slowed movement and breath work as found in internal styles; rather, they focused on physical conditioning (muscular and bone) and sparring. Brute force is quicker and easier to cultivate than redirecting and reapplying an opponent's energy.

The focus today has shifted from martial application to martial art. Gung fu has tumbled down the dark green Fujian mountain slopes and along the way every dam style has picked up taolu after taolu after taolu (exercise sets or forms). Forms were once a minor tool masters used to pass down concepts and techniques of a lineage and to an extent, work on physical conditioning. Time was spent more on martial application through drilling of technique and sparring. Today forms are a major tool and for many teachers' have totally replaced martial application outside of static demonstration of possible application. There are the obvious reasons for this, and if this is what you're looking for then this type of 'complex' system is better or best suited to you. Granted, you will always be in a state of 'getting better' and 'taking away a lesson or two in your ever-lasting losses to those more athletic or more intent on learning martial application, but your teacher will be forever encouraging as you pay your way through the martial rainbow of never ending achievement.

It's hard to find teachers that are good at both passing their art and training good fighters using a style's fighting concepts. My lineage of Bak Sing has synthesized our forms to mirror how we fight using our style at the various levels of progression. All our secrets are there in the most basic of forms we teach, but without the legend and understanding that comes through putting in the hard work, and self discovery with gentle leading, it will always remain basic and the secrets forever lost. There is methodology that needs to be followed to open the next stage, and every style differs (plug in 30+ forms here), but once a practitioner is able to read their style's legend and converse in their own style, the application is Gung Fu wide regardless of style. The difference only being in the belief structure of ones' martial art.

We all walk a common road to a final destination that honestly shouldn't take longer than 2 years to attain with solid and consistent work/study. Just like with any physical activity, the answers are in the basics or foundation of skills we were all trained in. It may take another 10 years down that road to truly master all aspects, but in Today's society a teacher does not have 10 years with a student, nor should an adult student need 10 years with a teacher.

nospam

[hskwarrior]

double spaces man! i have to go get me reading spectacles to read that novel you just wrote bruddah

[wenshu]

Isn’t the whole point of a great training method that it is easy to learn and produces good people and works for the majority of people learning it?

No.

My final question is if the torso methods, force issuing methods dissolving methods etc take that long to learn, how on earth did people survive long enough to actually keep the art alive? I have a hard time believing that when these arts were needed in order to help people actually survive in hostile time’s arts that took a long time to learn were that useful or survived

To be honest when I read advanced, complex, difficult to learn and takes a long time I wonder if
A) its worth learning and
B) is this necessarily true or simply an excuse to hide bad teaching or an inferior art,

any thoughts?

______

Grappling wise the technical arena is huge, just on the ground and just on your back you have to learn how to use the guard in its various guises : full, open, closed, spider, butterfly half, quarter, upside down etc you have to learn how to escape mount in all its variations: low high fat boy, grapevine etc. And then there’s side control: conventional, sit through, reverse sit through, modified scarf, and normal scarf. Then there are other positions such as knee on belly. That’s not including learning both submissions and submission defence which is a huge area in its self. Add to this new position and submission come along, quarter guard, 50/50 guard DARC choke, gater roll, rubber guard, etc and you can see how technical grappling is. Its simply a wider area of skills than striking

[Frost]

No.


______

And your point is?

Grappling can be as complex or easy as you want to make it, depending as Ronin said on how far you want to take the art and it is hugely technical but technical doesn’t mean the same as complex does it?


But lets say for a moment it is complex, its not advanced nor difficult to learn people pick the basics up in a matter of months and can compete straight away so its hardly an excuse for bad teaching or an inferior art

So grappling is technical and can be seen as complex but its also its easy to learn has a high percentage of workable techniques works great for most people and you can find lots of examples of it working in competition and real life

[Iron_Eagle_76]

Personally I believe in range fighting. Close this distance, strike, clinch, throw, submit or working combinations of these particular ranges. One thing I noticed is when I began training more in clinch and Shuai principles many techniques became more applicable than from throwing at a distance. But I am more of a striker so I always fall back to that.

I still believe that not focusing on range fighting hurts many Kung Fu styles and practioners. Only focusing on A instead of A, B, and C limits oneself to all aspects of how these techniques they learn can be applied.

[lkfmdc]

Personally I believe in range fighting.

The modern world has disproven most ideas of "range"

Or, rather, it is much more simple

There is

(1) Kickboxing (watch you know who go nuts! LOL) - detached kicking, punching, striking etc

(2) Wrestling / Clinching / in fighting

(3) Da ground

The obsessive compulsive attempt to disect into a thousand pieces "range" hinders practical application

[Iron_Eagle_76]

The modern world has disproven most ideas of "range"

Or, rather, it is much more simple

There is

(1) Kickboxing (watch you know who go nuts! LOL) - detached kicking, punching, striking etc

(2) Wrestling / Clinching / in fighting

(3) Da ground

The obsessive compulsive attempt to disect into a thousand pieces "range" hinders practical application

Actually this is pretty spot on to what I meant by "range", so maybe you thought I meant something else. That being said, A, B, and C as I put it are pretty much your 1, 2, and 3.

[TenTigers]

agree-Bruce Lee's method of dividing ranges into kicking, striking, trapping, grappling, is innacurate. He doesn't take into account that you can strike from "kicking range," and kick from "striking range," depending on yuor tool development. IMHO, if you are close enough to not simply connect, but penetrate yuor opponent with a kick, you are usually within striking range as well. Long range kicks, such as low kick to the front leg are the exception, rather than the rule.
I prefer to say hitting range, to include most strikes and kicks.
(yeah, yeah, I know. A kick is a strike. po-tay-to, po-tah-to...)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually, "range" does come into paly when we consider HOW to do any of the things just mentioned (Strike, clinch, grapple, ground work).
Kicking from kicking range ( optimum) and kicking from punching range and kicking from clinching range and kicking on the ground require different biomechanics.
Same goes for punching and any type of strikes.
And to a further extent, grappling is the same.
Grappling a kick from its "optimum" range requires a different approach then grappling a kick from the clinch.

BL's view of ranges gets a bit muddled because people forget that he was talking about ideal/preferred ranges for types of techniques.

One must always be aware that ANYTHING can happen from ANY range, but at the same time we also need to be aware that different ranges do require different mechanics.

[wenshu]

And your point is?

Your original premise is flawed.

[SteveLau]

Good topic. Because it is a common pit-fall in martial art.

Usually, advanced is necessary better, but not complex. First, we need to define what is advanced. To me, it means better than basic. Most field of studies get complex when they are developed further and further over time. Take Hung Gar as an example, it is now complex. But the training method is simple. And that is good training method - transmit knowledge and skill of an complex fighting art using simple method. Unfortunately, it does not always happen. It is also a common plague of traditional CMA. Perhaps that is why there is criticism saying some CMA styles are more a performing art than a fighting art.




KC
Hong Kong

[Subitai]

Both a Beginner and an Advanced person may use a simple technique.

The more advanced you get, the more simple you are in application


The difference between them is that the advanced person does all the fundamentals ALLOT better and with experience, at the right time.

[YouKnowWho]

That is why there is criticism saying some MA styles are more a performing art than a fighting art.

I don't think the "performance" has anything to do with "advance".

In the Chinese throwing art, the advance level training is to train your combo (to use one move to set up another move). Most of the time if your opponent's skill level is high, your solo move won't work. You have to borrow your opponent's force and put your hope on your 2nd move instead of your 1st move.