Kung-Fu and MMA

[Lama Pai Sifu]

I originally posted this on the Southern Forum, thought it might be a better discussion here:


Originally Posted by tungmojingjung
Tung Mo Boxing allows its learners to experience many techniques extracted from multiple systems allowing the learner options. In other words it is Tung Mo that has allowed freedom to intercept with the Chuin of Choy Lee Fut, followed by the Rising Elbow of Ba Ji, completing with the Trip Kick Body throw of Chinese Wrestling, mind you all skills adopted from the vast arsenal of Chinese martial arts. Chinese martial arts is complete, no it doesn't need Jiu Jitsu, Thai Boxing or anything else outside of it in my opinion.

The older generation had it correct when they went out and investigated, put into practice, exchange ideas, all with the point of bettering themselves and their understanding. We must also be conscious of their efforts and lessons so as to better ourselves as well.

A little contridictory, don't you think?

Why not put your theories to the test then? Have you or your students compete in a NHB/MMA competition.

Additionally, why is it that the general concensus regarding TCMA is about preservation? For some reason, for the last 25-75 years, TCMA'sts have tried to 'preserve' the teachings of there foreteachers. Tsk, Tsk. This is NOT the true spirit of TCMA - let me explain my point before some of you start shaking and becoming ill with discontention.

TCMA is about 'progression', not 'preservation' in MY opinion. Most of our "traditional" styles, which we love so much, are all 'hybrids' - Jow Ga, Choy Lay Fut, Hung Ga (yes, Hung People, WFH's Hung Ga is riddled with signature combinations from more than 1 other style), Hung Mok, Hung Fut, 4 styles of Tai Chi (at a minimum, they all are modifications of the Chen Style), Fu Jow Pai, Hakka styles, etc.

If Jiu Jiustu (BJJ) was popular 100 years ago, you can bet your @$$es that the Chinese would have been doing it as well. Hell, the assimilated western boxing and started teaching their army San Da/San Shou over 80 years ago! Stating that western boxing methods and their training was superior to CMA at the time! (Written by the Chinese Gov., look it up people)

These styles were all about progress. They incorporated stuff from other styles, not for altruism, but for results. They added stuff to their styles, cut stuff out, created new forms, ditched old ones, etc. If anyone here thinks they are doing forms/pattern in thier exact fashion, as they were practice over 100 years ago, YOU ARE LIVING IN A DREAM WORLD. These patters/forms ALWAYS changed. It's just with more recent times, as things are getting easier to record, AND we are fighting less, that they are being preserved.

And seriously, who cares if your form has 2-3 more movements in it than the other guy, or if your form is an older version of something? What difference does it make? It doesn't make you a better MA'rtist than the next guy, that's for sure...

Fact is, fighting methods evolve. The rules of engagement and the way people fought 50, 100, 200 years ago has always changed. People are bigger, faster and stronger than ever today. No one fights they way they did 100 years ago, and most of what you hear about the 'old days' is silly storytelling, mostly taken from Kung-Fu movies that romantacize the morals and values of KF people, not to mention outrageos skills sets/levels. Read more about the Chinese people, or hell, get to know some - and you'll realize that there is very little 'chivalry' going on, either in the martial arts world or not. The politics surrounding TCMA is appauling, designed to control and supress, not to build and support as they suggest. But I appear to digress here...

TCMA don't want to admit that their secret fantasy martial arts styles are not complete. They (now I mean most, not all) want to keep thier stuff 'original' thinking it's better and shouldn't change a **** thing. If you learn some Thai boxing or add some BJJ to your curriculum, you are looked down upon.

Problem with MMA is it has no allegiance to a specific style. HA! That is too hard to deal with for TCMA people. They want allegiance, they want to be part of something bigger. It makes them feel more secure and gives them a big brother to stand behind them. They claim that their style is so good because of so and so in the past, who fought and beat 100 people with nothing but a toothpic and a hand towel, blah blah blah. To quote the bare-breasted miss Janet Jackson, "what have you done for me lately?" What exactly has TCMA done Lately to show it's superiority? Hmmm, let's ponder this for a moment...

Don't get me wrong. I love Kung-Fu as much as anyone on this board and have dedicated the last 26 years to training and teaching it. But people - wake up! Some of what we do, just isn't applicable anymore and I seriously doubt if some of it ever was! WHOA - BLASPHEMOUS TALK!~! Yes, the silly bowing rituals, they codes within forms, secret handshakes, etc. A LOAD OF CRAP. More stuff that has nothing to do with fighting (CMA's original intent, mind you) Forms? Sorry. More a way to demonstrate NOT FIGHTING, and a way for many southern KF people to demo and beg in the streets to earn some money.

FORMS? A good way to catalog some techniques, a bad way to learn to fight.

The myth? Practice your form and you'll be a great fighter one day, just like the Shaolin Monks. Oh, not the one's who defected here in the early 90's and ate meat and asked for porn as soon as they landed on American soil, I mean the one's from the movies (no,..they really can do all those things that they do in the movies - my teacher told me, because his teacher was a real Shaolin Monk). Yes, even though Shaolin is a legend and was really only known for staff play, not the birthplace for all arts. Oh yes, they did do martial arts, but not as we have been told. Yes, even though these stories of the Shaolin temple do NOT appear in any written texts, prior to 1909 in china (a story created) and later debunked by other chinese historians over the next 10 years. No, I still believe in fantasy stories about superior monks and if I just practice this form that has been passed on for 1000 years, I too will become super, just like the monks in the movies.

What the f(ck is wrong with everyone? Where did everyone's common sense go? People - Train to become the best you can be - forget style, lineage, history or what country that arm bar came from...

Just train yourselves, train your students and make PROGRESS. Preservation is for the AMISH. Learn some new stuff, train with some people who do Sticks, or BJJ or MMA or Boxing. Become a well rounded MA'ist and make your OWN contributions to the next generation, don't just photocopy what you've learned from your teacher and pass on the notes. Add to them. Throw some pages out.

SIDEBAR - I think that there are many fantastic techniques from TCMA that MMA people have yet to see. 13 years ago, the UFC was dominated by a 185 lb. guy who couldn't throw a punch to save his life, but choked the f(ck out of everyone who never saw it coming. Fast forward to modern times. People learned the same stuff he knew and beat him and others like him. Now BJJ is just part of the puzzle, along with Striking and grappling/throwing. The strikers today are okay, but they won't hold a candle to the guys that are fighting 13 years from today. And just as the 'superman' punch has now become a real MMA technique, I believe you'll eventually see Kahp Choih, Pek Choih and many other of our classic favorites make their way in as well. As soon as TCMA guys get their heads out of their @$$es and start training and fighting NHB/MMA.

If you are a TCMA guy and claim your stuff is superior to what is being done in MMA today, PROVE IT. And not with stories from the 60's of your teachers point-fighting record or some fictious notion that you do full contact in your school. Train, Fight, Progress. Stop teaching secret applications of your styles in-door bowing technique and magical chi-blasts. Teach them to punch and kick, clinch, throw and submit. Teach them how to use the techniques you love, keep in mind that some of them might not actually work - so you better test some out first - and then re-evaluate where YOU are in YOUR martial arts career. Train some more and re-evalute again. Meet some people outside of your TCMA family and spar and share and stop being a bunch of secret-holding sissies who think that they are better than everyone else because their styles is so deadly and rarely taught to anyone. THAT does not make it deadly, it just make you sound like an idiot.

Peace. Love and "Progress"

[unyma]

My only disagreement here is that I think Kung fu is more then fighting. Certainly fighting is a big part of it but over time I think it has evolved to include more. Just as you said, it's about progression. I like to believe that Kung fu has progressed to be about more then fighting.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

If anyone here thinks they are doing forms/pattern in thier exact fashion, as they were practice over 100 years ago, YOU ARE LIVING IN A DREAM WORLD.

Reply]
This is not exactly true. Scholarly research has compared documents from ages ago to forms done now, and show them to be near identical. Also, many sets from various locations have been compared and they show to be nearly identical as well...which means a common source from the distant past that spread out in various directions and remained preserved despite isolated evolutions.

Also, if something worked, it got recorded and preserved in the forms. I am not saying forms practice makes on a good fighter. You really don't even need them for that. Based on my research I have discovered my own style originally had no forms...it was all loose techniques bound by a fighting methodology and common training exercises.

The first form was developed at Shaolin because they were creating a vehicle to preserve the style into the future. Forms were for TEACHERS to record thier system, organize it's curriculum, and maybe even provide a sport specific exercises to help *Maintain* certain physical attributes in relation to body mechanics, muscle memory etc...they were never for students to learn or practice anything.

Another thing to think about, just because there has been a lot of intermixing and adapting does not mean other sets weren't preserved too. China is a big place, It's like a huge forest with many trees...some young saplings, some trees have been around, and others are so old they cannot be dated. All exist in the same forest, which is full of a great diversity of life from plant, to animal, to insect.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

My only disagreement here is that I think Kung fu is more then fighting. Certainly fighting is a big part of it but over time I think it has evolved to include more. Just as you said, it's about progression. I like to believe that Kung fu has progressed to be about more then fighting.

Reply]
Only the lineages that found thier way into the Temples are about more than fighting. Even then, the only reason is that the temples who preserved those arts naturally attached quite a bit of religious and meditative practices TO the already existing fighting style.

The extra is just that, extra added material because a TEMPLE preserved that particular style. It wasn't designed as a path to enlightenment or anything, it was designed to train you to fight and defend yourself in a really violent world.

All that "extra" is a stand alone thing as well. You don't need Martial arts for it. It's all a pairing of practices that in all honesty aren't necessarily compatible in principal. If you really look at the "Whole" package, you really have to compartmentalize it all to make it go together.

[Fu-Pow]

[I]

The first form was developed at Shaolin because they were creating a vehicle to preserve the style into the future. Forms were for TEACHERS to record thier system, organize it's curriculum, and maybe even provide a sport specific exercises to help *Maintain* certain physical attributes in relation to body mechanics, muscle memory etc...they were never for students to learn or practice anything.

That brings up an interesting point in my mind. I often compare learning martial arts to learning to play a musical instrument (being that I am a long time guitar player).

The typical way that people learn music is to go and take lessons from a teacher. Now if you are going to learn music the classical way, you start with scales and you practice those religiously. You learn all kinds of musical theory, how the notes fit into chords, what notes can played with which chord. It can get quite complicated very quickly...sound familiar?

All this training is required because it presumed that you are going to become a TEACHER of CLASSICAL music yourself one day. Most people just want to be able to sit down and play their favorite songs and maybe be able to "jam" with other people.

They don't need all this classical theoretical background because they are never going to become teachers of classical music. They need enough of a background that they gain some technical proficiency on their instrument but then it would be better to cut them loose a little bit and let them practice playing with other people.

