Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24

Thread: Should all CMA systems have jab, cross, uppercut, and hook?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16

    Should all CMA systems have jab, cross, uppercut, and hook?

    The jab, cross, uppercut, and hook all exist in the praying mantis system. It's 100% TCMA. It's the most basic punching tools for all MA systems. The boxing system doesn't own it.

    1. jab:



    2. cross:



    3. uppercut:



    4. hook:



    Why do you think that some TCMA systems do not have all those basic striking tools? Your thought?
    Last edited by YouKnowWho; 03-23-2014 at 01:56 PM.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  2. #2
    who doesn't have it?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by xinyidizi View Post
    who doesn't have it?
    If I list the styles name here, I would get into argument in the 1st page of my thread. I don't want that to happen. If people claim that their system has all those tools, they should be able to put up pictures or clips to prove it as I did for the praying mantis system.

    Instead of saying which style doesn't have those tools (1/2 cup empty), let us try to prove which style has those tools (1/2 cup full) by posting pictures or clips. So, who want to start first?
    Last edited by YouKnowWho; 03-23-2014 at 08:54 PM.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Posts
    245
    I cant talk for southern styles, but I would imagine most northern styles have it. At least Tongbei Quan does, which has a lot of similarities to Mantis by the way.

    I am pretty sure Chang Quan does too, but Ive only seen the system done as forms, never seen anybody applying it......

  5. #5
    1 Depending on styles/schools

    there are modified fist methods with different names but serving the same functions.

    2 We may use fist face, fist eyes, fist back, fist heart and fist wheel to strike.

    3 In addition, single knuckle fist with different fingers.

    4 chong chui or thrust fist is most difficult to understand and practice.

    5 there are also drillling fists upward, forward, horizontal etc.

    6 There are more modifications or specializations.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by xiao yao View Post
    I am pretty sure Chang Quan does too, but Ive only seen the system done as forms, never seen anybody applying it......
    Here is my question. If those tools are so important, why it's not in the forms? If it's not in the forms, how do you know it didn't come from "cross training"? If I think hook punch is important, I'll put it into the 1st form that I create.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    CA, USA
    Posts
    4,900
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    Here is my question. If those tools are so important, why it's not in the forms? If it's not in the forms, how do you know it didn't come from "cross training"? If I think hook punch is important, I'll put it into the 1st form that I create.
    CLF has all of those, among others. They're important basics. Plus, they are in the forms.

    BTW, I thought you feel that forms are a waste of time? If so, why does it matter if those basic strikes are in them or not? (This isn't an attack; I'm just curious).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    I thought you feel that forms are a waste of time? If so, why does it matter if those basic strikes are in them or not? (This isn't an attack; I'm just curious).
    IMO, forms are for teaching and learning. It's not for training. It's a record (like a book) to show the "content" of that style.

    Here is my concern. If someone claims that his style has "hook punch". But you can't find "hook punch" in any of his forms. What does that mean?
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Canton, OH
    Posts
    1,848
    Hung Gar and Monkey Fist have all those and they are in the forms.
    Last edited by mooyingmantis; 03-24-2014 at 04:17 PM.
    Richard A. Tolson
    https://www.patreon.com/mantismastersacademy

    There are two types of Chinese martial artists. Those who can fight and those who should be teaching dance or yoga!

    53 years of training, 43 years of teaching and still aiming for perfection!

    Recovering Forms Junkie! Even my twelve step program has four roads!

  10. #10
    Both Chen style and XYLH have them. Even I could say that in terms of striking almost every common technique in MT/kick boxing somehow exist in them but I don't think that having or not having them is the biggest issue in TCMA. The biggest issue of TCMA is that in most cases at the beginning instead of training these basic techniques and mastering them in action like how the boxers do , people tend to overlook them and train a thousand other things in the air. The result is that they won't be able to manage a simple jab when they need it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    atlanta,ga
    Posts
    303

    jab,cross hook

    the angles might be there in tcma but, the delivery is so different. boxing is very realistic, i think more so then a lot of the tcma. although i guess alot of what we have in the west is probably watered down for various reasons.
    sincerly, eddie

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    IMO, forms are for teaching and learning. It's not for training. It's a record (like a book) to show the "content" of that style.
    I agree that forms are for learning and teaching and not training. I also agree that they will contain some or most of the content of that style. However I do not see styles as closed systems where you are limited to only what is in your forms but that the style gives the individual a foundation that can be built upon.

    Here is my concern. If someone claims that his style has "hook punch". But you can't find "hook punch" in any of his forms. What does that mean?
    It depends there are several possibilities.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by xinyidizi View Post
    The biggest issue of TCMA is that in most cases at the beginning instead of training these basic techniques and mastering them in action like how the boxers do , people tend to overlook them and train a thousand other things in the air. The result is that they won't be able to manage a simple jab when they need it.
    This is, of course, the real problem...and IMO it should be a pretty simple fix, but people are stubborn...
    While we're stating the obvious, Shaolin has all those techniques and I think it would be a much, much shorter list to name TCMA styles that DON'T contain these fundamentals.

    As previously mentioned, it is less important whether the technique has been documented in a form, far more important whether you train these techniques in a live, practical, (non-performance) manner.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    This is 100% TCMA principle. It may be used in non-TCMA also. Since I did learn it from TCMA, I have to say it's TCMA principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    We should not use "TCMA is more than combat" as excuse for not "evolving".

    You can have Kung Fu in cooking, it really has nothing to do with fighting!

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellen Bassette View Post
    This is, of course, the real problem...and IMO it should be a pretty simple fix, but people are stubborn...
    While we're stating the obvious, Shaolin has all those techniques and I think it would be a much, much shorter list to name TCMA styles that DON'T contain these fundamentals.

    As previously mentioned, it is less important whether the technique has been documented in a form, far more important whether you train these techniques in a live, practical, (non-performance) manner.
    I do not know Shaolin but I do know boxing having been doing it since I was 10, boxing in amateurs, and now helping trainers. These so called fundamentals are the tools of boxing. I do not think Shaolin has these tools or it would look like boxing and it doesn't. I do not see people practicing Shaolin move anything like boxers. I think people like to think they have these things just like people now say they also have ground tools in their art. Sometimes forms and styles are like Rorshach tests people see what they want to see.

    Different styles have different ways of fighting and so have different tools tactics and strategies.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    I do not know Shaolin but I do know boxing having been doing it since I was 10, boxing in amateurs, and now helping trainers. These so called fundamentals are the tools of boxing. I do not think Shaolin has these tools or it would look like boxing and it doesn't. I do not see people practicing Shaolin move anything like boxers. I think people like to think they have these things just like people now say they also have ground tools in their art. Sometimes forms and styles are like Rorshach tests people see what they want to see.

    Different styles have different ways of fighting and so have different tools tactics and strategies.
    Shaolin applied and trained for fighting will look like sanda. People have an idea of what Kung Fu should look like and they think if it doesn't look like the form or a Kung Fu movie, then it's not Kung Fu.

    Jab, cross, hook are foundational to Shaolin....
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    This is 100% TCMA principle. It may be used in non-TCMA also. Since I did learn it from TCMA, I have to say it's TCMA principle.
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    We should not use "TCMA is more than combat" as excuse for not "evolving".

    You can have Kung Fu in cooking, it really has nothing to do with fighting!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •