Most important part of learning

[PalmStriker]

Detractors of TCMA take heed:

What is your suggestion then?

Does the existence of TCMA actually make you angry? Do you want it all destroyed or something?

You are basing the utility of Martial Arts on a very specific situation:

2 people who both WANT to fight
Against a single opponent in a controlled environment
Without FEAR of death/prosecution/friends or family in danger or any consequences
Who's goal/need is the winning of the fight and Vanity and Reward
Who can only WIN by destroying the opponent
Who are both subject to the SAME rules, which they KNOW beforehand.

When none of these conditions are in place do you really think exactly the same methods apply? This should question whether the techniques and tactics you use are always going to be better than TCMA. Don't just skim the above conditions, think about their implications, especially on the mental state of the fighter.



Secondly Martial Arts is not brawling. The perfect Martial Art is one which can defeat its opponent without harming him. I realise this is possible with submission, and Jiujitsu is a great traditional art for this. Does this principle apply to your view of Martial Arts?


Thirdly, Not all people are aggressive or have the ability to commit violence, but they can still use Martial Arts to defend themselves. Some people will find an opening but will pull their punch short before hitting its target because of the psychological difficulty in hitting another person. Do you think MMA is a good art for them? Do you realise they might even be in the majority of people?


Fourthly, The utility of an art is entirely in your mind. You can apply it however your mind is capable of abstracting. Many people will go through their lives without actually fighting. Their time spent MA needs to be applied to their life in many other ways. Is Mediation useless? TCMA are Martial Arts but many of them are used as a launching pad for deeper philosophies and for many this is a major part of their art. What is the goal of your training? Should it make you less inclined or more inclined towards violent behaviour?

Well spoken composition on the present status of TCMA and the everlasting benefit of the arts.

[PalmStriker]

TCMA soulFOOD: Some people like to cook. Most like to eat. Some even like to fight. https://www.google.com/search?q=pict...w=1440&bih=807

[wenshu]

Evolution trends toward the most efficient use of energy output vs gain. Dogmatically clinging to the energetically inefficient (low probability) techniques for the simple sake of tradition, does not produce positive fitness. Even if by some chance, some exceptional few, can make them work...that's still simply an example of specialization. Want to know what happens in nature to specialists? They get out competed by the generalists that can occupy any niche.

Taking this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion; why study pugilism at all?

If effectiveness in natural selection is the measure of all things (and really, isn't that little too bookishly pragmatic? a little boring?) then no one should bother studying martial arts period. Just get a gun. Even so it's not exactly like the majority of people here are living in squalor in West Baltimore where violent natural selection among humans is actually a reality.

Either it works TODAY, demonstrably so, or it dies. End of story. Right now, its dying.

It's already dead, it's been dead for over a century. Learning kung fu is like learning Latin, or Ancient Greek. A dead language is arguably the least effective way to communicate (efficiency as measured by commonality to be precise). Maybe someone thinks its cool or wants to help perserve it out of a solemn desire to connect with their roots. A few people might make it work, but if all you want to do is have a conversation, go learn what everyone else is learning.

In evolutionary development terms, humans are so apex that at this point our prey includes the planet itself. This has afforded us the luxury of not having to worry about specialization and efficiency so we can study silly things like dead languages.

And really isn't that which is most common actually the least valuable?

[wenshu]

Don't have to, it would be front page news in any full contact fight org if a TCMA guy was suddenly tearing through opponents. And the burden of proof is on you to prove that they exist, not me to prove that they don't.

What a fucking retarded proposition.

What's with this ridiculous standard that in order to prove even one iota of effectiveness it has to completely dominate everything everywhere all the time?

Why does a gong fu practitioner need to go 'tearing through' anything? Cause you say so?

I'll humor you;

Gong fu sucks, can't fight, won't ever be able to compete with MMA. Ok?




















Oh. . .

you're still here

[PalmStriker]

Quote: PS iif you train TCMA and it doest work as you say why are you still training it? If you try a fish dish you are not accustomed to, and don't care for it, will you have a bone to pick and say the egg rolls also sucked? https://www.google.com/search?q=pict...w=1440&bih=807

[PalmStriker]

Whoah! Nice Rack! I mean, Wok!

