Cross Training, Form Collecting, Style Hopping - what do they mean?

[mantis108]

I feel this is a good topic to end 2003 and start 2004 anew.

Cross Training:

this topic has be praguing the TCMA community for a long time. I have talked about this at least 2 years ago. Seems like very few people are listening. So, I think it would be a good time to revisit it.

Here's a summary of Cross Training:

There are at least a few different meaning associated with the term, which could be specified in the following manner:

1) Discipline Cross Training (DCT): This is by far the most referred to as Cross Training. It is to say that a striker takes up grappling; an external stylist takes up an internal art, etc. That would qualify for DCT. There is a correlation between style and range. Many styles are highly effective in a specific range. Nevertheless, They fair poorly beyond that range. A seasoned martial artist recognized this weakness and would then learn another art that could strengthen the weakness. This camp believes that styles make the artist. In a way, this is what you do that makes you who you are. Mixed Martial Artists in North America, including JKD, are the firm believers in DCT. The styles in DCT remain distinguish. In other words, techniques maintain their uniqueness. This also leads to accumulation of tools.

2) Conditioning Cross Training (CCT): CCT involves in taken up the 6 pillars of martial arts conditioning. There are Cardio, Strength, Flexibility, Coordination, Impact, and Meditation training in any martial arts. For example, one might take up strength training in order to enhance the firing of muscles; therefore, augmentation of speed. That kind of training would be CCT. Stylists make the style is the general thought in this camp. This is who you are determines what you do. CCT puts focus on athleticism. Techniques serve the exponent who strives to polish a few good tools rather than constantly expanding his or her arsenal. The scientific study of the human faculties often inspires new training theories. CCT often leads the practitioners to discard many of their techniques and only focus on refining a few good ones. Specialization would then be the result. It is important to remember that CCT is essential to martial arts training. All martial arts, or sports for that matter, must have conditioning for the techniques to work properly.

3) Attribute Cross Training (ACT): A stylist may not necessarily take up an entire different discipline but may adopt certain training methodology of another discipline, i.e. Shadow boxing, focus mitts drill, other drills in to Chinese Martial Arts (CMA). The goal is to enhance a particular attribute such as speed (economy of motions) or sensitivities. This is the middle road, where a compromise of the styles Vs stylists argument can be found. ACT is common to a lot of the established styles such as the CMA. Taiji push hand drills and Wing Chun sticky hand drills, are popular ACT tools for a lot of CMA. Styles in ACT maintain integrity, yet the drills might be modified to suit the styles’ need. The range specificity remains in ACT.

4) Global Cross Training (GCT): Artists take up any number of disciplines, be it physical, mental, or spiritual, to evolve into a total being is identified as GCT. Miyamoto Musashi, Muhammad Ali, and Bruce Lee would be examples. GCT is generally including all other cross training. It aims at creating an artist of life and is beyond the art of expressing the human body. This would be the university level of martial arts and often a personal journey that can only be initiated by the individual. Many masters of martial arts, both past and present, exhibit keen interests in matters great and small. Their inquisitive minds often lead to new concepts and philosophies that result in the creation of a new system even a new paradigm.

The problem today is people still don't distinguish the different types of Cross Training. I suppose a lot of people still think it is enough to say Cross Training meant Discipline Cross Training.

to be continued...

[mantis108]

Form Collecting:

First off, form collecting is in essence technique collecting. Both CMA and MMA are equally guilty of it. However, this is more sereve. Technique collecting is not evil in and of itself. It is a phase of learning MA. It is part of the journey.

Form or rather pattern collecting is somewhat an different issue. Some people feel that forms are like books. It is no harm in reading more books. But then there are different types of books. Some systems and/or styles treat their "books" rather like Sutras or Bible. THey expound and unlock lessons and truth. Often this rationale breeds "what you see is what you get" type of forms. Non flashy no fuss whatsoever. Modern wushu treat their forms like fantasy fictions in order to get your imgination running. Some styles treat their forms like pulp fictions, they have to dish out unit after unit of it. So pattern collecting has the potential to damage true practice of Kung Fu; therefore, it really need to be handle with care. The big question before going to learn a form from other style is in which way would this pattern of a collection of techniques enhance the practice. Without the basics of the style from which the form came from, is the practice of the form substaintable?

Style Hopping:

The problem of style hopping is more a phycological one than a physical one. Loyalty is often quoted as the most important as it will be rewarded by allowing to dwell into the "secrets" of the style. While loyalty is a great vertue, it is often used as a excuse by elitists to discourage other to acquire the knowledge and information. Loyalty is also a secret society circle of trust thing. As Chinese, we have been conditioned since childhood through all kinds of heroic tales (ie. General Kwan) that loyalty has great rewards both in fame and fortune. We see this emphasis in many of the southern CMA and in JMA as well. Because of this, many talented people who are physcially capable were denied access to knowledge and information because they are deemed "mentally undesirable" by the elistists (usually higher ups in the style) at least in the early stage of training.

I believe style hopping is inevitable these days. For one martial arts is becoming more and more market oriented. For another, lifestyle of the people changed drastically from way back when. Last but not least, we have many more hobbist and weekend warriors then even just 50 years ago. The question is how are TCMA going to do about this? Go on whinning about it or really do something about including looking into designing suitable curriculum that is suitable for today's climate? We often say that the law of a hundred years ago don't closely fit the situation of today. I think we can say that about Kung Fu. For Kung Fu to be viable for generations to come we must work harder to address the current needs of the people and communities.

Just some thoughts that I would like to share to welcome the new year.

Mantis108

[MantisifuFW]

Mantis 108,

Happy New Year to you, sir!