Thats how good musicians are born by playing and playing and playing AND playing lots with other people. Not from learning as much musical theory as is possible in isolation.

So I see the same thing in martial arts. Teach some rudimentary technique, then the students play and play and play. That's how you develop a good fighter as well. Learning all this form and theory with the expectation that the student will someday become a teacher of it is backwards.

Some background is important but ultimately you gotta let the student get out
there "jam" with other people. Sooner rather than later. Then as the student progresses you can introduce more challenging material from the forms. Let them digest and then bring it into the "jam" session....let them develop their own style.

If someone is serious about becoming a teacher of classical martial arts then perhaps learning form on form on form is essential. But most people aren't going to ever want to be that, they want self-defense, exercise, sport etc and it is doing them a disservice to laden them with all this theoretical crap that they will most likely have no use for.

And then you have to also ask yourself if its all this theory what's the point? If its not making me a better figher what's the point? To quote Bruce Lee its a "classical mess."


FP

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

If someone is serious about becoming a teacher of classical martial arts then perhaps learning form on form on form is essential. But most people aren't going to ever want to be that, they want self-defense, exercise, sport etc and it is doing them a disservice to laden them with all this theoretical crap that they will most likely have no use for.

Reply]
I disagree. You still learn it the same way as anyone else. Learning the *Formal Routine* would be the last step before you go out on your own.

If you never learn the form, but have mastered the style, you can then create your OWN form and use that as your documented, organized curriculum. Sure, you would be teaching it your own way, but the style would still be transmitted due to the fact that *How* knowledge is passed is not the same as the actual knowledge itself.

If you look at my style, it was created before forms were common. So by the time forms were a big thing many branches existed. Each branch developed it's own forms to document thier ways of teaching the style, so they are all different. HOWEVER, because they are all made from the same core bunch of techniques you can still spot a Tai tzu form by the techniques and flavor even though you don't recognize the choreography of it.

So once you understand that the style existed for hundreds of years (in some branches) without forms, you must also recognize that you don't need them, and can create your own based on how you feel it is best to teach.

As always, the students don't learn them, because they hinder learning how to fight. They are your *Teaching* tools, sort of like a teacher's edition text book. They exist as a compressed Zip file to record your curriculum.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

If anyone here thinks they are doing forms/pattern in thier exact fashion, as they were practice over 100 years ago, YOU ARE LIVING IN A DREAM WORLD.

Reply]
This is not exactly true. Scholarly research has compared documents from ages ago to forms done now, and show them to be near identical. Also, many sets from various locations have been compared and they show to be nearly identical as well...which means a common source from the distant past that spread out in various directions and remained preserved despite isolated evolutions.

Also, if something worked, it got recorded and preserved in the forms. I am not saying forms practice makes on a good fighter. You really don't even need them for that. Based on my research I have discovered my own style originally had no forms...it was all loose techniques bound by a fighting methodology and common training exercises.

The first form was developed at Shaolin because they were creating a vehicle to preserve the style into the future. Forms were for TEACHERS to record thier system, organize it's curriculum, and maybe even provide a sport specific exercises to help *Maintain* certain physical attributes in relation to body mechanics, muscle memory etc...they were never for students to learn or practice anything.

Another thing to think about, just because there has been a lot of intermixing and adapting does not mean other sets weren't preserved too. China is a big place, It's like a huge forest with many trees...some young saplings, some trees have been around, and others are so old they cannot be dated. All exist in the same forest, which is full of a great diversity of life from plant, to animal, to insect.

RD, you couldn't be more wrong;

Show me your "Scholarly research." You should know better than just to throw that out there and not be prepared to back it up. That was a stupid statement by itself...

and

The first form at Shaolin? How the hell would you know? Did you teacher tell you that?

Martial arts didn't come close to begining at Shaolin. Do some real reseach and you'll find out that the Shaolin Temple story is a load of bunk. There is a rare book collector in Taiwan that has made collecting martial arts manuscripts a hobby/profession. He has over 2000 books, given to him by martial artists and thier families over the years. He actually has several manuscripts that were written by a Shaolin Monk in the 1600s. That's right, the 1600's! Shaolin guys practices Staff, and very little hand to hand! The story of the Shaolin temple, five elders, giving refuge to revolutionaries, holding all these special styles - IS A STORY! A story that has no written records, prior to 1909! Other martial arts historians debunked this Shaolin Myth in the early 1900's, AND THERE IS WRITTEN PROOF OF THIS! Not hearsay...

So unfortunatly, we've all bought into this Shaolin myth, as propogated by romantic KF fantasy flicks and bad research. Read up and you'll learn a lot.

I'll post the name of the book when I get home. It will blow you away as far as crushing just about every Martial Arts myth you know of...

Peace.

[cjurakpt]

My only disagreement here is that I think Kung fu is more then fighting. Certainly fighting is a big part of it but over time I think it has evolved to include more. Just as you said, it's about progression. I like to believe that Kung fu has progressed to be about more then fighting.

yes, but the reason for why it became "something more" is, I would argue, pretty pedestrian:
I would suggest that society has always had the singular phenommena known as the "weekend warrior"; that is, the professional, scholar, academic, working class guy who wants to fan his masculine flame by playing soldier; be honest, we see it today in the fact that the majority of students at a given MA school are of that type: the few "hardcore" guys are usually the ones who have to sweep up at night because they can't afford lessons...
so basically, if you are a "real" fighter in old time China (soldier, mercenary, etc.), and you decided that the adventurin' life just wasn't for you anymore, if the only thing you knew was fighting, then you had little choice but to set-up shop somewhere and try to attract a recreational cientel for exactly the same reasons then as now: paying your rent and feeding yourself; and like today, where MA schools tout the "additonal" benefits of MA training (discipline, confidence, good grades, socially acceptable behavior), you did he same thing: except back then it was the Buddhist or Taoist angle that you pushed, as opposed to now, where you have a preponderance of Chirstian based MA systems; but other than that, Chinese society, being Confuscian, held many of the same values dear as mainstream America does: loyalty to family, duty to country, scholarship - all that conformist stuff...
I mean, be honest - the nobility of ancient China pobably wasn't much diferent from the soccer moms of today: do you want your son studying with a cold-blooded psycho killer, or someone who pushes "good" values such as obedience to ones parents?
so think about it a bit...

[unyma]

<<yes, but the reason for why it became "something more" is, I would argue, pretty pedestrian:>>

That's fine by me. I don't think it has to be a message from upon high that makes it something more. In fact I agree with your premise that old time chinese parents sent their kids to learn Kung Fu the same way soccer moms of today send they're kids to do something. That doesn't detract from my argument that it's more then fighting.

I also agree with the weeknd warrior concept. In my experience the overwhelming majority of people that train in Kung fu don't fully commit to the training and in many cases it's a social thing at best. That's okay too. I'm certainly not going to judge them and they can train however they like. It doesn't prevent me (although I admit sometimes it complicates training options) from training in the way I want.

Bottom line, I still maintain that there can be more to Kung Fu then fighting.

[cjurakpt]

Bottom line, I still maintain that there can be more to Kung Fu then fighting.
it can be, but when it is, it looses a key aspect of the fighting aspect: for example, if you take it as a means of self-development, then the "fighting" becomes metaphorical: the fight is not about the other guy, it's about you, so to speak; and that's fine - of course, many other things can be like that as well; however, as i said, it then becomes something "other" than what it was originally, and so it now has to proceed according to a diffferent set of standards: decisions you'd make about training and teaching are now based on different criteria; and as such, you will include things not so fighting oriented and drop other things that are, because they are not necessary for the newly derrived goal of self-development

bottom line: you can't have your cake and eat it too (unless you are Chuck Norris: then you not only can do that, but the cake actually eats itself first out of fear)

[PaiLumDreamer]

FORMS? A good way to catalog some techniques, a bad way to learn to fight.





Meet some people outside of your TCMA family and spar and share and stop being a bunch of secret-holding sissies

[/QUOTE]


I agree, and have held the same opinion about forms. TBH, I didn't really think people believed forms taught you how to fight anymore.

My school has an open sparring class: Anyone from anywhere is welcome to come in and test their stuff, or test our stuff. Ive spoken to my Sifu about it many times, and his reasoning is "I would be cheating my students if I only allowed them to fight the people I've trained."

Sad thing is, this mentality is a RARITY in my experience. Recently I went to a kung fu school nearby and asked if I could simply WATCH a class. He said no. Why? Well, he runs a BUSINESS. Me watching would be almost equivilent to getting a free lesson. (I also find it absurd that schools dont allow a free week of class before you decide to pay for it. To me, that reeks of scam.)

Teachers may also be afraid they cant stand up to a challenger and will be defeated if they allow open sparring, and then lose students. When people run their school as a business they have MUCH more to worry about.

My instructor doesnt charge much for his time, as he has a full time job at Toyota, and makes decent money from what I understand. He teaches because he loves what hes doing, not because he depends on the income from kung fu.

:D So if anyone is in the houston area and wants to test their stuff, come on down. We're a friendly buncha people.

PS: As a sidenote, ive been reading about CMA has no grappling...My instructor HAS it, but im not sure where he got it from. Ill ask. To my knowledge, hes only trained (Officially :P) in Karate and then Kung Fu.

[sunfist]

Kung fu is a different method to MMA, if you practice it as that, then you are preserving it by default, if you dont and think that kung fu is just like MMA but not as good, then i really fail to see why you havent quit TCMA and found the nearest MMA gym.

Having said that, cross training is of course the bomb, though im not as fond of cross teaching. For example: why should all the CMA schools add BJJ to their curriculum? The quality level should be far higher at your local BJJ place.

[SevenStar]

Kung fu is a different method to MMA, if you practice it as that, then you are preserving it by default, if you dont and think that kung fu is just like MMA but not as good, then i really fail to see why you havent quit TCMA and found the nearest MMA gym.

Having said that, cross training is of course the bomb, though im not as fond of cross teaching. For example: why should all the CMA schools add BJJ to their curriculum? The quality level should be far higher at your local BJJ place.

syas whom? according to several of the guys on here, kung fu used to be trained in a format similar to mma.

[unyma]

it can be, but when it is, it looses a key aspect of the fighting aspect: for example, if you take it as a means of self-development, then the "fighting" becomes metaphorical: the fight is not about the other guy, it's about you, so to speak; and that's fine - of course, many other things can be like that as well; however, as i said, it then becomes something "other" than what it was originally, and so it now has to proceed according to a diffferent set of standards: decisions you'd make about training and teaching are now based on different criteria; and as such, you will include things not so fighting oriented and drop other things that are, because they are not necessary for the newly derrived goal of self-development

bottom line: you can't have your cake and eat it too (unless you are Chuck Norris: then you not only can do that, but the cake actually eats itself first out of fear)

That makes perfect sense, but I'm not sure I agree with it. The way I'm reading that it appears that you are saying that you can't add to the fighting aspect and also maintain the meaning of the fighting aspect. As if to add more to it you have to reduce something else. If I use the cake metaphor, the cake is only so big and you can't fit more into the cake pan then there already is.

