whats wrong with this from a trad cma perspective ?

[Yao Sing]

So I guess some people are lucky enough that they have never get a grain or sand or some dust particles in their eyes. They never have to blank and try to flush it out.
Good for you.

All it takes is a little bit of dust particles that makes you blink or irrated enough to slow down in your defense and the spear will have an upper hand. You won't even want get facing the sun if you are in weapon duel situation (check out Musashi). The person who can use this form to fight will not be a novice. All he/she needs is to disrupt or slow you down by a fraction of a second assuming you are fast and strong. Even in the UFC how many times that guys got the eye poked albiet accidental and then their games just collapsed. Now that's just bare hand. What happen if you are weapon against weapon?

Mantis108

No fair, you're going from a fine particle dust cloud that may or may not reach eye level and then backing up the claim with an eye poke (accidental or deliberate).

Sure a finger in the eye will ruin your day but fighting in the dirt just goes with the territory. I just don't see a dust cloud making that much of a difference. Plus it goes both ways and any dirt kicked up can just as easily go into the eyes of the kicker.

It's just a weak app IMO and not at all equivalent to facing the sun in a fight. If you like it and trust it then fine. I just don't buy it myself.

[mickey]

Greetings,

Whether the application is valid or not is up to the practitioner. He is free to choose what will
work for him. When I saw the move performed, it suggested that the form originally covered a much larger area and the move was inserted to shorten the area covered. I also saw the monkey aspect and the dirt being kicked.

If the dirt kick application is not good enough, develop another. You actually have that freedom to do so.

I remember another dirt application. That is where the person slaps both hands on the ground (grabbing dirt/sand), thrusts his fingers forward(throwing dirt/sand) and then does a reverse sweep. Another person seeing the same move may interpret it as a double hand grab that pulls the opponent forward that impales the opponent's eyes on your fingers, followed by a sweep. We were not there when the form was created; so, you can rely on oral tradition or be bold and use your consciousness. There is nothing wrong with either approach.


mickey

[NJM]

both seem equally pointless

Is it still pointless if you carry a spear around with you?

[David Jamieson]

Is it still pointless if you carry a spear around with you?

even if you didn't carry it, a spear is still pointy...on one end. unless it's a double ended spear in which case it is for sure not pointless.

[golden arhat]

Is it still pointless if you carry a spear around with you?

yeah i can think of much better simpler attacks and defenses for spears

i like that taiji spear actually i mean it could use some all round defense but its straight forward attack and defense is good

[mantis108]

No fair, you're going from a fine particle dust cloud that may or may not reach eye level and then backing up the claim with an eye poke (accidental or deliberate).

Sure a finger in the eye will ruin your day but fighting in the dirt just goes with the territory. I just don't see a dust cloud making that much of a difference. Plus it goes both ways and any dirt kicked up can just as easily go into the eyes of the kicker.

It's just a weak app IMO and not at all equivalent to facing the sun in a fight. If you like it and trust it then fine. I just don't buy it myself.

Fair enough, I'm mainly coming from a traditional scope, in which that type of "skip" is referred to as rooster stepping not at all monkey footwork. The point of my post is that the ambience of fighting or rather the creation of an ambience in a fight is addressed in traditional form. Any component of the created ambience (ie the dust particle) may or may not be the catalyst of winning or losing a fight but it would add to the complexity of it. Making use of the environment as an extention of your weapon and yourself, that to me is the beauty of traditional forms. BTW, I am a fan of the ancient Chinese military strategy that make your opponent feels and believes that the grasses in fields and the trees in the woods are as real as any soldiers. As long as self doubt and hesitation sets into his mind and action, you are half way through winning.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[TenTigers]

the dirt kicking skip(rooster scratching the ground is a good description) appears in our Hung-Ga spear as well. It is always seen with a retreating,covering movement,followed by an abrupt attack.
I also learned a Hung Kuen set that had the two hands slapping the ground,grabbing dirt and throwing it, again followed by a retreat into a counter attack. It can also be interpeted as slamming the opponent's head onto the ground, which is one of the throws in our style as well.
I just don't like the fanciful technique done three times. But, I also don't like the galloping movement in my Guan-dao set either.

[golden arhat]

the dirt kicking skip(rooster scratching the ground is a good description) appears in our Hung-Ga spear as well. It is always seen with a retreating,covering movement,followed by an abrupt attack.
I also learned a Hung Kuen set that had the two hands slapping the ground,grabbing dirt and throwing it, again followed by a retreat into a counter attack. It can also be interpeted as slamming the opponent's head onto the ground, which is one of the throws in our style as well.
I just don't like the fanciful technique done three times. But, I also don't like the galloping movement in my Guan-dao set either.

if there are things in your style u dont like
why dont u remove them ?


where are u based again ?

[TenTigers]

for a few reasons-
1-I don't believe in simply getting rid of a technique, simply because I don't like the application. That's how arts get diluted and lost. I am just scratching the surface in MA, so who knows-later on, I might learn a great application that I never knew existed. Most people who think their art is inneffective, simply haven't seen it. Probably never will.

2-because the empty hand application is a break from an armbar.