[PalmStriker]

Quote" There was a basis way back when there was a fire under the collective backside of TCMAers. Back when they trained to win and constantly tested themselves against the best competitors they could find in order to be the best instead of sitting on their collective backsides. I said Joel was a crap fighter who lost to nobodies from a time when the talent pool wasn't exactly stellar and that's the truth. But the one thing I give him credit for, even with him being a comparatively crap fighter, is that he tried. That's more than 99% of the TCMA community and THAT is the saddest part." Baconator
Hopefully all you MMA guys won't band together to attack and burn down the Shaolin Temples. http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezin...hp?article=157

[Syn7]

The problem is that when your whole identity is tied into your MA style, you are less likely to address any shortcomings that may come to light later on. People learn a style that they are told is "complete" then when somebody finds a hole, they hit denial mode. The people who carry these styles forward effectively are people who do more than just MA's, people who are not defined by their style. People who have diverse and interesting lives outside of MA's. Yall know what I mean?

[Kellen Bassette]

Yes. Other arts were doing it first and TCMA has been pretty ineffective against and compared to those other arts. Then sanda comes along and lo and behold it looks more like those other successful arts than its supposed predecessors in TCMA.

I don't buy into the Sanda conspiracy theories some of the MT guys throw around. They are different. Yes they have similarities, but all striking does. MT definitely has a different flavor then Sanda, techs are a bit different as well. Don't forget the Chinese Military was teaching their version of Sanda in 1924.

But anyways...your always saying TCMA needs to adapt and evolve to survive. I think if it wants to be relevant as an effective fighting method, then yes, your right.

Here's my problem with your statement: Say I study TCMA, (which I do,) say I'm into combat, (which I am,) but what if I'm also progressive and adaptable with my art? You'll say I'm not doing TCMA. You say TCMA needs to evolve, but when you see TCMA guys adopt modern training methods to use their techs in the ring, or you see them fight sanda..you just say that's not TCMA.

So you say TCMA has to evolve, but as soon as their is any evidence of modernization or progressiveness, you claim it's not TCMA. Don't you see it's impossible to adapt and also be the exact same as 500 years ago?

So what is it you want? You want TCMA to modernize, but then you yell, "that's not TCMA!" I don't get that.

[Kellen Bassette]

Good post Syn.

[Bacon]

I don't buy into the Sanda conspiracy theories some of the MT guys throw around. They are different. Yes they have similarities, but all striking does. MT definitely has a different flavor then Sanda, techs are a bit different as well. Don't forget the Chinese Military was teaching their version of Sanda in 1924.

But anyways...your always saying TCMA needs to adapt and evolve to survive. I think if it wants to be relevant as an effective fighting method, then yes, your right.

Here's my problem with your statement: Say I study TCMA, (which I do,) say I'm into combat, (which I am,) but what if I'm also progressive and adaptable with my art? You'll say I'm not doing TCMA. You say TCMA needs to evolve, but when you see TCMA guys adopt modern training methods to use their techs in the ring, or you see them fight sanda..you just say that's not TCMA.

So you say TCMA has to evolve, but as soon as their is any evidence of modernization or progressiveness, you claim it's not TCMA. Don't you see it's impossible to adapt and also be the exact same as 500 years ago?

So what is it you want? You want TCMA to modernize, but then you yell, "that's not TCMA!" I don't get that.

The problem is this in a nut shell:
Sanda is progressive martial art. It's been adapting and changing. It works well in the ring. Whether it is a copy of muay Thai I would certainly never label it as traditional. It's CMA but not TCMA.

The TCMA guys can't effectively fight the way they train. Either they fight like the modern martial arts or they lose and they certainly fight like modern martial artists better when they train like modern martial artists.

The point is that in order to modernize TCMA would have to ditch a lot of its traditions in which case it just becomes CMA. And since there are already guys fighting in a modern way who are more effective that the TCMAers unless you can bring something both unique and beneficial which is clearly not kickboxing, judo, bjj, wrestling, muay Thai, boxing, etc. folks are going to say you're essentially copying and doing one of those arts.

[Kellen Bassette]

The point is that in order to modernize TCMA would have to ditch a lot of its traditions in which case it just becomes CMA. And since there are already guys fighting in a modern way who are more effective that the TCMAers unless you can bring something both unique and beneficial which is clearly not kickboxing, judo, bjj, wrestling, muay Thai, boxing, etc. folks are going to say you're essentially copying and doing one of those arts.