Why can't we just use a bigger cake pan? Maintain the validity of what was started and hopefully have but continue to add to it?

[cjurakpt]

That makes perfect sense, but I'm not sure I agree with it. The way I'm reading that it appears that you are saying that you can't add to the fighting aspect and also maintain the meaning of the fighting aspect. As if to add more to it you have to reduce something else. If I use the cake metaphor, the cake is only so big and you can't fit more into the cake pan then there already is.

Why can't we just use a bigger cake pan? Maintain the validity of what was started and hopefully have but continue to add to it?

well, a great example would be Musashi - he was the real deal when it came to fighting, and he also gained awakening using his practice as a vehicle - but as a result, he stopped using a live blade and switched to wooden ones - so in a sense, the killing took a back seat, although it evidently didn't have a negative impact on his ability to win

I mean, how many kids who have grown up on the "mean streets" have gotten into MA and turned their lives around? for them, the arts became a way to temper their...well, temper? for them, in a way, it was never about fighting, more like finding a mthod to channel themselves

I guess my point is that you can't climb two mountains at the same time, at least not in my experience - I am not denying the possibility that someone might be able to a great fighter and also use the art as a means of self-development, just that one eventually precludes the other, if you think about it: I mean, it is a bit paradoxical learning to fight so as to learn not to fight - as long as you are at one end of the spectrum, you can't be at the other at the same time

BTW, while we may disagree, please know that I appreciate your perspective and the thoughtful manner in which you relay it

[Fu-Pow]

I'll post the name of the book when I get home. It will blow you away as far as crushing just about every Martial Arts myth you know of...

Peace.

I think what needs to happen in TCMA, bottomline, is that the myths need to go. If you want to make a "truth claim" about anything then it needs to be backed up by some kind of factual evidence. If its empirical evidence then all the better.

TCMA needs to get into modernity....NO MORE MYTHS!!!!!

FP

[Fu-Pow]

If someone is serious about becoming a teacher of classical martial arts then perhaps learning form on form on form is essential. But most people aren't going to ever want to be that, they want self-defense, exercise, sport etc and it is doing them a disservice to laden them with all this theoretical crap that they will most likely have no use for.

Reply]
I disagree. You still learn it the same way as anyone else. Learning the *Formal Routine* would be the last step before you go out on your own.

If you never learn the form, but have mastered the style, you can then create your OWN form and use that as your documented, organized curriculum. Sure, you would be teaching it your own way, but the style would still be transmitted due to the fact that *How* knowledge is passed is not the same as the actual knowledge itself.

If you look at my style, it was created before forms were common. So by the time forms were a big thing many branches existed. Each branch developed it's own forms to document thier ways of teaching the style, so they are all different. HOWEVER, because they are all made from the same core bunch of techniques you can still spot a Tai tzu form by the techniques and flavor even though you don't recognize the choreography of it.

So once you understand that the style existed for hundreds of years (in some branches) without forms, you must also recognize that you don't need them, and can create your own based on how you feel it is best to teach.

As always, the students don't learn them, because they hinder learning how to fight. They are your *Teaching* tools, sort of like a teacher's edition text book. They exist as a compressed Zip file to record your curriculum.

I'm not sure we're really disagreeing. Sure, all styles started as a kind of compendium of techniques. Eventually, this was codified into some kind of kata or hand form. Thats the nature of the beast as it exists today whatever it might have existed as before.

Either way learning lots of forms is an inappropriate training method for most people interested in martial arts. It'd be like saying, OK you want to learn to play rock and roll in a band?...ok.....first you gotta learn this complicated Mozart sonata. Its inappropriate for 2 reasons......

One, you are perfecting skills that aren't really applicable to the end goal and secondly its totally overkill in terms of preparation.

Would it be an excellent foundation? Of course, but overkill. Would you have more options in improvisational solos? Of course. But in some cases more choice is not always a good thing.

FP

[lkfmdc]

Scholarly research has compared documents from ages ago to forms done now, and show them to be near identical.



1. Learn how to use the quote function

2. Please CITE this "scholarly research" ... having a master's degree, I can go look up the article and see what merit this "research" has :rolleyes:

3. Much easier, put 5 guys who do Hung Ga in a room and ask them to do Gung Gee Fuk Fu, or ask a punch of CLF people to do their forms (ie same names, often the forms look nothing alike). Heck, ask some Wing Chun people about the correct way to do Biu Jee :eek:

Mike is probably referencing "Chinese martial arts training manuals" by Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo, ever TCMA person should read this and meditate on it's contents

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

2. Please CITE this "scholarly research" ... having a master's degree, I can go look up the article and see what merit this "research" has

Reply]
You would have to go to Sal Canzonieri for those details.


3. Much easier, put 5 guys who do Hung Ga in a room and ask them to do Gung Gee Fuk Fu, or ask a punch of CLF people to do their forms (ie same names, often the forms look nothing alike). Heck, ask some Wing Chun people about the correct way to do Biu Jee



Reply]
Most versions of Xiao Hong Quan I have seen look pretty much the same. I have seen variants of Tai Tzu Chang Quan as well, but still only minor differences...it's the same form for the most part....doesn't matter what lineage I've seen it from.

All the styles you sited above are relatively new to the scene, only a couple hundred years old. Most of their curriculum is not considered sacred if there is as much variance as you say. Other wise there wouldn't be any changes, and there wouldn't be much variety. Even with that said, I'd be willing to be there are purist lines who do it exactly as it was created.

If you read what I said before, some stuff is remarkably preserved, and other stuff gets changed up a lot. It's a BIG Kung Fu world out there.

[lkfmdc]

Most versions of Xiao Hong Quan I have seen look pretty much the same. I have seen variants of Tai Tzu Chang Quan as well



You still need to learn how to use the quote function, and for future reference, if you haven't read the soruce material and can't cite it, don't try and use it in your argument......

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

TCMA needs to get into modernity....NO MORE MYTHS!!!!!

Reply]
No, I think it needs to DROP the modern way of teaching, and go back to it's roots when it was a functional fighting method. The new way from the last 50-70 years or so have proven to be ineffective at training fighters. It's time to go back to the way it was taught when it was relied apon, and actually worked as designed.

To do this, forms need to be put back and not taught until the student can really fight with it's contents. Only THEN, as the last step should they be taught. Even then, only so the student has a summary and maintenance practice to codify that portion of the system.

[unkokusai]

2. Please CITE this "scholarly research" ... having a master's degree, I can go look up the article and see what merit this "research" has


Do you need a master's degree to look up an article, or were you just looking for an excuse to mention that you have a master's degree?

[lkfmdc]

Do you need a master's degree to look up an article, or were you just looking for an excuse to mention that you have a master's degree?

Because there are TONS of "articles" that aren't worth the paper they are printed on, an article that cites a martial arts book whose content is based upon what their teacher taught them, no footnotes, etc

I couldn't look up the article because RD didn't mention the title, or the author or identify it in ANY WAY... now his lame response is to ask Sal what articles he's read....

IE "I know a guy who says he's read some research, that claims to say XYZ"

[unkokusai]

Oh I know what you're saying, I'm just giving you a hard time for the completely gratuitous reference to your master's degree.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I couldn't look up the article because RD didn't mention the title, or the author or identify it in ANY WAY... now his lame response is to ask Sal what articles he's read....

Reply]
Actually, Sal probably would have written the artical...

IE "I know a guy who says he's read some research, that claims to say XYZ"

Reply]
In this case that is what has occurred....except the guy is the one who DID the research....

The man is a virtual walking encyclopedia of martial arts, historical research...with the documentation to back it up. You asked for the source, I gave it to you. If you are genuinely interested in learning, talking to me is pointless, you have to go to the researcher himself.

Sal is a great guy, and more than willing to share with anyone honestly interested in learning the real history behind the evolution of the Chinese martial arts. And he's easy to find, just PM him.

[lkfmdc]

talking to me is pointless



ah, yes, I can see your point now :rolleyes:

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Gee Ross, who pee'd in Ur Cornflakes today?

[unkokusai]

Would you please learn to use the dal-gurn quote function? Its not that hard!

[lkfmdc]

In a community plagued with mis-information, myths and outright lies, I despise attempts to hold up this ridiculous PC construction with fake pseudo research... I've seen stuff that is downright silly, like I said, a book where the guy writes something with no supportn and then that book is cited as a "footnote"

- KING KONG BECAME PRESIDENT AFTER GEORGE W BUSH WAS KILLED BY AN ASSASSIN IN 2002

there, I wrote it on this internet forum, now I full expect to see a paper where

"KING KONG BECAME PRESIDENT AFTER GEORGE W BUSH WAS KILLED BY AN ASSASSIN IN 2002 (Ezine.kungfumagazine.com July 24, 2007)

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

In a community plagued with mis-information, myths and outright lies, I despise attempts to hold up this ridiculous PC construction with fake pseudo research... I've seen stuff that is downright silly, like I said, a book where the guy writes something with no supportn and then that book is cited as a "footnote"

Reply]
How do you know it's fake Pseudo research?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Really Ross, The sum of all I said was that *Some* forms have been preserved, and others not.

Why are you being such an a$s today? Aren't you Gett'n it enough?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Would you please learn to use the dal-gurn quote function? Its not that hard!

Reply]
OK.

[unkokusai]

Are you honestly too stupid to use the quote function?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Are you honestly too stupid to use the quote function?

Reply]
No, I am too stubborn.

[tattooedmonk]

Progress and preservation . Well I think that progress and preservation are both equally important . Progression is the way to preserve what it is that you already have or else you would not be able to preserve it ,correct??

Now do you not preserve the teachings of your masters Sifu Parella??

I mean think about it, how could you not have your school and your students practicing and promoting your art if you were not preserving it and how have you preserved it??? Through progression.

If you were just always progressing and just taking what the flavor of the month was and leaving what it is that you have already learned behind ,then eventually what you have now will not be what you had before and so you could not claim to possess or teach it. Correct??

The arts are always evolving ,adding to, and taking way, just like recipes.

However just because you take out sugar and use apple sauce does not mean that you can not put sugar back in or that it ( sugar) was never there.

Get my meaning??

Just in case you do not, I am refering to Groundfighting in CMA.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

However just because you take out sugar and use apple sauce does not mean that you can not put sugar back in or that it ( sugar) was never there

Reply]
To add to that, just because ONE chef alters the recipe, does not mean they all do, or did. Some things really do get preserved pretty intact, and others get radically altered untill they are something new, and no longer what they were.

