Are there real Shaolin Monks?

[Miqi]

Actually, I only mentioned my experience- where I trained and whom with - when you asked for it. It had nothing to do with my argument on fighting strategy and the differences between sanda and unplanned violent encounters outside of the sport environment.

Well this isn't true at all. The argument was never that there was - or wasn't a difference between sport and self defence. Few people thesedays would ever argue that there was no difference. The points was whether Shaolin monks practiced more practical self defence techniques that made them, in terms of self defence, more skilled at no rules fighting. You used yourself as evidence of having witnessed this skill set. I simply questioned whether it was true.

Your motive, as it turned out, was to look up videos of my instructor and say he is not as good as any random pro sport wushu guy you find, and what?

Well, actually, I began this discussion by saying that I didn't think Shaolin monks likely to be as high level as pro wushu or pro san da players. You make it sound like that was a hidden agenda, rather than just actual knowledge.

Therefore my argument on fighting strategy is invalid because you think sport wushu guys dance better than my instructor? You simply wouldn't address the actual points I made, except ironically to concede them.

Your point is just that monks do more fight based training, and that that is a superior martial aim and outcome. Although this principkle is partly true, as yet, you've not provided anything to support that that it applies to monks.

[Miqi]

First of all, I don't know how these two can even be compared. The "nanquan" guy didn't hardly do a thing that resembled martial arts, much less a practical one. He should be compared to a figure skater, since he did mostly axel jumps and salchows, plus some dance poses.

Why is "complexity" included in your comparison? The Shaolin form was not made up by him, and complexity is not a virtue in martial arts. The more complex the less practical in most cases.

You say he is better at controlling the form at high speed, better paced, and has superior physical posture?

What is your basis for judging that? Where in the Shaolin form was it not well-controlled or what postures were not executed as well? I've never seen anyone do this form better, and the pace was as it should be. It's not a zixuan taolu.

Well, I would critique from a perspective of judging for competition. You may apply other criteria. I'm not going to take apart the monk's performance. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd already know, and it is churlish to take apart his performance. I would be very surprised if the lad himself thought that he was higher level than the other guy.

That's your problem perhaps. My argument has always been that they are two completely different things with different purposes and different standards for good execution, and can't be compared this way to say which is "better". I think that is a silly thing to do. Both are top notch for what they are, but I wouldn't compare a figure skater to a martial artists and say the martial artist isn't as good as the figure skater.

Bith are just flying around the floor. Only in your mind is one more "martial" than the other. However, nan quan man looks much stronger, and his techniques much closer to what traditional wushu should be like - powerful, crisp, well structured.

[LFJ]

Well this isn't true at all. The argument was never that there was - or wasn't a difference between sport and self defence. Few people thesedays would ever argue that there was no difference. The points was whether Shaolin monks practiced more practical self defence techniques that made them, in terms of self defence, more skilled at no rules fighting. You used yourself as evidence of having witnessed this skill set. I simply questioned whether it was true.

My point was not merely to argue that there was a difference, but what that difference is and how it applies to the question of whether sanda training is more effective than traditional training methods. If that can be understood, then the answer to the question should be obvious.

I would be very surprised if the lad himself thought that he was higher level than the other guy.

Higher level on what terms? If aesthetically appealing and athletically impressive it doesn't matter. As I said, they have completely different purposes and therefore standards for evaluation. I know him personally and know that he is aware of the fighting principles of the set. He specializes in this one. From a martial arts perspective, the nanquan guy likely doesn't know anything. He's only a performer. So how can he compare? Can what he did be used effectively in a fight? If not, then it is much worse, useless even. The only real judgement in martial art it whether or not it works.

Bith are just flying around the floor. Only in your mind is one more "martial" than the other. However, nan quan man looks much stronger, and his techniques much closer to what traditional wushu should be like - powerful, crisp, well structured.

But what the nanquan guy is doing resembles figure skating more than martial arts. With the Shaolin form, I can tell you the specific application or concept being trained by each action and how it applies to fighting, and why he executed it very well. Can you do that with the nanquan guy's routine or is it not so much just in my mind? "Powerful, crisp, well-structured" is fine, but traditional wushu is not just about looking good. It above all should also be effective. If it doesn't work it should be discarded. My favorite quote is also how I determine what is good in martial arts and what I train; "In other arts, beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but in martial arts, the only judgement is whether or not it works."