Well we know you'll say that...

I don't think you need to ditch the traditions. They have value, anytime your exercising and breaking a sweat it's certainly not worthless. You just have to spend more time on things that are more directly applicable to combat.

I always think I bring TCMA into sparring when I use certain techs that are commonly associated with it. You will be able to find these in other TMA, but they certainly don't belong to MMA, at least not yet.

Some examples where I feel I'm applying TCMA:

Open hands deflecting/parrying punches...(sort of like Cung does, effective and very Chinese), side thrust kick, lead hook kick, spinning hook kick, cross kick, back fist, crescent kicks, low side kick, spinning back kick, front snap kick...

You will occasionally see these techs in MMA, but none of them have been adopted in an across the board fashion, (as of yet.)

All of these techs are associated with TMA and are quite useful if skillfully applied.

[YouKnowWho]

modernize TCMA ...

Modernize is 2 ways street. When a wrestler wants to train Chinese wrestling, it indicates that there are something in TCMA (Chinese wrestling is part of the TCMA) that a wrestler believes can help him to bring his skill into the next level.

All MA systems have holes in it. One of my guys told me that the MMA gym that he went to (there are two UFC fighters there), they all liked to use MT clinch on him. After he got his opponent into a head lock that not only lock his opponent's head but also lock both of his opponent's arms, his opponent stopped using MT clinch on him.

I only believe in "principle" and I don't believe in style. Principle such as "If your opponent wants to

- bend his arms, you help him to bend more than he wants.
- straight his arms, you help him to straight more than he wants".

will always work no matter what style that you may train.

MMA and TCMA will be integrated together soon or later. It may not happen in my generation. It will definitely happen in the next generation. When someone asked, "Is there anything that can help me to train my single leg or double legs at home when I don't have training partner available?" I can already see that MMA guys start to have concern about how to:

- "enhance" and
- "polish" certain skill

when training partners are not available. Equipment training and solo drills will soon be introduced into the MMA training. The difference betweem TCMA and MMA will be less and less after that.

[Syn7]

Good post Syn.

I think it's a really important aspect that is not talked about very often. Like if you immerse yourself in a style all day every day you will get good at what you are doing for sure. But you also create a bubble. Sometimes differing perspectives is exactly what a style needs to move forward. Not different martial perspectives, but diff perspectives in general.

How many people here can relate to this: You train something hard and just can't get it. You back off a bit and do other stuff. A week later you try it again and oh wow, look, you can do it. So not training actually helped, yes? Or did you actually never stop training and just didn't realize that backing off was also a part of this learning process?

IMO diversification improves the learning process to a certain extent.

[Syn7]

Modernize is 2 ways street. When a wrestler wants to train Chinese wrestling, it indicates that there are something in TCMA (Chinese wrestling is part of the TCMA) that a wrestler believes can help him to bring his skill into the next level.

All MA systems have holes in it. One of my guys told me that the MMA gym that he went to (there are two UFC fighters there), they all liked to use MT clinch on him. After he got his opponent into a head lock that not only lock his opponent's head but also lock both of his opponent's arms, his opponent stopped using MT clinch on him.

I only believe in "principle" and I don't believe in style. Principle such as "If your opponent wants to

- bend his arms, you help him to bend more than he wants.
- straight his arms, you help him to straight more than he wants".

will always work no matter what style that you may train.

MMA and TCMA will be integrated together soon or later. It may not happen in my generation. It will definitely happen in the next generation. When someone asked, "Is there anything that can help me to train my single leg or double legs at home when I don't have training partner available?" I can already see that MMA guys start to have concern about how to:

- "enhance" and
- "polish" certain skill

when training partners are not available. Equipment training and solo drills will soon be introduced into the MMA training. The difference betweem TCMA and MMA will be less and less after that.

As a wrestler in high school we had TONS of solo drills. They weren't forms, but it was mos def a kind of shadow boxing. Some things you can practice alone, some things you can't. Some things you can practice alone or with others. That's just how it is.

For example, a heavy bag is a great tool, but it will only get you so far. And vice versa. Sparring is great, but it will only get you so far. You wanna hard punch and have the ability to connect, hit a bag AND spar.