3-I have a certain respect for where I come from. I respect those who have come before me.

4- I also have what I feel is a personal "connection" to Guan-Gung, and performing the set pays homage. (Hey, some people light shabbot candels,some take communion, some make offerings of wine, some sacrifice virgins...)

[TenTigers]

besides, I live in a latino neighborhood-we have plenty of roosters!

[lostdragon]

for a few reasons-
1-I don't believe in simply getting rid of a technique, simply because I don't like the application. That's how arts get diluted and lost. I am just scratching the surface in MA, so who knows-later on, I might learn a great application that I never knew existed. Most people who think their art is inneffective, simply haven't seen it. Probably never will.

2-because the empty hand application is a break from an armbar.

3-I have a certain respect for where I come from. I respect those who have come before me.

4- I also have what I feel is a personal "connection" to Guan-Gung, and performing the set pays homage. (Hey, some people light shabbot candels,some take communion, some make offerings of wine, some sacrifice virgins...)

I agree with this. One of my past teachers emphasized that weapons training is not obsolete because

a) they contain training methods for learning basic and advanced skills
b) augment your empty hand skills (in fact, I'd argue that in many instances weaponwork is likely the forerunner to the empty hand technique that some systems have developed, rather than the other way around...)
c) can teach about how to deal with similar improvised weapons- both in application and in defense. No you don't deal much with broadswords or spears, but what if you have a really unbalanced heavy pipe you need to use to defend yourself. The way you learn to use your body to turn a heavy blade, for instance, can help a person do the same with any similar object. Same goes for spear/staff training, using a flexible weapon such as a chain, etc.

A couple other things...

- a lot of traditional forms are enyclopedias of applications, not how to apply the applications. Learning how to really use them and what they contain has not been part of many ppls martial education (at least from my observations...)

- I've seen many ppl who can do beautiful forms, but don't know how to apply forms (or they have not so great interpretations.)

- In many instances, pulling off something in a traditional form takes some fundamental skills of speed, power generation, etc. that some ppl just don't have, so the technique looks really weak.

- Some forms have elements that isolate a particular idea or part of movement. It's not meant to be isolated in application, but gets isolated in practice, proly because someone thought it was important.

- Some things are just show and other things are made for show. Therefore, they need to be slightly altered in order to be applicable. Whether this was done to hide things or was just simply hidden to someone who didn't know how to 'read' movement, who knows. What I mean by this usually has to do with what targets to select, how to apply patterns of movement of your body adaptively (e.g. kicks are exaggerate steps where I come from, punches easily become elbows, defensive motions become offenses, etc....), and practicing real fighting. A foundation with those things usually gives you a better idea of what works and what doesn't

- Sometimes there is just crap/fluff thrown in, usually by someone who wanted to make something for show, wanted to 'hide' something, or really didn't know what they were doing. There are also forms that I've seen that just don't have substance. Not all are created equally. Not all originators were good fighters or knew what they were doing.

I think one of the biggest complaints that I've seen- the use of forms- is also a huge strength in TMA. These are histories that have a lot of ideas in them. But they need to be extrapolated and practiced, and this often doesn't get done or takes too long for someone who wants to learn some self defense things now (I realize that's not everyone's approach...)

Not a gripe or anything, but just some observations. Anyway, just my 2cents. I'm likely just another nutter.

LD

[Jeffoo]

The first vid is clearly someone new to both contemporary wushu AND the spear. It's decent and he gets all the moves, but just not very experienced in it and definitely not well trained in the basics, especially given how wushu probably overdoes those. One point that people seem to forget is that wushu bases all of its moves on traditional kung fu. If you've seen a variety of kung fu performed (Mantis, Cha, Hua, Eagle, Mizhong) it's very clear that modern wushu took techniques and elements out of those (made them more camera ready) and incorporated them into their forms while adding some gymnastics skills. The problem with MOST wushu teachers (even in China) they don't know where the moves come from and for sure forgot what it's original usage is.

The 2nd vid is Yee Lo Moi Fa Cheung and is a Mantis spear form. Again, it's not bad per se, but it's clear that the performer was given too small of a space to perform. As for the fancy steps as so many have called it. These are retreating steps and are common in many mantis forms. Yes, in theory it can be used to flip sand at an opponent, but it's a distraction as well because it can be used as a small kick to the shin of an advancing opponent. Very similar to the small slap kick which many northern styles use in conjunction with other kicks. Not effective as a stand alone, but part of an over all fighting strategy. Given that students followed their masters so precisely when being taught techniques, the original move may not have looked like that at all. An instructor decades ago could have had foot problems that caused him to walk that way and through the years of his students mimicking him passed it on that way. I'm not making a joke about that. If you've every studied mainland Spain's version of Spanish, there are some words spoken with a lisp because at one time one of the kings spoke with a lisp.

Why do it multiple times? Traditional kung fu is designed to be repetitious so as to ingrain the techniques in the person to become 2nd nature. Similar moves are found in mantis (Yeen Ching Do, Kwan Do, etc.), Eagle Claw (5 leopards) and Hung Gar from what I've seen.