[Miqi]

My point was not merely to argue that there was a difference, but what that difference is and how it applies to the question of whether sanda training is more effective than traditional training methods. If that can be understood, then the answer to the question should be obvious.

But, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that traditional methods are "more effective". Is there?

Higher level on what terms? If aesthetically appealing and athletically impressive it doesn't matter. As I said, they have completely different purposes and therefore standards for evaluation. I know him personally and know that he is aware of the fighting principles of the set. He specializes in this one. From a martial arts perspective, the nanquan guy likely doesn't know anything. He's only a performer. So how can he compare? Can what he did be used effectively in a fight? If not, then it is much worse, useless even. The only real judgement in martial art it whether or not it works.

Ah - well here we have it. You want one forms performance to be evidence that someone can fight, and another that they can't. I say neither prove this. Having "knowledge" of applications is not the same thing as actually being able to use it.

However, I would be bug-swallowing astonished if the nan quan guy hadn't had fairly extensive san da training as well, as that is a pretty standard wushu curriculum. I would also be astonished if, in most circumstances, the young monk didn't revert to san da for self defence.

But what the nanquan guy is doing resembles figure skating more than martial arts. With the Shaolin form, I can tell you the specific application or concept being trained by each action and how it applies to fighting, and why he executed it very well. Can you do that with the nanquan guy's routine or is it not so much just in my mind? "Powerful, crisp, well-structured" is fine, but traditional wushu is not just about looking good. It above all should also be effective. If it doesn't work it should be discarded. My favorite quote is also how I determine what is good in martial arts and what I train; "In other arts, beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but in martial arts, the only judgement is whether or not it works."

I don't really want to get into attacking the young monk's level. I would say, though, that it's just you saying that his form is truly martially applicable. I get it. So you say. I don't believe it. Ball's in your court.

These kinds of conversations are so hackneyed that I rather guess that what's next is you telling me how thick and obtuse I am, and how little I know about forms.

[Miqi]

but Sanda is an ancient art! and it also looks very much the same as what many modern Sanda fighters do. closed guards, standing stances, etc. there are famous Luohan 36, 108, and 360 Sanda combat techniques in the ancient curriculums.
.

This is a really important, tertiary sub-text to this discussion. The great yiquan master Yao ZongXun said that the real, true CMA of the past was much closer to muay thai than to forms practice of any type.

[LFJ]

but Sanda is an ancient art!

Modern Sanda isn't a martial art, but a fighting sport. I would try not to confuse them. The overall strategy and training methods are for a very different purpose. Going rounds one-on-one with an opponent in a protective environment with safety rules and whatnot is very different from protecting yourself in an unplanned violent encounter. Adopt a sanda strategy in the wrong situation and you'll wish you weren't always training for sport.

LFJ, i think discussing in general terms is not appropriate here at all!

Comparing sport wushu to a fighting art is already quite general.

[LFJ]

But, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that traditional methods are "more effective". Is there?

Sure there is, to those who train it and use it.

Ah - well here we have it. You want one forms performance to be evidence that someone can fight, and another that they can't. I say neither prove this. Having "knowledge" of applications is not the same thing as actually being able to use it.

However, I would be bug-swallowing astonished if the nan quan guy hadn't had fairly extensive san da training as well, as that is a pretty standard wushu curriculum. I would also be astonished if, in most circumstances, the young monk didn't revert to san da for self defence.

I can tell you he can use it. It's part of his training that I've seen and done. On the other hand, the nanquan guy can't use the actions in his form because it is simply not for fighting, which is no secret. He has to train sanda, which again develops a different mentality than training for non-sport self-protection.

I would say, though, that it's just you saying that his form is truly martially applicable. I get it. So you say. I don't believe it.

It just boils down to your lack of experience with it then. You're welcome to not believe it until you experience it. Until then, your belief should be suspended, I suppose, but I would also not take the opposite position and say it is not martially applicable while having no experience of it.

[Kellen Bassette]

but Sanda is an ancient art! and it also looks very much the same as what many modern Sanda fighters do. closed guards, standing stances, etc. there are famous Luohan 36, 108, and 360 Sanda combat techniques in the ancient curriculums.

This is 100% correct; and IMO an important discussion in itself.

Sanda, as a training method or competition is likely thousands of years old. Sanda as Shaolin techniques is hundreds of years old. Sanda practiced as its own method in a structured curriculum has been in existence longer than Muay Thai has been in the boxing ring.

Sanda wasn't invented by the communists in the '70's. They just standardized a rule set and the clothing; and have been changing it ever since.

[Kellen Bassette]

This is a really important, tertiary sub-text to this discussion. The great yiquan master Yao ZongXun said that the real, true CMA of the past was much closer to muay thai than to forms practice of any type.

I agree with you here. I also think Muay Boran probably evolved from arts that emigrated from south China long ago.

[rett]

When it comes to "Sanda vs. the street" for lack of a better term, would people agree with the following?

In fact, let's just say "boxing" for the sport-oriented training.

Suppose you take a good boxer and give him scenario training to handle things that can happen on the street.

In that equation becoming a good boxer is the hard part, and provides a good foundation for the scenario training. In comparison with becoming a good boxer, the scenario training is fairly simple. But the other way around doesn't apply. No amount of realistic scenario-based training is going to help if you haven't done the work to learn boxing (or Sanda or Thai boxing or whatever)

So if you agree with this, then perhaps you could say:

Training for fighting in a sports environment is very good preparation for real-life self defence, but needs a bit of additional scenario training to be complete.

Is this a platform everyone can accept?

[LFJ]

yes, the most important part in combat is to prepare for violent, several vs. one, and armed vs. unarmed situations. but competitive fighting on the arena (SanDa) has been a tradition. most importantly, ancient SanDa even looks very close to the modern SanDa. i think when sorting out rules for modern SanDa, they have had prior familiarity with the ancient art of SanDa:
Luohan Sanda methods (YouTube), Luohan 108 SanDa methods (Encyclopedia, vol.4, pp. 2-78).

There is no ancient "art" of sanda. It is a generic term used in many traditional styles for sparring or free fight training. But the techniques, strategies, etc. each art uses aren't the same as modern sport sanda, nor the same between different traditional styles. That is something quite different. Luohan sanda or such has nothing to do with modern sport sanda, except that they share the broad term.

[Kellen Bassette]

So if you agree with this, then perhaps you could say:

Training for fighting in a sports environment is very good preparation for real-life self defence, but needs a bit of additional scenario training to be complete.

Is this a platform everyone can accept?

I think any reasonable person could go along with this statement...

[LFJ]

Is this a platform everyone can accept?

I think training for sport develops an unwanted mentality and strategy for dealing with real violent encounters. It's not so much that the techniques and whatnot aren't useful. But training for either situation takes a lot of time and effort. Neither is easy. So for me, I'd say you must choose one way to go. I don't have the time to be training something that will develop the wrong mentality in me and try to override that with another kind of training and hope that is the first to come out should I need it to.

[Miqi]

When it comes to "Sanda vs. the street" for lack of a better term, would people agree with the following?

In fact, let's just say "boxing" for the sport-oriented training.

Suppose you take a good boxer and give him scenario training to handle things that can happen on the street.

In that equation becoming a good boxer is the hard part, and provides a good foundation for the scenario training. In comparison with becoming a good boxer, the scenario training is fairly simple. But the other way around doesn't apply. No amount of realistic scenario-based training is going to help if you haven't done the work to learn boxing (or Sanda or Thai boxing or whatever)

So if you agree with this, then perhaps you could say:

Training for fighting in a sports environment is very good preparation for real-life self defence, but needs a bit of additional scenario training to be complete.

Is this a platform everyone can accept?

Yes, I thnk that that's reasonable, and common sense. Time and time again boxing and muay thai proves its effectiveness, and although every self defence scenario is different, it is clearly a solid foundation, physically, technically and mentally.

[Miqi]

I think training for sport develops an unwanted mentality and strategy for dealing with real violent encounters. It's not so much that the techniques and whatnot aren't useful. But training for either situation takes a lot of time and effort. Neither is easy. So for me, I'd say you must choose one way to go. I don't have the time to be training something that will develop the wrong mentality in me and try to override that with another kind of training and hope that is the first to come out should I need it to.

This also is not unreasonable, but it's a question of how far the "other" training compensates for this. What kind of self defence training is so good that it actually outweighs the negatives of training for sport? And that is where you come in, LFJ...