Shifu Patterson Quotes

[sanjuro_ronin]

Since the last thread got closed and given to the nature of things, I thought it prudent to have a thread on what Shifu Patterson actually wrote, as opposed to what some may have "read".

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on why fighting doesn’t look “textbook:

Beyond that, actual fighting is not film making. You rarely get to see the "picture perfect technique". When you do, that is a true kodak moment. Mostly, and especially for the first several years of full contact competition, you see a developing use of principle in the evolving fighter. It is only after many years, when they become more calm in such a circumstance, that you may actually see more from them.

Which leads me to my second "disconnect". Most people do not train to "marry" the skills they gain through practice of their respective "art" to the actuality of the pressure of fighting. Things are different when another human being is determinde to hurt you and you are well aware of that fact.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on what is “uniquely internal” with his fighters:

So, what is uniquely internal in my guys and girls? The use of principle, the use of footwork, the use of tactics. Beyond that, isn't all martial arts just punches, kicks and throws?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on one of his experiences with IMA in America:
A polite young man greeted me and we began to chat about the arts. He began to ask me questions about what I thought regarding things like "the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, etc. etc." And I was confused. None of my teachers had ever used such words or jargon to me in my education. This seemed to make him feel superior. And more discussion ensued. Eventuall this led us to a "common ground" where he then asked me to "push hands" with him. I readily agreed, of course, as I love pushing hands with complete unknowns. We then discussed the rules of play and commenced to link arms.

When I touched him, he was utterly and completely soft. No linkage what-so-ever. No connection to the ground. He was literally "draping" on my arms. So I asked him if he were ready yet or just positioning himself. He replied that he was indeed ready, with a rather bemused look on his face. So, I drove both palms straight into his chest and uprooted him across the floor. When he came to a stop, he got up and began to shake his index finger at me, exclaiming; "tha.. tha... that's BARBARIC!!!" I was again confused and told him so. He said that he had been taught to NEVER use short power in push hands because of its danger. I said... "and???"

So, we linked up again, since he said he maybe wasn't ready afterall. And now he was stiff as a board trying to keep me out. So, I cut his force with a simple redirect and sent him flying again. You can imagine the words after that second go, so I'll cut to the end....

I said to him; "what good is all the fancy jargon about the sticking chi, the lifting chi, the suppressing chi, and such, if you can't even stop a simple straight push from me?"

I come from a long line of fighters. And the internal arts have two sides built into them. They have the side devoted to health and longevity trainings and they have the side devoted to using those same actions for fighting.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on forms:
From form we learn integration. Forms give us the end "frame" of motion for body kinetic alignment upon delivery of force. From form we also develop transitional strength. Form is VERY important. But not at the expense of other training. I.E. Comprehensive and appropriate "layered" drills to develop certain essential skill sets, resistance training, percussion training, strength training and endurance trainiing. To focus on form alone is futile. But to remove form entirely (which I will say is impossible in a moment with an anecdote) is equally futile.

At a seminar for MMA folks, a muay thai based fellow asked me a similar question and received a similar answer. Whereupon he said words to the effect of "I don't believe in forms at all." I asked him to assist me in a little demo and brought him out onto the floor.

I extended my hand with a pad and asked him to kick it with his best round kick. He did so after a few misgivings. I then said to him; "Now, describe to me how you just now performed that kick as if I were completely ignorant." After a few questions for clarification of what I wanted him to do, he began to in detail tell me about when and how he stepped his front foot, when and how he rotated his waist, when and how he counterbalanced his rotational force, etc.

When done, I said to him.. "Dude, that's form." You object to what you call form as long organized patterns of movement. But all movement, to be performed properly, has a "form". You're just used to doing small mini forms revolving around one or two movements only.

Form in traditional chinese arts is a lviing text book. It is a construct for the development of kinetic potential, a source of theory and tactical overlay perspective and a means of cultivating fitness/endurance in the body. It is also a means of evaluation of performance and skill capabilities. I.E.. if your balance falls apart at high speed on this or that movement, you either have work left to do or you have a mistaken perspective of that particular mechanic and it needs to be corrected.

To me, form is of essential value. If I were to try and percentage it out for you, I'd say my fighters had about a 50% focus on form. And the rest of what I named above (drills to develop certain essential skill sets, resistance training, percussion training, strength training and endurance trainiing) rotated in terms of percentage allotted depending on deficiency seen within form or performanc of form.

[Dragonzbane76]

hate to say it ronin but "someone" not naming names will probably come in here and drag this into the gutter with overbearing opinions.