As for training in other arts and at other schools, I do not encourage it as a regular practice among either my beginning or intermediate students until they have reached a level of competency in the art they are pursuing at our school. The reason is simple; it slows their progress in their chosen art.

That being said, I know that students here, train with practitioners of other arts, spar and compare notes on an informal basis. I find no problem with this as I believe it helps them better understand their art by comparision and contrast. It generally develops a greater respect for other arts when one understands their rational and martial ability.

I also like for my students to do seminars with other intstructors for the same reason; it helps them better understand the diverse approaches for example just the Tanglang community and their own heritage.

Occasionally, I will recommend that a student of Tanglang study Taiji, even if they are just at the intermediate level, if I see that there are qualities of body movement that could be addressed by that art that would improve their progress in Tanglang.

There is much more to say, but as you have said, it is a start.

I wish you the best in the coming year,

Steve Cottrell

[MantisifuFW]

Mantis 108

The major kinds of cross training that we engage in at my school is first, different kinds of Tanglang. Being Northern Mantis we are a combination of Tanglang styles and I feel that this is essential, "understanding the roots in order to understand the branches" secondly, when possible we study the source styles that created Tanglang, (the 18 families) such as Tongbei Quan, which we studied with Master Liang of Shaolin. There is, of course, much to be gained by "attribute training" as you aptly phrase it, by studying Taiji, Bagua or other styles but these do not become "Tanglang" no more than BJJ, Kickboxing or Taiji can be one's Tanglang. Tanglang is Tanglang.

A good topic,

Steve Cottrell

[PT-Kali]

I don't see any big problems learning different forms as long as you don't go overboard with it, learn most of the form's applications, and continue to train with it. From my understanding of traditional CMA, this was done a lot back in history. One story in particular is how under some Hung Gar lineages they teach Bung Bo (a Mantis form), that was picked up by the then master for whatever reason.

I've picked up a couple of Chinese forms (e.g. Black Tiger, Tongbeichuan) that I enjoy practicing even though I'm a kali-man, I find them good for developing leg strength, coordination, etc.

[PT-Kali]

Sifu Cottrell- Caught your Mantis article a couple of months ago. It was great!

Wouldn't mind learning some Mantis :-)

[mantis108]

First and foremost, my respects and good wishes for a prosperous 2004 in all the projects that you are working on. Thank you for the supports and oppotunities that you have given me. You efforts in promoting PM need to be commended.

Thank you for sharing your view on the topic. I agree and feel much the same about the following points:

1) "Being Northern Mantis we are a combination of Tanglang styles and I feel that this is essential, "understanding the roots in order to understand the branches" .

I must salute you, Sifu Cottrell. I think your statment here carries a lot of weight. I have great respect for your courage.

2) secondly, when possible we study the source styles that created Tanglang, (the 18 families) such as Tongbei Quan, which we studied with Master Liang of Shaolin.

I whole heartedly agreed with studying or research the "source styles". If I may ask, on behalf of those who are interested, that please share some of the valuable lessons that you have obtained from Master Liang. I am sure quite a few people would be more than interested to hear it from you.

3) There is, of course, much to be gained by "attribute training" as you aptly phrase it, by studying Taiji, Bagua or other styles but these do not become "Tanglang" no more than BJJ, Kickboxing or Taiji can be one's Tanglang. Tanglang is Tanglang.

Again, I am in total agreement here. I believe that education, as you would put it, is key. We need to demonstrate that a highly structured system is in fact the backbone of Tanglang. Styles within the system are outcomes of the attribute training framework. We can not mistaken the branches as the root. Likewise, ignoring the branches is denying the growth of the root. Either way, it's not healthy for the art.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[mantis108]

It is often argued that whether forms have any value in CMA or MA in general.

Forms like books used to be of high value and therefore respected and guarded with great care. We of course can not imagine how hard it used to be to get a hold of a book since today we can spent a few dollars or even free downland from the internet. We paid relatively less attention to books as well as forms these days. What is changed is our preception and our value system but not necessary the books or the forms themselves.

Take for example Tan Tui, the kicking form supposedly developed by Muslims. Some people think that it is great and is of and by itself a system. Other disagreed claiming it is but a rudimentary training form thus has to be trained along side other forms to further the training. The same can be said with other forms such as Gongliquan, Jiequan, etc... These forms are absorbed into various Mantis curriculums yet one could develope great fighting ability with them without even learning one Mantis form. When we look closely at tan tui, a standard 10 roads version of Tan Tui yields about 10 different techniuqes at the least. Boxing, Muay Thai, etc... has far fewer techniuqes than Tan Tui. So it is not logical IMHO to think that Tan Tui can not be a self sustainable MA "system". Look at the creation of GM LGY - 14 roads Tan Tui. It has many significant techniques of Mantis, yet it's never considered a system of or by itself. Can one develop great fighting skill with 7* 14 roads Tan Tui? It is highly possible. So why is it not possible to be recognize it as a "fighting system"? Obviously, the answer lies in something else within the PM system. Again here we see that it is relative. It begs the question "relative to what?" What exactly is the reference point?

To truely understand the meaning of forms and their relationship with the system. We need to look at the five Ws.

What does the form represent (a theme)?
Who created it?
Why is it structed as such both philosophically and technically?
Where does the source(s) inspiration comes from?
Which kind of attribute(s) is being addressed?

If we are serious in learning Kung Fu, we should not let our altered perception of forms to distract our study. We should develop a good and true awareness of forms beginning with both physical and intellectual study of them. We should develop a proper perception of forms. Otherwise we will always be form collectors and the slaves of forms not the masters of forms as we should be.

Just a few food for thoughts.

Mantis108