[unkokusai]

Are you honestly too stupid to use the quote function?

Reply]
No, I am too stubborn.



That's what stupid people tell themselves to try and make their stupidity something they can be proud of.

[unkokusai]

However just because you take out sugar and use apple sauce does not mean that you can not put sugar back in or that it ( sugar) was never there.



LOL! You just keep getting better and better as your inner LARPer expresses itself!

[Lama Pai Sifu]

TCMA needs to get into modernity....NO MORE MYTHS!!!!!

Reply]
No, I think it needs to DROP the modern way of teaching, and go back to it's roots when it was a functional fighting method. The new way from the last 50-70 years or so have proven to be ineffective at training fighters. It's time to go back to the way it was taught when it was relied apon, and actually worked as designed.

To do this, forms need to be put back and not taught until the student can really fight with it's contents. Only THEN, as the last step should they be taught. Even then, only so the student has a summary and maintenance practice to codify that portion of the system.

And how do YOU know what was happening 50-70 years ago? How do you know what the 'roots' were?

What if 90% of all the stories about training back then were untrue? Myths, legends...

I'll tell you what I DO KNOW, is that 50-70 years ago, they didn't have the training equipment or the nutritional advantages we have today. I would venture a guess that MA people of today are MUCH stronger and punch and kick WAY harder than some guy who lived at the end of the Ching Dynasty...

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Progress and preservation . Well I think that progress and preservation are both equally important . Progression is the way to preserve what it is that you already have or else you would not be able to preserve it ,correct??

Now do you not preserve the teachings of your masters Sifu Parella??

I mean think about it, how could you not have your school and your students practicing and promoting your art if you were not preserving it and how have you preserved it??? Through progression.

If you were just always progressing and just taking what the flavor of the month was and leaving what it is that you have already learned behind ,then eventually what you have now will not be what you had before and so you could not claim to possess or teach it. Correct??

The arts are always evolving ,adding to, and taking way, just like recipes.

However just because you take out sugar and use apple sauce does not mean that you can not put sugar back in or that it ( sugar) was never there.

Get my meaning??

Just in case you do not, I am refering to Groundfighting in CMA.

I get your meaning, but you obviously have missed mine. And analogies about fruit, a silly philosophical rim-job, futune-cookie logic and PC discussions are EXACTLY what's wrong about TCMA today.

"Uh, yeah, you really got me there...how on earth could I put down preservation when I'm teaching techniques that are preserved? HHmmmm."

Dummy.

And yes, I call you a 'dummy'. Not because you are an idiot, although you may very well be, but because you are trying to be cute - while alas, you are not. I also called you a dummy because I felt like it and I have read many of your other posts. They are definatly 'dummy-like' and wreak of Shaolin-Do. And no, I do not have to be PC.

[lkfmdc]

a wise man at Shaolin once wrote the greatest riddle of all time

since the riddle was written, fighters in China sought its meaning

Only those who understood its meaning opened up the secrets to the shaolin art

today, that riddle and the answer are almost lost

but I feel now is the time to share it with you all

but it can not leave this forum

promise?
-
--
---
----
-----
-------
--------
---------
----------
--------
---------
-------
---------
-------

-------


the wise man said;

how much wood
could a wood chuck
chuck
if a wood chuck
could chuck
wood

the answer, my disciples, is.....

(to be continued)

[SifuAbel]

I'll tell you what I DO KNOW, is that 50-70 years ago, they didn't have the training equipment or the nutritional advantages we have today. I would venture a guess that MA people of today are MUCH stronger and punch and kick WAY harder than some guy who lived at the end of the Ching Dynasty...

How do you know this?

[Fu-Pow]

Mike is probably referencing "Chinese martial arts training manuals" by Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo, ever TCMA person should read this and meditate on it's contents


Just ordered it, should make some good summer reading.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

How do you know this?


Which part, Rudy?

The equipment part? You can't be serious. Bags, Mitts, Matts, Weights (yes, they had rudementry weights, but not the diverse types of today - and even if they existed, who is to say that Mr. Chan from Guangdong in 1925 had access to them?)

Besides, I've been training for over 25 years, and the equipment you can train with today BLOWS away the stuff I used as a teenager/ealy twenties..


Or how about nutrition?

You can't possibly believe that a diet of rice and vegatable, at a time when animals protein was relativly more expensive than it is today, would produce stronger people? Don't forget, people in southern China - uh, not wealthy. Check it out, read a book or look it up on the web. Or better yet - go to CHINA (been there, got the t-shirt) and visit the people in Guangdong. THEY ARE STILL POOR and SKINNY! Or learn to speak Chinese and have them tell you about their parents or their grandparents and how KF people had to beg or put on shows for food. I don't just know this from books or hearsay, I've been there a few times already, and talked to 85 year old people who were alive when guys like Lam Sai Wing were teaching, etc. The majority of these guys could barely get one meal of protein in a day.

Not to mention that most of these Chinese people from 'whatever' years ago, were like 5'5" at best and about 120lbs. Go figure. Could these guys compare, power-wise with the fighters of today? Hardly.

Since I'm not sure what part you are challenging/inquiring about, I'll give you an opportunity to elaborate.

But seriously, think - before you write about some legendary guy or some myth that no one can prove, about guys killing horses with one blow or masters chopping down trees with a slicing palm...

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Just ordered it, should make some good summer reading.

Great book, you'll love and hate TCMA as it is today - even more.

;)

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

And how do YOU know what was happening 50-70 years ago? How do you know what the 'roots' were?

Reply]
I don't really care about 50-70 years ago, but in my research into my own style for the last 10 years it has become VERY apparent that it was not taught with a forms heavy curriculum, it was basics, conditioning and heavy application work + more basics. Granted a lot of that was weapons being a military style, BUT the formula was all about direct, to the point training. The forms were for the trainers (Ming dynasty...forms for my style were scarce prior) to keep thier class structure and keep a standardize curriculum.

It wasn't untill the advent of commercial schools for the general public that it started to be taught in a heavy form choreography manor.

What if 90% of all the stories about training back then were untrue? Myths, legends...

Reply]
I highly doubt it....I think all the stories of guys learning 100 forms before they could learn an app are fake.

I'll tell you what I DO KNOW, is that 50-70 years ago, they didn't have the training equipment or the nutritional advantages we have today. I would venture a guess that MA people of today are MUCH stronger and punch and kick WAY harder than some guy who lived at the end of the Ching Dynasty...

Reply]
I have been doing a lot of online research into the Old Time Strong men of the late 1800's early 1900's, and guess what...theses guy were lifting literally SICK amounts of weights that would make the steroid pumped Iron Pumping power lifters today cringe...all with NO steroids, and no knowledge of nutrition other than eating lots of Fruits and veggies with thier meats.

Oh, and BTW back then ALL food was organically grown (because they hadn't invented any other way yet), so they probably ate better than you do even WITH all your modern Knowledge.

You know, if you really think about it, our species has been around for roughly 200,000 years...you honestly think it took until the last few seconds of our existence to figure out how to train right? Modern science has done little more than *Explain* why things work, than given us any super training methods that make us Supermen compared to the athletes 100 years ago.

[boshea]

And how do YOU know what was happening 50-70 years ago? How do you know what the 'roots' were?

What if 90% of all the stories about training back then were untrue? Myths, legends...

I'll tell you what I DO KNOW, is that 50-70 years ago, they didn't have the training equipment or the nutritional advantages we have today. I would venture a guess that MA people of today are MUCH stronger and punch and kick WAY harder than some guy who lived at the end of the Ching Dynasty...

How do you know this?

In fairness, he did say he would "venture a guess," which is not quite the same thing as a statement of fact.

What he said he does know is that we have better training equipment and nutritional advantages today over what we had 50-70 years ago, which is probably partly true. Certainly nutrition has come a long way since then.

-b

[Lama Pai Sifu]

I have been doing a lot of online research into the Old Time Strong men of the late 1800's early 1900's, and guess what...theses guy were lifting literally SICK amounts of weights that would make the steroid pumped Iron Pumping power lifters today cringe...all with NO steroids, and no knowledge of nutrition other than eating lots of Fruits and veggies with thier meats.
Oh, and BTW back then ALL food was organically grown (because they hadn't invented any other way yet), so they probably ate better than you do even WITH all your modern Knowledge.

You know, if you really think about it, our species has been around for roughly 200,000 years...you honestly think it took until the last few seconds of our existence to figure out how to train right? Modern science has done little more than *Explain* why things work, than given us any super training methods that make us Supermen compared to the athletes 100 years ago.

Who said anything about Old Time Strong Men. I've done and read about kettle ball training and can probably do a few feats of strength that would make your draw drop. But we are talking about TCMA'sts here - the grandmasters of our current styles, of whom there are exceedingly tall tales about their legendary feats...

They barely could afford protein. And organic? Remember, I've been to southern China, YOU STILL CAN'T DRINK THE WATER. EVEN THE LOCALS DON'T. IT HAS TO BE BOILED FIRST. They're lucky that they didn't die of a disease or some crazy bacteria from eating the quote "organic food", lol


AND WHEN WILL YOU GET IN LINE WITH FORUM ETIQUETTE ALREADY? READING YOUR POSTS ARE LABORIOUS ENOUGH, WITHOUT HAVING TO DECIFER "WHO WROTE WHAT?"

And if you think all those stories are true, YOU too are living in a dream world...lol

[bakxierboxer]

And how do YOU know what was happening 50-70 years ago? How do you know what the 'roots' were?

It's possible that anyone really interested could find someone from that ancient-history era and do something unusual like.... ask them?

What if 90% of all the stories about training back then were untrue? Myths, legends...

Using your own figures... what about that other 10%?

I'll tell you what I DO KNOW, is that 50-70 years ago, they didn't have the training equipment or the nutritional advantages we have today.

True, although some of those advantages are simply due to the relative affluence of today's societies... and it's also worth noting that most of those advantages accrue to those in the so-called "First World" economies.
It's entirely possible that some folks in those "old days" were affluent enough to afford to eat and live well enough to approximate a good many of our modern-day advantages.

Hey! wait a minute! It certainly seems that, from time to time, some few athletes from "Third World" countries still manage to give "First Worlders" "a run for their money".

I would venture a guess that MA people of today are MUCH stronger and punch and kick WAY harder than some guy who lived at the end of the Ching Dynasty...

Good/educated guess and....
Probably true... "in general"/"on average".... even taller/bigger in many cases.
Again, as with wealth/affluence, these are all RELATIVE abilities.... and probably ought to be evaluated relative to the rest of the population AT THAT TIME.

It was not all that long ago that living to 40 years of age was considered to be a relatively long life, and even so, some lived FAR longer than that.

