Why are you interested in TCMA history?

[GeneChing]

Martial Arts history can teach you what to fight for...

[sanjuro_ronin]

Martial Arts history can teach you what to fight for...

Only one thing worth fighting for:

[hskwarrior]

Man, share the history on that one there......
you now have my attention

[Jimbo]

As a kid, I used to love reading about the histories of different styles, particularly CMA styles. And out of those, I thought the most interesting were the written histories (or practitioners' exploits) of Xingyi and Bagua. I actually more or less believed a lot of it, including accounts of practitioners using their superior style and 'chi' to knock opponents 30 feet away and killing multiple attackers with zero effort. Some of those stories of early practitioners imbued them with near-Christlike powers. I felt that some CMA styles must be inherently better than others, even though I never actually trained either Xingyi or Bagua.

I also realized that the historical accounts of virtually every CMA style seemed fantastic to some degree or other, in sharp contrast to those of JMA. Even within one system, the accounts would vary from one version to another.

Then I grew up, and through personal observation, critical thinking and experience (and living overseas for many years), I realized that most of what I had read as written histories were fanciful tales...exaggerations or fictitious accounts to glorify the various systems/masters. I also realized that (for the most part, though there are big exceptions like those of the 'internal' systems) that the historical accounts of more recently-developed or known systems from the 19th century were far more believable/reality-based. Now, either CMA masters of ancient times had godlike powers that were lost to more recent practitioners, or they were legends similar to Beowulf. Yes, humans can be capable of many incredible feats, but there is a line between actual history and tall tales. Why couldn't modern masters duplicate the legendary feats of the past? I realized that it was the quality of the individual practitioner, not the system/style itself, that determined superiority. I still respect Xingyi and Bagua, but take those old histories I read with a grain of salt. They're great systems (as are all good MA) without the need for historical embellishment.

Nowadays, I rarely read about CMA history anymore, due to this intertwining of fact and outright fantasy. There are some more recent books that are actual historical studies, like Brian Kennedy's books. Those are very good.

[pazman]

I wish Bawang would post in this thread.

Years ago, finding real history on TCMA in the USA was nearly impossible. These days we can download ancient manuals for free, consult with scholars by email, and easily travel through rural China. There are many mysteries yet to solve and many historical holes to be filled, but why so many schools still teach fantasy as fact, I have no idea.

[YouKnowWho]

Do I care if my teacher's teacher's teacher's ancestor came from Mongolia? Do I care if the Baoding SC system originally came from the Mongolian SC system? The art has been evolved so much in the past 200 years. Even the flying side kick has been added into the system as "entering strategy". The current status is what I'm interested. I truly don't care what it was 200 years ago.

[tc101]

Do I care if my teacher's teacher's teacher's ancestor came from Mongolia? Do I care if the Baoding SC system originally came from the Mongolian SC system? The art has been evolved so much in the past 200 years. Even the flying side kick has been added into the system as "entering strategy". The current status is what I'm interested. I truly don't care what it was 200 years ago.

That's because you are really doing it. The history buffs are guys who aren't doing it.

[pazman]

Do I care if my teacher's teacher's teacher's ancestor came from Mongolia? Do I care if the Baoding SC system originally came from the Mongolian SC system? The art has been evolved so much in the past 200 years. Even the flying side kick has been added into the system as "entering strategy". The current status is what I'm interested. I truly don't care what it was 200 years ago.

You may not care about the history, but you know the history. You are honest with yourself. A guy who dresses in silk pajamas, twirls a staff around as if he were an opera performer, and thinks what he does is either relevant to today's situation or somehow related to what Shaolin monks practiced 500 years ago, is completely deluded, because he refuses to learn the history.

[Rover]

I also realized that the historical accounts of virtually every CMA style seemed fantastic to some degree or other, in sharp contrast to those of JMA. Even within one system, the accounts would vary from one version to another.

A good example to this would be the Southern Mantis.The system has really few generations but still you will find five branches with different names and stories.

[No_Know]

If I find a flip open non-3G cell phone three hundred years in the future I could just use it as I see fit as you do with TCMA as...fighting techniques with tactics of today. I'll move it, undo the power adapter cover, remove the back cover, have the battery fall out, put back the battery, put the cover back on and think what elaborateness for something that has no apparent use that to take it apart--valueless.

I like the history as it can have clues to how it was supposedly used or would ideally be used. Who Where when and with whom is like provenience.

No_Know

[YouKnowWho]

I find an ancient wresting picture. Do I want to wrestle like this? Of course not!

[PalmStriker]

Practicing Kung Fu without absorbing the history/culture is like eating Chinese food with sour sauce only. https://www.google.com/search?q=swee...ml%3B700%3B504

[pazman]

I find an ancient wresting picture. Do I want to wrestle like this? Of course not!

Mr. Wang, you might say that, but deep in your heart, you know you want to.

[tc101]

Practicing Kung Fu without absorbing the history/culture is like eating Chinese food with sour sauce only.

I have found in my experience typically the history and culture buffs are into the role playing side to martial arts.

[RenDaHai]

Of course History is important and necessary. Here is a Quote from Diodorus of Sicily;

'History offers us a schooling safe from the pitfalls of life through a presentation of events that have proved advantageous in the experience of others'.

A fine way to describe form also. Do you practice form? Do you study the techniques passed down from before? This IS history. ALL traditional Kung fu is history. If you ignore the history, then you ignore the tradition. If you ignore this, you are not studying the Kung fu style you claim to. Sure, you are still studying martial arts, and if your mechanistic mind reduces kung fu entirely to 'martial arts' then that is precisely what you are training. If this is your only interest then that is fine and all success to you, but do not believe that it is you who are seeking kung fu and call the traditionalists pretenders.

Any of the myriad disciplines of Kung fu is an indivisible whole. It comes from a culture not as suited to reductionist thinking as ours, and a time where reducing such a discipline to its constituents was impractical. You may not believe that a whole is more than the sum of its parts. You may think you can exceed Kung fu by isolating the specific techniques that work relative to your specific training method in your limited experience, ignoring all other aspects of the style. But when you do this do not userp the name of 'KungFu'. Even if you can defeat all the kung fu masters of the world with your method, do not be persuaded that you have the real kung fu, because kung fu is irreducible to one quantity to be matched.

If you want to be a good martial artist and take what bits of Kung fu suite you then that is fine but don't think you are the master of kung fu. Similarly if you are the opposite, a traditionalist, do not think because you understand some deeper aspects of Kung fu that makes you a better martial artist than those who don't. It does not.



History is passed down to teach you something. Don't ignore it, or believe it. Try to LEARN something from it. When we say 'this style was created by a woman' what does that teach you? Women cannot match men at strength, a style invented by a woman relies on structure not strength. Its strikes rely on stabbing weak points rather than bludgeoning. Remember this history as you train and you can correct yourself.