Cirsus of Shaolin or not ?

[SHemmati]

...
When someone uses this technique (kick and punch together) You would not attempt to block them both simultaneously and on the inside. Thats the silly bit...

oh no, it was not a simultaneous kick and punch. as you say, it would be stupid if one tries to go through such simultaneous things and try blocking them simultaneously. here the opponent first punched, he grabbed the punching hand. this caused the opponent to kick him, then, without freeing his hand, he blocked the kick, and intentionally hooked his wrist below the kicking leg to not let it go easily. then the pelvis was open to the kick, he delivered the kick. this is the sequence:

[SHemmati]

Well, Ok, I can't argue this. However, I gave one example of the use of that technique. Of course you can use any technique in a variety of ways. Heck, after a while you forget all techniques anyway. They are really just tools to teach principals and concepts.

In the example I submitted, the concepts are to deflect and acquire incoming force (Defense), then uproot the opponent, disassemble structural alignment, and use compression to their skeletal system to make them fall...all pretty much simultaneously.

There are a variety of angles and positions one can take, that would accomplish this, regardless of what the incoming force was. As an example, I slipped a side kick once, caught it in the crook of my right arm. I shuffled in, in horse stance and fed my elbow over their collar bone and compressed it down. As he went down, that hand just kind of went onto the hero posture, only my fist was not on my knee. It was open on their shoulder at the conclusion. The opponents shoulder, on the other hand was exactly over my knee in between that, and the palm of my hand.

So other than the modification of using an open palm, it was the same identical move as I described above. I just used it in a totally different circumstance, with a completely different line of force.

A third application
Catch the same kick I did above, only with the opposite arm, step 90 degrees left, then in on a 45. Shuffle in in horse so you lift them by the perineum, and them using your fist shove down in the soft area above the groin.

They fall back into the empty place, and your fist ends up right above the knee, with your arm up. Same posture, just a mirror image of it.

These are 3 separate apps, for the same technique. All of which I have pulled off in real time at some point in my life.

yea, all smart applications. interestingly, so has Shi Deqian taught these applications for this 'hero sits on mountain' posture. one example is at the end of this video:
Shaolin Xiao Hong Quan combat applications- by Shi Deqian's Russian students (YouTube.com)

[Royal Dragon]

yea, all smart applications. interestingly, so has Shi Deqian taught these applications for this 'hero sits on mountain' posture. one example is at the end of this video:
Shaolin Xiao Hong Quan combat applications- by Shi Deqian's Russian students (YouTube.com)

There were some good apps here. Although many of them were done at a distance, leaving the defender open for knockout shots. Others were not actually the motion or energy seen in the form...which is something that always "irks" me.

As for Shi Deqian, I have no idea if he taught these or not. My understanding of the principals in play, on that one, comes from my AKTS training, and what I learned from Sal when we have been able to meet. From that understanding, the applications became obvious.

My examples, also, are the *Exact* same motion as in the empty hand form. When you see a vid or live demo where the motion of the app is different than the motion shown in the form, the app is NOT the explanation of the motion in the form. It's someone just guessing at what they do not know.

Pretty much all the apps in my AKTS, are identical to the form. There is little to no variance in the use, to the functional app that works in real time, and the form it comes from.

[GeneChing]

I was going to merge this into the Shaolin at the Circus thread, but I see it has become something else. For once, a redundant post is redeemed into a decent discussion. Bravo.

Carry on.

[Shaolin]

This is also why I have given up all my TCMA forms. I create my own drills instead. My solo drills (forms) are my partner drills without partner. This way I can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

I've pretty much done the same thing. I teach forms to the kids and my apprentices.

[wiz cool c]

here is a good example about what i was talking about before, on how there is something wrong with the shaolin application. by the way i'm not knocking shaolin, i love the art, but i can't pretend there isn't a problem,at least in my eyes there is.


this is an old teacher,i trained with for a short while. i tried to get the fighting aspect of shaolin from him. he did his best to teach me what he knew about the subject. notice how uncomfortable he seems when facing a training partner, almost as if he isn't used to having a partner in front of him,but purely is used to doing solo training drills. then notice how the sanda guy looks so at ease when called to do the drill. at one point the teacher,even though having a training partner still backs up about 5 feet and does the drill without a partner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZSXx...e-kEx1JXUs9TcA

[Royal Dragon]

I've pretty much done the same thing. I teach forms to the kids and my apprentices.

When I do teach (I kind of don't anymore), I teach all the techniques in the form, footwork, training drills stored in the form, qi gong stored in the form and everything else, but the choreography of the form...untill they are good at all that stuff. Then, at the very end, after they pass the exam, I give them the form to learn. They have to pass a second stage of testing on the choreography to get a cert and move up to the next level.

[YouKnowWho]

IMO, it's wrong to go from:

form -> fight

It's correct to go from:

fight -> form

I have one student who has been with me for 12 years. I have not taught him any forms yet. I did teach him more than 100 partner combo drills. A partner combo drill can be front kick, parry, punch, arm wrap, front cut, head smash, knee drop, arm bar. I told him that by removing partner from partner combo drills, he will get solo combo drills. By combining solo combo drills, he can create as many forms as he want to. I don't think he will ever do that. His interest is to test his skill in MMA gym and be a MMA instructor one day.