Given such variance, it's equally possible that some percentage of those "ancients" had many of the physical capabilities of today's top-flight athletes.
It's even possible that some of them were TCMA practitioners.

[lkfmdc]

Do you think these 1927 Chinese kung fu practicioners

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtz0AJzVYPs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5XpUPbBmBc

Look like they are healthier, stronger, faster and better trained than today's martial artist?

[WinterPalm]

The Brian Kennedy book is not bad. It is funny when he derides word of mouth as a method of transmission...his argument against it? There are no documented sources!! Some of what he does in an attempt to debunk many myths could be considered his own creations or modern myths.
However, the focus away from the airy-fairy floating through the clouds and dancing like a cable tv special to the nitty-gritty reality of TCMA is enjoyable to read about.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Certainly nutrition has come a long way since then.

Reply]
No it hasn't....we just have bigger pills now....and we have to pay exorbitant prices for Organically grown food, which was ALL THEY HAD back then due to the fact that nothing else had been invented yet.

I really belive that the hwole superiority complex we alve about our modern ways is all an illusion.

Take my daughter for excample, when she was a competitve gymnast, we had the modern supplement jinkies, and we had my daughter who was fed NOTHING bout a pure organic diet that was heavy on raw fruites and veggies duringt he day, and as much organic meats for dinner.

The nutrition junkies NEVER developed ANY faster, or did ANY better, in ANY way than my daughter did. In fact must of them were scoring in the upper top 10, where as my Daughter almost always scored top 5 or better. This is a comparison of the SAME girls, on the SAME team, trained by the SAME coach for thier entire childhood in the SAME way. The only variable was the way the parents fed them.

Now, to add to that, we tried following the advice of the nutritionist, got her on the supplements and the smoothies and ed her according to the rules layed out and all that, and her scores DROPPED...and stayed dropped untill I put her back on the original diet recommended by her Old School Romanian coach who just did things the old way form her native country.

Infact, you had all these gyms with modern, state of the art facilities with on staff nutritionists, physical therapists and the latest, most advance knowledge available, and they could not touch my daughters team. That gap just grew, and grew once you started looking at the higher levels.

Another thing, even though we have all these modern advancements, regardless of nutritional system being used, Gymnasts are STILL considered to be, "Pound for Pound" the Strongest athletes on the planet of ANY sport.

Thier equipment consist of a skinny, leather covered length of wood on a stand, various bars supported by some pols, and some metal rings hanging form the ceiling on rope or strap and little else outside of a springy floor (Made of foam blocks and 4X8 length plywood crisscrossed in a couple of layers with a heavily padded carpet on top). They have no weight, machines, exercises balls, none of that stuff. It's all pretty much about as bare bones basic as you can get.

Modern is NOT better....it's just an illusion.

[quickjab]

I think TCMA's step towards the future should be be through San Da and through Shuai Jiao. I think EVERY kwoon should teach ALIVE San Da and Shuai Jiao and compete. Just imagine if EVERY SINGLE Kung Fu school in the world taught San Da and Shuai Jiao and competed in those events, think of how many fighters would come from CMA backrounds instead of Muay Thai and wrestling. Just imagine how good TCMA tournaments would be if it was San Da, Shuai Jiao and Push hands instead of forms.

On the subject, watch Cung Le's win over Tony Fryklund this past weekend. I know, he didn't get taken down, but he displayed many TMA techniques and proved that they can be pulled off in an MMA setting if trained ALIVE.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

It was not all that long ago that living to 40 years of age was considered to be a relatively long life, and even so, some lived FAR longer than that.

Reply]
Nonsense, there are PRE agricultural cultures in the Amazons that routinely live into their 80's and beyond and show NONE of the modern diseases like hyper tension, heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc...There are also some in Borneo as well.

That whole 40 year life span is nothing but a crock of Sh!t to promote the *wonders* of modern medicine...it's a marketing ploy that has become so ingrained that it is held as fact, when the truth is more the opposite. Modern times has LOWERED the over all heath of mankind considerably.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I think TCMA's step towards the future should be be through San Da and through Shuai Jiao. I think EVERY kwoon should teach ALIVE San Da and Shuai Jiao and compete. Just imagine if EVERY SINGLE Kung Fu school in the world taught San Da and Shuai Jiao and competed in those events, think of how many fighters would come from CMA backrounds instead of Muay Thai and wrestling. Just imagine how good TCMA tournaments would be if it was San Da, Shuai Jiao and Push hands instead of forms.

On the subject, watch Cung Le's win over Tony Fryklund this past weekend. I know, he didn't get taken down, but he displayed many TMA techniques and proved that they can be pulled off in an MMA setting if trained ALIVE.

Reply]
Well said. That is the real Old school ways of Kung Fu...not the modern form based curriculum's! If everyone just goes back to the roots, Kung Fu would hold it's own against anyone....if not outright dominate.

We have all the tools, it's just a matter of shifting the focus back to when it was taught right.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

It's possible that anyone really interested could find someone from that ancient-history era and do something unusual like.... ask them?


I have. You probably missed the other post.

Using your own figures... what about that other 10%?

What about it? If all the stories are 90% inflated baloney, and it's based on 10% fact...

I think you need to do the math.

True, although some of those advantages are simply due to the relative affluence of today's societies... and it's also worth noting that most of those advantages accrue to those in the so-called "First World" economies.
It's entirely possible that some folks in those "old days" were affluent enough to afford to eat and live well enough to approximate a good many of our modern-day advantages.

What's difference why?

And mentioning the whole thing about third world countries...I don't see the relavance. There is a 4 year old kid in India, B. Sighn, have you heard of him? He can run 20 miles a day, 6 days a week. He runs for 6 hours straight. What does that prove? That there are bizarre anomolies in the world. Surely we can't be assuming that all the founders of all the styles, and all the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation guys were all 'savantish' with thier KF as well? Not so much..

It's so funny. Why is it that no one sucked backed then? All these guys, all these masters are great. Even today's generation? Where are all the guys how were the LAST guy to be accepted by so and so as a student, never practiced that much, and was basically the school hack? Are you saying this guy never taught anyone and just died off?
HA HA HA.
Sure he did. He's actually the one who rushed right out to teach as soon as he gave his teach a big red envelope or when is teacher died. But he never told anyone he sucked. He just kept up the facade, pumped up his teachers image and taught a bunch of other people who became convinced that they were great too! LOL

You seem like a smart guy, do dont' you see the fault in this logic (meaning yours, not mine)


And given what variance? You didn't make a valid point. You are comparing lifespan to what? Increases in sports science and nutrition?

And no, I dont' think there were too many guys that had today's level of skill. I do think there were a lot stories about guys breaking rocks with their pinky and chi-blasting a guy from 10 feet away.

Funny thing though. 99% of today's Heih Gung tricks are merely physics tricks, and can be learned by anyone in a matter of moments (Many of the old videos of the Guangdong team breaking rocks - watch how their done, the rock hits the other rock first) But if old masters 75 years ago could do amazing feats, why is it that no one else can? WAIT! Did they all die with the knowledge? Or wait, they had to train 12 hrs a day, meditating against a wall for 9 years - and no one is willing to do that today? (but they were 100 years ago?) How convienent....

Open your mind for a minute and think of the motivations and the situations which would cause people to make up, embellish or misinterpret the accomplishments of their masters? If you have trouble thinking about the past, think about the present; My master could do THIS, therefore, I'm sooo cool and you should train with me. I won't tell you that I have no proof of this, and don't know how to teach YOU to do this, but I'm still cool. Come train with me.


I'm not trying to beat you up Pete, don't take it personal. I just have a real axe to grind regarding the myths and stories surrounding TCMA. I'm trying to teach my students how to really use CMA in today's world. Not the fantasy world that 92% of other TCMA schools are living in.

Again, nothing personal.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

I think TCMA's step towards the future should be be through San Da and through Shuai Jiao. I think EVERY kwoon should teach ALIVE San Da and Shuai Jiao and compete. Just imagine if EVERY SINGLE Kung Fu school in the world taught San Da and Shuai Jiao and competed in those events, think of how many fighters would come from CMA backrounds instead of Muay Thai and wrestling. Just imagine how good TCMA tournaments would be if it was San Da, Shuai Jiao and Push hands instead of forms.

On the subject, watch Cung Le's win over Tony Fryklund this past weekend. I know, he didn't get taken down, but he displayed many TMA techniques and proved that they can be pulled off in an MMA setting if trained ALIVE.

Good Post. I concur. I just think you should add MMA into the begining, unless you are suggesting that San Da and Shuai Jiao would help TCMA guys to transition into MMA....

[bakxierboxer]

Do you think these 1927 Chinese kung fu practicioners

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtz0AJzVYPs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5XpUPbBmBc

Look like they are healthier, stronger, faster and better trained than today's martial artist?

Good choice for making your point. :D

I noticed that the titles of those videos called them "Street Spectacles", meaning that they were "spectacular" in the sense that everyone "back then" could not do them.

As for what they did, a rather large percentage of today's so highly advantaged martial artists can't perform those routines at that level either.... let alpone the "general populace".

OTOH, they did look like they were undernourished to a degree, but I'm not so sure that's any different in the overall statistical "scatter effect" than being over-nourished (aka "slightly plump") is today....

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Certainly nutrition has come a long way since then.

Reply]
No it hasn't....we just have bigger pills now....and we have to pay exorbitant prices for Organically grown food, which was ALL THEY HAD back then due to the fact that nothing else had been invented yet.

I really belive that the hwole superiority complex we alve about our modern ways is all an illusion.

Take my daughter for excample, when she was a competitve gymnast, we had the modern supplement jinkies, and we had my daughter who was fed NOTHING bout a pure organic diet that was heavy on raw fruites and veggies duringt he day, and as much organic meats for dinner.

The nutrition junkies NEVER developed ANY faster, or did ANY better, in ANY way than my daughter did. In fact must of them were scoring in the upper top 10, where as my Daughter almost always scored top 5 or better. This is a comparison of the SAME girls, on the SAME team, trained by the SAME coach for thier entire childhood in the SAME way. The only variable was the way the parents fed them.

Now, to add to that, we tried following the advice of the nutritionist, got her on the supplements and the smoothies and ed her according to the rules layed out and all that, and her scores DROPPED...and stayed dropped untill I put her back on the original diet recommended by her Old School Romanian coach who just did things the old way form her native country.

Infact, you had all these gyms with modern, state of the art facilities with on staff nutritionists, physical therapists and the latest, most advance knowledge available, and they could not touch my daughters team. That gap just grew, and grew once you started looking at the higher levels.

Another thing, even though we have all these modern advancements, regardless of nutritional system being used, Gymnasts are STILL considered to be, "Pound for Pound" the Strongest athletes on the planet of ANY sport.

