"the first martial arts fantasy film"
and the last, thank G'd
"the first martial arts fantasy film"
and the last, thank G'd
Fast and light are two different things, both of which are stressed by traditional sources.
Additionally, the tai ji jian is not particularly different than most kung fu straight sword sets. In fact, most kung fu weapons sets are variations on the same sets.
And most styles in the modern era emphasize depth of stance more than the traditional approach seems to have.
What often gets me in regards to depth of stance is the fact that virtually all the older drawings of techniques and their applications only depict deep stance where it serves a purpose, but, in the modern era, many people do everything in a deep stance, confusing it with a tradition, when the traditional sources clearly show something else.
I think some deep stance forms are amazing to watch, but I think the old adage of training low but fighting high does not work. You have to train how you use it, as well. Never mind the unusually wide base this encourages in some lines, which totally doesn't translate well when used from a higher base without training this way.
If form is your main conduit for fighting, and you don't do the form the way you would fight with it, it doesn't matter that you know this, you will not have the sensitivity to use it on your own. Never mind that many train bridge range and never really train sensitivity in the ranges before and after it.
Great videos on facebook brother.
Indepth explanations of whole body power used in fighting.
Loved the short ging video.
Mouth Boxers have not the testicular nor the spinal fortitude to be known.
Hence they hide rather than be known as adults.
And it's also a lunge. Lunges are deep, but other footwork in fencing is not.
What kung fu you do that's all deep?
Screw all the trolls.
Back to those that matter.
Dave, I am there with you.
I have always taught in a similar manner those I do not teach San Da.
TCMA is not about Qi Balls and other BS nonsense.
Be well.
Mouth Boxers have not the testicular nor the spinal fortitude to be known.
Hence they hide rather than be known as adults.
I've done some in the past that was. Though it wasn't meant to be.
The fact is, if you watch most forms competitions, most seek depth of stance and wideness of stance as a show of strength, and this comes from the teachers. The exceptions are there, of course, but they are exceptions.
Chen style is one example. I know a line that uses deep narrow stances, deep wide stances, and natural height stances.
And then I know a million lines that are always in deep stance, the deeper the better, and often, the wider the better, regardless of the movement.
Last edited by Faux Newbie; 11-07-2013 at 01:20 PM.
I've since given up on trying to over-analyze kung fu. It is what it is - doesn't mean I agree with everything that I see or have been taught, but I still find value in learning more of it.
I think that it should be played with fast hands like a boxer, sparring whenever possible, and I like throws - so that's how I play it.
I think that's the key - figuring out what works for you personally, and then training in a manner that's consistent with what works for you and not trying to force something unnatural.
Oh, I agree. However, I've seen enough older sources to know that what is popular now is not an accurate portrayal of an older tradition, and often has been shaped by competition goals and such that place a higher value in dramatic elements of solo performance than in usage.
Additionally, as a teacher, I have a responsibility to teach. If I have people do push hands, and not work the outside range, that push hands is not useful to them. If I teach things that are contrary to what the style is clearly about in fighting, I do them a disservice. Too many sifus feel entitled to teach because someone 'above' them said they can, not because they actually have a strong working knowledge of how to use their style's methods. I don't want that to be me.