Since many of my longfist brothers still teach TCMA forms, I don't feel guilty not to teach any forms.

[Royal Dragon]

Which is exactly why I teach the form last.

IMO, it's wrong to go from:

form -> fight

It's correct to go from:

fight -> form

I have one student who has been with me for 12 years. I have not taught him any forms yet. I did teach him more than 100 partner combo drills. A partner combo drill can be front kick, parry, punch, arm wrap, front cut, head smash, knee drop, arm bar. I told him that by removing partner from partner combo drills, he will get solo combo drills. By combining solo combo drills, he can create as many forms as he want to. I don't think he will ever do that. His interest is to test his skill in MMA gym and be a MMA instructor one day.

Since many of my longfist brothers still teach TCMA forms, I don't feel guilty not to teach any forms.

[LFJ]

IMO, it's wrong to go from:

form -> fight

It's correct to go from:

fight -> form

That really depends on the type of system.

In some styles, form is just a place to store techniques and train physical attributes. In which case, it's fine to leave forms training until later. Other more abstract styles are much more developmental of essential structures through form that it becomes impossible to go from fight to form and develop true ability. In which case, form must absolutely come first.

[Royal Dragon]

That really depends on the type of system.

In some styles, form is just a place to store techniques and train physical attributes. In which case, it's fine to leave forms training until later. Other more abstract styles are much more developmental of essential structures through form that it becomes impossible to go from fight to form and develop true ability. In which case, form must absolutely come first.

I think the Hakka set "San Zhen" might fit this category. Although, even it, is mainly body mechanics drills linked together. You can take them out as stand alone exercises/qigongs, and they work just as well, if not better.

[SHemmati]

There were some good apps here. Although many of them were done at a distance, leaving the defender open for knockout shots...

there's no need to think of the ways the opponents can counter-attack when you are learning applications. in the way of becoming a fighter, learning applications is just the 2nd level after learning the form. it's in the next level, when one learns sparring, that he learns how to confront the opponents' counter actions. consider this post:

here is a good example about what i was talking about before, on how there is something wrong with the shaolin application. by the way i'm not knocking shaolin, i love the art, but i can't pretend there isn't a problem,at least in my eyes there is.


this is an old teacher,i trained with for a short while. i tried to get the fighting aspect of shaolin from him. he did his best to teach me what he knew about the subject. notice how uncomfortable he seems when facing a training partner, almost as if he isn't used to having a partner in front of him,but purely is used to doing solo training drills. then notice how the sanda guy looks so at ease when called to do the drill. at one point the teacher,even though having a training partner still backs up about 5 feet and does the drill without a partner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZSXx...e-kEx1JXUs9TcA

unlike what wiz cool c's thinking, this is not a problem with the style. his master has 1) learned the forms, 2) learned the applications, but has not learned the next level, "sparring."

[wiz cool c]

unlike what wiz cool c's thinking, this is not a problem with the style. his master has 1) learned the forms, 2) learned the applications, but has not learned the next level, "sparring."[/QUOTE]

that was my old teacher.i dont study with him anymore. he lived in one of the many surrounding schools of shaolin 7 years, so why would he not learn the next level of fighting in seven years time?

[Royal Dragon]

there's no need to think of the ways the opponents can counter-attack when you are learning applications.

I disagree. Learning the opponents possible counters is essential to learning the applications. A fight, is a thinking man's game. It's like playing chess, only in real life. One needs to be taught to anticipate counters, and how to prevent them as soon as possible.

in the way of becoming a fighter, learning applications is just the 2nd level after learning the form. it's in the next level, when one learns sparring, that he learns how to confront the opponents' counter actions. consider this post:

Well, I disagree here too. I think the applications, along with the footwork and positioning skills as well as concepts of how the style deals with incoming force should be taught first thing. This, along with the general and style specific conditioning, and the art's qigongs make the style what it is.

The Form, may be used as advanced body mechanics training, which would be something done much, much later as a tool of refinement. To me teaching it first is backwards.

[/QUOTE]

[SHemmati]

my old teacher... lived in one of the many surrounding schools of shaolin 7 years, so why would he not learn the next level of fighting in seven years time?

this turns back to the 1st question of the thread. as a rough categorization, schools train fighting skills in 3 levels of approach:

1. performance (circus, or whatever you call it) approach: they just learn the forms, and almost do nothing with the applications. of the basic skills, they may practice flexibility, which can make the performance more elegant;

2. self-defense approach: they learn the forms, and applications. but don't emphasize on sparring and body mechanics. they may practice basic and qigong skills, but the level and type of skill is superficial;

2. warrior approach: warriors must learn the styles via the forms, learn the various variants of applications, and master the combat tactics and stuff via sparring. they should have good basic (endurance, flexibility, balance) and qigong (internal and external, hard and soft) skills.
______

your master, like most the modern Shaolin monks, has been from a school of the 2nd approach.