Thier equipment consist of a skinny, leather covered length of wood on a stand, various bars supported by some pols, and some metal rings hanging form the ceiling on rope or strap and little else outside of a springy floor (Made of foam blocks and 4X8 length plywood crisscrossed in a couple of layers with a heavily padded carpet on top). They have no weight, machines, exercises balls, none of that stuff. It's all pretty much about as bare bones basic as you can get.

Modern is NOT better....it's just an illusion.


Oh, so you're f(cking Amish now?

Besides the posts where you talk about your prowess with women, and your mail-order-bride emails, that was perhaps the dummest post I have ever read of yours.

My respect level for your content was never a ten, but it's now a two. And look, it went down as a result of you keeping it old school! Maybe supplements would have helped you a bit...


Using your daughter as a scientific example? Are you f(cking for real? Why don't you reread your post and try and find the science in what you wrote. If you wanted to tell us a story, fine. But if you think that it proved something...you should go hug some more organic trees....

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Good choice for making your point. :D

As for what they did, a rather large percentage of today's so highly advantaged martial artists can't perform those routines at that level either.... let alpone the "general populace".


And what would that prove? Surely nothing in the content of this thread. It's about fighting skills, MMA and Kung-Fu Bullsh1t. Who cares if a guy can't flower some swords today?

:confused::confused::confused:

[quickjab]

Yeah, I think CMA trained alive combined with a grappling style (BJJ, Sambo, Shoot wrestling, Catch) would turn out some great CMA based mixed martial artists. With San Da and Shuai Jiao practiced ALIVE, CMA would already have 75% of the equation covered. Just add ground grappling and watch it grow, LOL.

[bakxierboxer]

It was not all that long ago that living to 40 years of age was considered to be a relatively long life, and even so, some lived FAR longer than that.

Reply]
Nonsense, there are PRE agricultural cultures in the Amazons that routinely live into their 80's and beyond and show NONE of the modern diseases like hyper tension, heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc...There are also some in Borneo as well.

That whole 40 year life span is nothing but a crock of Sh!t to promote the *wonders* of modern medicine...it's a marketing ploy that has become so ingrained that it is held as fact, when the truth is more the opposite. Modern times has LOWERED the over all heath of mankind considerably.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#027

Got to depend on just what flavor koolaid you drink?

[unkokusai]

It was not all that long ago that living to 40 years of age was considered to be a relatively long life, and even so, some lived FAR longer than that.

Reply]
Nonsense, there are PRE agricultural cultures in the Amazons that routinely live into their 80's and beyond and show NONE of the modern diseases like hyper tension, heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc...There are also some in Borneo as well.

That whole 40 year life span is nothing but a crock of Sh!t to promote the *wonders* of modern medicine...it's a marketing ploy that has become so ingrained that it is held as fact, when the truth is more the opposite. Modern times has LOWERED the over all heath of mankind considerably.

I think you've been smoking something 'organic.' Your grasp of history and fact is risible.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Interesting numbers...no sign of any data prior to 1900 though...by then we were already in the early industrial age though, so it's kind of Mute to site it.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I think you've been smoking something 'organic.' Your grasp of history and fact is risible

Reply]
Ok there Bub....meanwhile there are 80 year old members of the Zowie tribe that can rip up to tree tops like it's nothing, and the mid 20's researchers studying them need frik'n ratcheting gear and take as much as 20 minutes to reach the canopy....... :rolleyes:

[bakxierboxer]

I have. You probably missed the other post.

I'd call them rants...

What about it? If all the stories are 90% inflated baloney, and it's based on 10% fact...

Then you're still accepting, as opposed to disposing of, that other 10%?

And mentioning the whole thing about third world countries...I don't see the relavance. There is a 4 year old kid in India, B. Sighn, have you heard of him? He can run 20 miles a day, 6 days a week. He runs for 6 hours straight. What does that prove? That there are bizarre anomolies in the world. Surely we can't be assuming that all the founders of all the styles, and all the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generation guys were all 'savantish' with thier KF as well? Not so much..

Today's Third World countries in many ways live in worse conditions than "yesterdays'" First World countries.

It's so funny. Why is it that no one sucked backed then? All these guys, all these masters are great.

I don't believe I said that.

Even today's generation?

VERY DEFINITELY, didn't say that, either.

Where are all the guys how were the LAST guy to be accepted by so and so as a student, never practiced that much, and was basically the school hack? Are you saying this guy never taught anyone and just died off?
HA HA HA.
Sure he did. He's actually the one who rushed right out to teach as soon as he gave his teach a big red envelope or when is teacher died. But he never told anyone he sucked. He just kept up the facade, pumped up his teachers image and taught a bunch of other people who became convinced that they were great too! LOL

I don't think you'll see me say anywhere that this kind of thing couldn't and hasn't happened. I just happen to have a different reaction than you do.... I don't think it's a laughing matter. :(

You seem like a smart guy, do dont' you see the fault in this logic (meaning yours, not mine)

I see that you're p!ssed off over something.

And given what variance? You didn't make a valid point. You are comparing lifespan to what? Increases in sports science and nutrition?

Lifespan today vs Lifespan "then".
Physical capabilities, ditto.

And no, I dont' think there were too many guys that had today's level of skill.

You're first going to have to find some good number of todays' folks that have any skill at all.... then we can "do the numbers" and see "what the percentages are".

I do think there were a lot stories about guys breaking rocks with their pinky and chi-blasting a guy from 10 feet away.

I may have less patience with BS than you do.

Funny thing though. 99% of today's Heih Gung tricks are merely physics tricks and can be learned by anyone in a matter of moments ...

I also dislike "tricks" of any kind/description... no matter how long they take to "master".

- and no one is willing to do that today? (but they were 100 years ago?)

A lot of that boils down to "what's in it for me?" (in whatever era)

Open your mind for a minute and think of the motivations and the situations which would cause people to make up, embellish or misinterpret the accomplishments of their masters?

I think I just wrote about that above.

If you have trouble thinking about the past, think about the present; My master could do THIS, therefore, I'm sooo cool and you should train with me. I won't tell you that I have no proof of this, and don't know how to teach YOU to do this, but I'm still cool. Come train with me.

Same motive as above.
Personally, I subscribe to "the school of show me".

I'm not trying to beat you up Pete, don't take it personal. I just have a real axe to grind regarding the myths and stories surrounding TCMA. I'm trying to teach my students how to really use CMA in today's world. Not the fantasy world that 92% of other TCMA schools are living in.

You haven't said anything that I should take personally.
My own axe might actually be bigger than yours.... I just don't flash it around that often, or make as big a noise about it.

I've also always been all about use.

Again, nothing personal.

Noted/appreciated.

[unkokusai]

Interesting numbers...no sign of any data prior to 1900 though...by then we were already in the early industrial age though, so it's kind of Mute to site it.

"mute"? LOL, you ought to be :rolleyes:

[Lama Pai Sifu]

It was not all that long ago that living to 40 years of age was considered to be a relatively long life, and even so, some lived FAR longer than that.

Reply]
Nonsense, there are PRE agricultural cultures in the Amazons that routinely live into their 80's and beyond and show NONE of the modern diseases like hyper tension, heart disease, diabetes, cancer etc...There are also some in Borneo as well.

That whole 40 year life span is nothing but a crock of Sh!t to promote the *wonders* of modern medicine...it's a marketing ploy that has become so ingrained that it is held as fact, when the truth is more the opposite. Modern times has LOWERED the over all heath of mankind considerably.


Right. Unfortunatly, if the Jungle Amazon gets his little toe infected, unless he has a penicillin plant nearby (HA HA), he's probably gonna be dead. How's that for progress??

AND, where is the proof of these 80 year old amazons (and beyond, as you said)? Easy to say, please submit some proof of what you say, the name of a tribe perhaps? An author for reference? If not, it's just babble..

[unkokusai]

I think you've been smoking something 'organic.' Your grasp of history and fact is risible

Reply]
Ok there Bub....meanwhile there are 80 year old members of the Zowie tribe that can rip up to tree tops like it's nothing, and the mid 20's researchers studying them need frik'n ratcheting gear and take as much as 20 minutes to reach the canopy.......



Wow, and somewhere in Peoria, IL, there is an old lady who makes just the best apple pie!


And in 1875 the first recorded swim of the English channel took place!


Irrelevant? Proof of nothing? F-ing right.


(and learn to use the quote function, ****-for-brains)

:rolleyes:

[Lama Pai Sifu]

Pete,

NOT everything in my post is directed towards you. If you didn't write it, it wasn't directed at you.

It's nice to speak to someone who apparently feels the same way about TCMA, or at least close to it.

Again, no disrespect intended, I'm just passionate about this subject. I did not feel this way 10, 7 or 5 years ago. I thought forms were the sh1t and although I always hit pads and sparred, I did not train like I do today - with a BJJ black belt and with MMA in mind.

I am happy to train my Kung-Fu in a 'live' manner. One of my major 'axes' is simply that I don't know if KF was EVER trained in a 'live' manner, at least not by 95% of all the TCMA people over the years. But with no empiracal evidence, we all buy into the idea that TCMA guys were better 70 years ago. Did the guys 70 years ago think the same thing? Did they cling to these old legends the same way we do today? If that is true, when were the guys the best? 300 years ago?

I think that THIS generation will become the best. I think each generation is improving. I think we also get MORE AND MORE waste products in the arts as well, but there are probably more people today that can kick ass with the respective martial art than at any other point in history. Don't you agree??

[Lama Pai Sifu]

I think you've been smoking something 'organic.' Your grasp of history and fact is risible

Reply]
Ok there Bub....meanwhile there are 80 year old members of the Zowie tribe that can rip up to tree tops like it's nothing, and the mid 20's researchers studying them need frik'n ratcheting gear and take as much as 20 minutes to reach the canopy....... :rolleyes:


Yeah, but can he wipe his @$$ without getting sh1t on his hand? Can he use a pencil? Can he drive a car? Of course not!

WTF is your point? He lives and hunts in the trees! Of course he can climb them fast...

As Tom Cruise says....'You're so Glib.'

[Fu-Pow]

But with no empiracal evidence, we all buy into the idea that TCMA guys were better 70 years ago. Did the guys 70 years ago think the same thing? Did they cling to these old legends the same way we do today? If that is true, when were the guys the best? 300 years ago?

I think the martial media out there feeds the myths also. We like to blame individuals but you have to look at the culture also. The messages we are exposed to over and over again.

How many people have watched the Wu Xia movies and been influenced by them?

I hate to say it but I think kung fu magazine, inside kung fu and the like feed into this too.

Kung fu magazine promotes people as masters of such and such style and reprints these myths without question. People read that and see it as fact. Hell they even print stuff about lin kong jing which is complete bull$hit.

People that train hard today probably ARE better. Living in industrial societies we can be more specialized..in the old days people spent more time just sustaining their existence.