I enjoyed the discussion in the other thread as well and respect Mr. Patterson for his opinions. hope this one doesn't end like the other.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on HIS IMA:
The internal arts as they were taught to me are complete. We do conditioning. We sweat. We bleed. We are not elitist snobs who are uinwilling to get dirty or roll around on the ground (ever heard of the three basin theory?).

We do mostly body weight strengthening exercises. But some are device driven. We hit things... lots of things.. in various ways. We fight. We do scenario training. We grapple. I will grant that I have encountered many in the USA who think this blasphemy but I have always just shrugged, smiled and then proven to them why they are misguided.

Patterson on How HIS IMA was trained inTaiwan compared to the USA:

I can only really speak to what I experienced in Taiwan and what I have experienced here in the US by contrast.

In Taiwan, at least in my day, all styles trained to fight. Very few exceptions to this. As such, all practioners understood that the ground was just another range/venue/transition of combative potential. So we all did it.. I never met anyone of any stylistic persuasion there that did not practice ground technique. Although we all had our differences in terms of emphasis.

It is only in the USA that I have seen such seemingly insurmountable differences of opinion over what qualifies as this or that or what defines this or that. Silly if you ask me. I have already stated that there are only so many things that can be done with a hand or foot. The rest is stylistic persuasion via tactical overlay or perspective of efficiency of combat.

Many things are a trade off. You want to be integrated? Then kinetic principles say you need to remain centered and not over extend your balance hence sacrficing your leverage and strength. You want to get to the enemy quickly? Then you might opt for long range extension knowing that you are momentarily vulnerable if you miss.. so don't miss, right? You want to be quick? You'll sacrifice some power potential via less mass involvement. Want to be powerful? You'll sacrifice some speed on the opposite end of that same coin to get your whole mass involved. (Of course, duly noted that both these ceilings appreciate in direct proportion to your ability).

So, I guess to elaborate... all old styles are complete. They need no outside help. It's all been done before. The bickering comes from mistaken perspectives, missing information or just plain obstinance in most cases I reckon.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on the Internal/external debacle:

As to the whole internal/external debacle. Again, I will say there are only so many things you can do with a hand or a foot. And there is nothing new under the sun in martial arts. It's all been done before. All complete styles/systems/arts have both Yin and Yang. If only one side is practiced, you are not going to become well rounded. You must condition yourself as well as meditate. You must fight as well as push hands. You must strengthen as well as learn to yield.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on complete systems:
Second, I have already made my position clear that I never felt the need to go outside my respective system. And that old systems are indeed complete in their attempts to address all aspects/ranges/transitions of combat potential.

Perhaps I was fortunate to have open minded and knowledgeable teachers who encouraged me to explore other disciplines via "crossing arms" (this is what we said in those days) and to bring back any questions or dilemnas I had. There was always an answer waiting.

I remember in my first full contact event I had the fortune (or misfortune depending on how you look at things) to draw a Thai in one of my bouts. I won the bout on decision, but that man beat me to death with elbows and knees during. Afterward, my teacher took me aside for a few days and taught me a better way to deal with such attacks inside. The next time I fought a Thai, it was decidely different.

Practitioners evolve. No question about it. Every time we get our head handed to us, we evolve by necessity to avoid same from happening yet again.

But I will one more time for the record say; There is nothing new under the sun. All has been done before. Those who would say that what they do is unique.. well, maybe to them it is, but not to me. Oftentimes it simply boils down to your individual paradigm and experience quotient I reckon.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on the influence of other systems:
Look, in my day, you didn't ask your teachers about where this or that came from. You respectfully did what was asked of you when asked. Trying to grill them over what they were teaching you, or worse, implying that what they were teaching you was not what they said it was would likely get you seriously hurt.

As an aside though.. ever see a photo of a "jab" from the bare knuckles days of western boxing? Looks a great deal like the splitting fist of most Hsing-I systems, albeit in a more shallow basin does it not? Hmmmm.... chicken or egg?

My "familie's" history is public record by now. So you can think whatever you like about what is and is not in the "Tang Shou Tao" lineage. The Taiwanese martial artists in my day were very pragmatic people and nothing else really mattered much to them. We trained the arts as we were told to train them.

The fact that we have all three "internal" arts in the Tang Shou Tao system doesn't really change anything I've said. All three stem from the same principle base and and so "dovetail" quite nicely. And it is not at all uncommon, or wasn't in my day, for an "internalist" to start in one of the three and then branch into the other two. Just as it is not uncommon for long term practitioners starting with any other stylistic persuasion to eventually branch into other styles. Such is the evolution of a practitioner.

By example; once I actually understood there were different "lineages" out there, I once aske Hsu Hong Chi (XuHongJi) what "style" our Hsing-I (xingyi) was. His reply to me was: "Where come from, not important. Work, no work, THAT your concern!" And he walked away. I didn't ask that same questioin for many, many years after that first time. Message received, sir! Thank you for not killing me, sir!