FP

[bakxierboxer]

Right. Unfortunatly, if the Jungle Amazon gets his little toe infected, unless he has a penicillin plant nearby (HA HA), he's probably gonna be dead. How's that for progress??

AND, where is the proof of these 80 year old amazons (and beyond, as you said)? Easy to say, please submit some proof of what you say, the name of a tribe perhaps? An author for reference? If not, it's just babble..

In the course of looking up that cdc table, I ran across a little blurb that said average life expectancy 200 years ago was 30!!!.
I also ran across commentary that most folks don't take "infant mortality" into account.
Another blurb was that fewer that 5% of Egyptians would reach age 65.....
Don't know.
Don't care.
Don't live there.

It is entirely possible that there are some few 80 yr old Amazonians that probably give the proof of the term "statistical outlier".
Don't know/live/care re that, either.
Here, today, it's got a lot to do with society/economics/etc and how the combination gives more goods/resources to support more people "better"/longer.
("on average" and actually)

"Intellectually", I could probably "make a case" for with-holding modern medical technology/care in the name of "survival of the fittest".... and it would certainly "fit" with some of the "greenies" concerns about "solving" the problems of "overpopulation".

Anyway. that "penicillin plant" is actually a form of mold..... and some jungle medicine man may have discovered that or even "something better"... maybe.
I'm not seeing any suddenly burgeoning Amazon population growth....
Although most of the apparent burgeoning IS going on in some few borderline Third World countries for "the traditional reasons".... having lots of family around to take care of the elders in their dotage.
The only "problem" is that their infrastructure is largely unable to supply the necessary resources for that growing population.

[Fu-Pow]

In the course of looking up that cdc table, I ran across a little blurb that said average life expectancy 200 years ago was 30!!!.
I also ran across commentary that most folks don't take "infant mortality" into account.

Yeah I think infant mortality in the first year used to be like 80% mostly due to infectious diseases.

[monji112000]

Originally Posted by Lama Pai Sifu

A little contradictory, don't you think?

Yah very


Why not put your theories to the test then?

That should be a normal part of any MA training... if it isn't wtf? Why would someone go to that school?


Have you or your students compete in a NHB/MMA competition.

People do, its just not publicized. The fact is that most people who are interested in fighting in MMA and NHB aren't interested in “kung fu” schools. “Kung Fu” fighters do go to NHB fights.. and Thai Matches and San Shao matches. Its not that common, and often the outcome isn't so hot. Sometimes it is.. it really depends on the person, the style and the training schedule. The “kung fu” fighting looks like NHB, MMA , Thai fighting with a few differences.

Its just easier to train in BJJ/MT/Wrestling schools if your goal is MMA. Honestly to be as tough as nails like the people I have talked to (real life) ... you have to commit the time and effort (combined with a quality instructor) on the same level as Pro MMA fighters.. we are Americans we like the 1 hr two times a week training schedule. Some people just aren't “meant” to fight MMA (too many possible reasons to name).

I love the fact that most Kung fu Schools teach Tiger crane , monkey crap. Its wonderful that most kung fu schools are basically out of date dance schools.. I love the deep breathing “chi-kung”. :D Whats the big deal? Its called survival of the fittest. If you believe in the myth of shaolin, I prefer you wear the goofy looking Kung Fu uniform so I can tell you apart from the normal people. Yah, I was one of them in my teens.. but I grew up. If I see another adult walking around wearing those ******* pajamas, making animal sounds and dancing like a drunken snakes... :D

Come on, really... Every MA has the BS .. .its just that CMA has a very high quantity of BS. You can't tell me you haven't come across the Mcdojo BJJ , JKD, Muy Thai , ect.. schools? Its evolution, let the deep breathing dancers have their fun, and allow everyone else the opportunity to laugh at them.

Originally Posted by lkfmdc
Heck, ask some Wing Chun people about the correct way to do Biu Jee

HEY! there is only one authority on Bill G, and that is grand master Brian. It is done using the snake in the eagle shadow stance. Remind me to show you it one day.

[bakxierboxer]

Pete,
NOT everything in my post is directed towards you. If you didn't write it, it wasn't directed at you.

Didn't think it was, so stop awreddy.
No harm, no foul.
There were a couple that might have been "personal", but the overall tone was not, so that "over-rode" any consternation I might have been able to "manufacture".... didn't even think of it.

It's nice to speak to someone who apparently feels the same way about TCMA, or at least close to it.

I'd say "close" is probably "right", although there ARE lots of points of outright agreement.

Again, no disrespect intended, I'm just passionate about this subject.
AWRIGHT AWREDDY! :rolleyes:
So I'm an effin' SENIOR! :eek:
Stop rubbin' it in! :D

I did not feel this way 10, 7 or 5 years ago. I thought forms were the sh1t and although I always hit pads and sparred, I did not train like I do today - with a BJJ black belt and with MMA in mind.

You might be amazed to know just how I felt 29 years ago....
As for those forms.... perhaps there's someone somewhere who can show/tell
(if not "teach") you "something about them".
There once was a certain SPM Master who had an herb store with an unusual line of text in his window.....

I am happy to train my Kung-Fu in a 'live' manner. One of my major 'axes' is simply that I don't know if KF was EVER trained in a 'live' manner, at least not by 95% of all the TCMA people over the years.

In the course of my training/learning, I've run across 3 major "insults"/"disparagements" for TCMA "hands" (which included "sets"/"forms").... "too many flowers","no use", and "dead".... the implicit understanding was that their opposite was not only "desirable", but mandatory.... otherwise, you didn't have sh!t!
True KF was ALWAYS trained "live".... if you could "get" the training in the first place.
THEN it was a "simple matter" if Yuan Fen (aka "fortune"?) would allow you to "click" with that particular Master/circumstance to actually "get it".... aka "make it your own".
IME, 5% would be extremely "optimistic".
We're talking about the MA equivalent of graduating "Magna Cum Laude" from a top flight school and then being able to turn around and actually "hack it" in "the real world". (which was actually the purpose in the first place).

OTOH, IME, somebody who "only" had 50% (ok,"some decent percentage")("like" a Bachelor's or Master's?) of "it" can be pretty d@mned good in their own right.

But with no empiracal evidence, we all buy into the idea that TCMA guys were better 70 years ago. Did the guys 70 years ago think the same thing? Did they cling to these old legends the same way we do today? If that is true, when were the guys the best? 300 years ago?

I didn't hit your 50-70 year line.... my TCMA only goes back 45 or so years.
My western and western-imported stuff (with a smattering of Shotokan) is over 50 years.... Now, my TEACHERS' experiences......
I thought you'd trained with someone who "went back a ways...."

I think that THIS generation will become the best. I think each generation is improving.

It's still possible.
"I'll believe it when I see it..."
I think I'm likely to start seeing it when today's practitioners can invariably show decent basics. If they can't do that, then there isn't much hope for "anything more".

I think we also get MORE AND MORE waste products in the arts as well...
Consumerism uber alles.
Consuming "stuff"/"sh!t" invariably leaves "more sh!t"/"waste products" .

but there are probably more people today that can kick ass with the respective martial art than at any other point in history. Don't you agree??
In absolute numbers?
Yessss.....
Taken as a percentage, I'm not so sure that it's "any better" than "before".
There's even some possibility that the percentage is lower, since there are an awful lot of Mc-Dojos/Dojangs/whatever that wouldn't have survived in a less litigious society with a correspondingly lower level of law enforcement.

[tattooedmonk]

I get your meaning, but you obviously have missed mine. And analogies about fruit, a silly philosophical rim-job, futune-cookie logic and PC discussions are EXACTLY what's wrong about TCMA today.

"Uh, yeah, you really got me there...how on earth could I put down preservation when I'm teaching techniques that are preserved? HHmmmm."

Dummy.

And yes, I call you a 'dummy'. Not because you are an idiot, although you may very well be, but because you are trying to be cute - while alas, you are not. I also called you a dummy because I felt like it and I have read many of your other posts. They are definatly 'dummy-like' and wreak of Shaolin-Do. And no, I do not have to be PC.I have no idea why it is you took offense ,nor why you would think I was trying to be cute either. Whatever. If you want to get your panties all bunched in a knot then go ahead. I used to have more respect for you, until now.

Yeah maybe I was being funny but not at your expense . I did it to prove and make a point.

You think inside the box too much, just like the rest of these guys. Maybe if you did not have your head up your @$$ you might see the world in a whole new light.

I know a lot of these guys think you are an @$$hole .Now I am beginning to see why.

[tattooedmonk]

I think TCMA's step towards the future should be be through San Da and through Shuai Jiao. I think EVERY kwoon should teach ALIVE San Da and Shuai Jiao and compete. Just imagine if EVERY SINGLE Kung Fu school in the world taught San Da and Shuai Jiao and competed in those events, think of how many fighters would come from CMA backrounds instead of Muay Thai and wrestling. Just imagine how good TCMA tournaments would be if it was San Da, Shuai Jiao and Push hands instead of forms.

On the subject, watch Cung Le's win over Tony Fryklund this past weekend. I know, he didn't get taken down, but he displayed many TMA techniques and proved that they can be pulled off in an MMA setting if trained ALIVE.

Reply]
Well said. That is the real Old school ways of Kung Fu...not the modern form based curriculum's! If everyone just goes back to the roots, Kung Fu would hold it's own against anyone....if not outright dominate.

We have all the tools, it's just a matter of shifting the focus back to when it was taught right.I have to tatally to agree with this . The idea that the way TMA is now is the way it was taught 500, 1000, or 1500 years ago is a joke.

Quite frankly I believe that it would be more like the way MMA fighters train. With a few things added and a few things left out.;)

I personally train people using modern scientific data and traditional training methods . With minor modifications. Many of the "new" inovations in personal training have been around for centuries.

[sunfist]

syas whom? according to several of the guys on here, kung fu used to be trained in a format similar to mma.

Like i said in my post, if you are of that opinion, then you are best off just going and doing MMA. Several have indeed done that, and while i dont agree with them, i can respect their views. However it makes no sense to train TCMA unless you feel it gives skills/benefits that other forms of training dont deliver, and i would emplore anyone who does train traditionally and yet lacks confidence in their methods to either put more faith in the TCMA way of doing things, or go off and take MMA. Are we so afraid of being 'wrong' that we have to sit in the middle and not get the benefits of either?

[SifuAbel]

This thread reaks of the "95% of MMA followers are top fighters." fallacy.

There is no doubt that there are schools out there that don't cater to pro fighters. But that subsection of martial arts is, as it is, because of its practitioners. There are a good number of substandard practitioners on both sides of the fence. So if this is all based on whether sub standard student "A" can beat substandard student "B", all I can say is "so what!??!" There will always be the substandard and the talented.