I think that a constantly questing mind keeps their respective art fresh. The willingness to interact with others in whatever venue, be it push hands or organized fighting or backyard barbecue brawling, all contribute to keeping the mind evolving within the respective discipline being studied. It is only when people allow themselves to become too "comfortable" and hence "complacent" within only their own school or group that they become tunnel visioned and fail to dig deeper into their system to discover the wealth of information contained. It's there. You just have to look.

It is the questing that is important. The attempts to categorize and quantify only serve to obfuscate the truth. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." As soon as you attempt to define something that is undefinable you limit your perspective awareness to the truth forever afterward.

Again, a "system" is defined by the perspectives it holds about how to best express and utilize the different ranges/tools of combat.. foot, hand, elbow, knee, shoulder, hip, head, trapping, grappling, throwing, submission.. the "system" is the blueprint that makes all these tools and ranges work efficiently together. The tools are the tools, but the "how" of utilization of the tools creates the "system" over time. The differing viewpoints on what is a good "trade off" create the different stylistic persuasions we see today. The rest is the individual in question. The respective strengths and weaknesses of that practitioner will then determine the selected and/or favored tools within the system of choice.

There is no such thing as a "bad" tool. And there is no such thing as a "superior" tool. There exist only poor decisions of when and how to use a tool, or, mistaken perspectives on the actual utility of said tool. All tools are useful in their respective time and place. And if there were such a thing as a "superior" tool, well then, we would ALL be practicing only that ONE THING. And it would have been discoverd LONG ago.

I have had numerous discussions with practitioners/teachers that tell me that they feel that they are able to fight and fight well. Oftentimes, by asking just a few quick questions... Do you spar in your school? What are the rules if any? Do you engage with outsiders at all? Do you go to other schools/venues to play with unknowns in contact environments? What are the rules, if any?..... tells me where their respective heads are. It is amazing to me how many practitioners keep their metaphorical heads in the sand but yet profess that "they know" what they do is real and effective.

And now we have come full circle. As my initial comment on this thread is once again here to be stated. I think there is a major disconnect in many schools today. They do not train essence for combat. They do not marry their style based skill sets with the pressure of actual fighting. Yet they profess that they know.

I say; good luck with that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Patterson on open minded teachers and training that lead to a complete system:

I think it always has MUCH to do with the teacher/environment. I also think it has to do with the individual.

Master Hsu had many, many accomplished friends from different disciplines. They used to drop by the school all the time to show us "their style's way" of doing things. This always prompted MANY questions in us regarding the whys and wherefores of our respective differences of technical persuasion and tactic.

I was fortunate.... no doubt about it.. to have open minded teachers that did not shun others that were different as being "wrong" but only as different.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I hope I am not overstepping my position here, but I just wanted to make sure that things being attributed to Shifu Patterson are attributed correctly.

If Shifu Patterson feels this thread is in bad taste, I will deleted at once.

[sanjuro_ronin]

hate to say it ronin but "someone" not naming names will probably come in here and drag this into the gutter with overbearing opinions.

I enjoyed the discussion in the other thread as well and respect Mr. Patterson for his opinions. hope this one doesn't end like the other.

Well, it can be moved to the Southern forum where I can moderate it, but I trust my fellow Mods
I'd close it and sticky it, but I can't do that in the main forum.

[Dragonzbane76]

Patterson on open minded teachers and training that lead to a complete system:

I think it always has MUCH to do with the teacher/environment. I also think it has to do with the individual.

Master Hsu had many, many accomplished friends from different disciplines. They used to drop by the school all the time to show us "their style's way" of doing things. This always prompted MANY questions in us regarding the whys and wherefores of our respective differences of technical persuasion and tactic.

I was fortunate.... no doubt about it.. to have open minded teachers that did not shun others that were different as being "wrong" but only as different.

I would liked to have asked him if he felt that his "up bringing" was special when looking at all the other schools? Was he lucky in finding what he did, compared to all the other places to learn at?

I think that he was, but that's my opinion. The reasoning in my book for the debate about cross training is that most people don't have this and go looking into other places to find it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I would liked to have asked him if he felt that his "up bringing" was special when looking at all the other schools? Was he lucky in finding what he did, compared to all the other places to learn at?

I think that he was, but that's my opinion. The reasoning in my book for the debate about cross training is that most people don't have this and go looking into other places to find it.

I would agree as this has been my experience too.
Some can argue that perhaps one was not long enough at a given school to learn these things but what is the logic of holding back the basics from a student that is learning how to protect themselves?
What is the logic in holding back what is basic in another system?