This "Dead" trend is relatively recent. If I'm to follow the "aliveness" buzzword to its full meaning then I've definitely been in an alive school. Even to the mid eighties, at least in Miami, if you entered a MA school you were expected to have your ass handed to you on a daily basis. So one can't blame the styles/methods/training/etc of the talented just because the substandard people in the same styles aren't fighting. In other words, its the standards that changed, not the styles. The whole lowering of standards to get more students happens universally. I would even dare to say that TCMA started to show signs of decay in the late 70's and got really bad by the end of the 80's, not 70 years ago.

The nutrition and science bent doesn't really apply either. The same number of substandard to talented people still applies. We might have made strides in hygiene and medicine but the quality of the foods we eat in general aren't that superior. Not to mention the air we breath is many more times polluted then ever. The average American teenager still makes fast food their #1 food source. They drink carbonated beverages like its going out of style. When was the last time you drank out of the tap in this country? Top fighters may not eat this way, but we aren't talking about them if this is a general consensus.

To me the 800 lbs gorilla that is being overlooked is the utter disregard for the staggering NUMBERS of people that live and have lived doing MA that are being ignored. To show a video of some dude doing a street dance and make that a hallmark for an entire country and all time is extremely myopic. I'm sure somebody, and quite a few others, in 1927 china had enough to eat and were kick ass fighters.

[SifuAbel]

For those who are confused about what "organic" means.

Organic foods are produced according to certain production standards. For crops, it means they were grown without the use of conventional pesticides, artificial fertilizers, human waste, or sewage sludge, and that they were processed without ionizing radiation or food additives. For animals, it means they were reared without the routine use of antibiotics and without the use of growth hormones. In most countries, organic produce must not be genetically modified.

[unyma]

well, a great example would be Musashi - he was the real deal when it came to fighting, and he also gained awakening using his practice as a vehicle - but as a result, he stopped using a live blade and switched to wooden ones - so in a sense, the killing took a back seat, although it evidently didn't have a negative impact on his ability to win

I mean, how many kids who have grown up on the "mean streets" have gotten into MA and turned their lives around? for them, the arts became a way to temper their...well, temper? for them, in a way, it was never about fighting, more like finding a mthod to channel themselves

I guess my point is that you can't climb two mountains at the same time, at least not in my experience - I am not denying the possibility that someone might be able to a great fighter and also use the art as a means of self-development, just that one eventually precludes the other, if you think about it: I mean, it is a bit paradoxical learning to fight so as to learn not to fight - as long as you are at one end of the spectrum, you can't be at the other at the same time

BTW, while we may disagree, please know that I appreciate your perspective and the thoughtful manner in which you relay it


Okay, now I think I understand your point; the paradox of fighting vs. self-development. My gut feeling is that the paradox actually illustrates my argument. One might start out at one end of the spectrum, fighting, and progres towards self-development on the other end and therefore Kung Fu can be about more then fighting. If we leave it there then we could be done with it on a simplistic level however you bring up a very interesting point in the paradox question.

So now, the question is slightly different. Can one become a great fighter and at the same time move along the path of self-development. Here's my take and I suspect many folks will take it as a cop out. In a nutshell yes, however there is no way to demonstrate it because of the paradox. Someone who moves along that path will learn to fight, and do everything in their power not to fight. If in fact they do happen to fight it will never be a big public display because that would be against their developed nature. Nowadays, it seems that it's the big splash that everyone believes is important. The quiet unassuming things are ignored.

That's my take on it. I'm not really sure we're disagreeing at all, we're just trying to answer a paradox and that's inhererantly unanswerable. Regarding my thoughtful manner...thanks. I think I might create another screen name where I can just call everyone names and use slightly spelling altered curse words because I don't want to miss all the fun <G>

[sanjuro_ronin]

If we look at the "legends" of the past and try to "live off them" we do ourselves and our chosen systems a disservice.
Learn from them?
Sure.
But make your own "legends".

This is, in many ways, an even more vital lesson for the current and next generation of MMA fighters and practioners that are riding the wave of others.

Most "names" that are with us from the past were "freaks", be it the Wong feo Hungs of Kung fu or the Marcicano's of Boxing or the Rickson's of MMA.

Fact is, no matter what MA YOU chose, it doesn't matter what OTHERS have done with it, its about what YOU are gonna do with it.

[Lama Pai Sifu]

I have no idea why it is you took offense ,nor why you would think I was trying to be cute either. Whatever. If you want to get your panties all bunched in a knot then go ahead. I used to have more respect for you, until now.

Yeah maybe I was being funny but not at your expense . I did it to prove and make a point.

You think inside the box too much, just like the rest of these guys. Maybe if you did not have your head up your @$$ you might see the world in a whole new light.

I know a lot of these guys think you are an @$$hole .Now I am beginning to see why.

Aw, my feelings are extremely hurt, Shaolin-Do. I would use your real name, but I believe that you are another ANONYMOUS Shaolin-Do'er.

And I think too much INSIDE the box? LOL. You are cute. And funny too.

[TenTigers]

Cjurakpt-I think it is not only possible to "climb two mountains at the same time," but you cannot train to be a fighter without self-development-albiet not David Carradine type. What I mean is this-People do not,will not, can not face their own weaknesses and innadequacies (sp?) Fat broads in spandex,comb-overs, bad toupe's, short fat bald guys trying on tuxedo's saying to themselves, "Bond-James Bond," people who let themselves go, and go, and go, yet make excuses for themselves, the list goes on and on. People quit MA because they are faced on a day to day basis, right there for not only all to see, but for THEM to see, that they are not perfect, they will have trouble learning things, feel awkward, innadequate. When they quit, they will not hold themselves accountable, but blame the teacher, or their coddling mommy will.
We as Martial Artists, not only look at ourselves in the mirror, but place ourselves under the microscope, and when we do not like what we see, we work, sweat,drill, suffer, and not only overcome these weaknesses, but we turn them into strengths. Fighters MUST do this in order to become fighters.
If this isn't personal development, strengthening of the spirit, will, focus, then what is? " A person that Knows himself..." "We are unique in the fact that we create ourselves. Through years of pain, suffering, denial, we forge our bodies in the fire of our wills!" (I love that line!)
Chris-I know you are well-versed in Buddhist /Taoist/Chan philosophy, so I am sure you can find numerous quotes that are describing exactly my point.
I think the problem arises when people mistake this Warrior-Warrior Path connection for something else, and have been raised on David Carradine, Granola,and political correctness.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Cjurakpt-I think it is not only possible to "climb two mountains at the same time," but you cannot train to be a fighter without self-development-albiet not David Carradine type. What I mean is this-People do not,will not, can not face their own weaknesses and innadequacies (sp?) Fat broads in spandex,comb-overs, bad toupe's, short fat bald guys trying on tuxedo's saying to themselves, "Bond-James Bond," people who let themselves go, and go, and go, yet make excuses for themselves, the list goes on and on. People quit MA because they are faced on a day to day basis, right there for not only all to see, but for THEM to see, that they are not perfect, they will have trouble learning things, feel awkward, innadequate. When they quit, they will not hold themselves accountable, but blame the teacher, or their coddling mommy will.
We as Martial Artists, not only look at ourselves in the mirror, but place ourselves under the microscope, and when we do not like what we see, we work, sweat,drill, suffer, and not only overcome these weaknesses, but we turn them into strengths. Fighters MUST do this in order to become fighters.
If this isn't personal development, strengthening of the spirit, will, focus, then what is? " A person that Knows himself..." "We are unique in the fact that we create ourselves. Through years of pain, suffering, denial, we forge our bodies in the fire of our wills!" (I love that line!)
Chris-I know you are well-versed in Buddhist /Taoist/Chan philosophy, so I am sure you can find numerous quotes that are describing exactly my point.
I think the problem arises when people mistake this Warrior-Warrior Path connection for something else, and have been raised on David Carradine, Granola,and political correctness.

Well said.
MA is a life long pursuit for many, myself included and as such, as with anything long term, there are up's and downs, periods of high activity and low activity.
There are times we kick ass and other times we get our asses kicked and no one knows better about that than fighters.
Outside the hype, most fighters are humble and just plain nice guys, I can count on one hand all the a-holes I know that are fighters and those are usually "young and stupid" or just plain A-holes that would be that way regardless of what they did, MA or otherwise.

[SevenStar]

I have to tatally to agree with this . The idea that the way TMA is now is the way it was taught 500, 1000, or 1500 years ago is a joke.

Quite frankly I believe that it would be more like the way MMA fighters train. With a few things added and a few things left out.;)

I personally train people using modern scientific data and traditional training methods . With minor modifications. Many of the "new" inovations in personal training have been around for centuries.

His post was in response to a post about all CMA schools cimpeting in shuai chiao and san da. In another thread, you stated that competition is ego based and is not the goal of tma, but now you suddenly think differently?

[SevenStar]

Like i said in my post, if you are of that opinion, then you are best off just going and doing MMA. Several have indeed done that, and while i dont agree with them, i can respect their views. However it makes no sense to train TCMA unless you feel it gives skills/benefits that other forms of training dont deliver, and i would emplore anyone who does train traditionally and yet lacks confidence in their methods to either put more faith in the TCMA way of doing things, or go off and take MMA. Are we so afraid of being 'wrong' that we have to sit in the middle and not get the benefits of either?

I thnk you missed my point. What I am saying is many of the guys here say that in the old days, the traditional way of training was more akin to the mma guys of today - many style had only a handful of forms, if any at all. They focused on drilling and combat - akin to the way mma train today.

[SevenStar]

If we look at the "legends" of the past and try to "live off them" we do ourselves and our chosen systems a disservice.
Learn from them?
Sure.
But make your own "legends".

This is, in many ways, an even more vital lesson for the current and next generation of MMA fighters and practioners that are riding the wave of others.

Most "names" that are with us from the past were "freaks", be it the Wong feo Hungs of Kung fu or the Marcicano's of Boxing or the Rickson's of MMA.

Fact is, no matter what MA YOU chose, it doesn't matter what OTHERS have done with it, its about what YOU are gonna do with it.

beautiful...

[sanjuro_ronin]

beautiful...

Sorry about the typos...I really have to learn NOT to rush my posts !

[sanjuro_ronin]

I thnk you missed my point. What I am saying is many of the guys here say that in the old days, the traditional way of training was more akin to the mma guys of today - many style had only a handful of forms, if any at all. They focused on drilling and combat - akin to the way mma train today.

A valid "fact" missed by most.
Common sense was more common then, your life depended on it more than nowadays.
Fighter A sees a move he has never seen before ( triangle choke for example), he sees it being effective so he goes out and *gasps&* learns it so that he can not only use it be know how to beat it.

Cross training in the techniques and principles of others systems ( if not in the systems themselves) was common place.
Why?
Because it made sense to do