Traditional Chop Suey

[TenTigers]

If you consider yourself a Traditionalist in terms of TCMA, then what are your opinions of people who add things, techniques, or methods, or different ways of performing the same technique, garnered from other systems?

If you do Hung-Ga,or Choy Li Fut, and see a Hop=Ga guy doing his punches differently, and you adopt that into your training and your forms, are you "flavoring" your Gung-Fu, or tainting it?
If you see a system like Muay Thai throw their roundhouse, and you like that particular tool, are you bastidizing your art by adding it into your system?

I know some JKD guys like to say,"I'm using a savate kick, into a kali destruction, into a wing chun trap, into a silat lock...."
Could you just as well say, 'I'm using a (your style here)kick, into a destruction...etc?"
How is it different?
Now, there will always be exceptions-people who make up their own styles from moves they have seen in movies, or tournaments, and are only mimicking, and trying to appear as if what they are doing is TCMA-we've all seen them.
Ah, but where is the line drawn?

ok, this seems controversal enough to go a few pages....
Let's see what happens.

[Ben Gash]

It's the traditional way. The skill is synthesising new material into your existing framework, so that you have a cohesive system. At the end of the day, most of us just teach "us", the style that got us to this point is somewhat incidental, it's a matrix for teaching "us".

[Jimbo]

I personally do not consider myself a traditional CMA-ist. I consider my style as CLF. But prior to that I had trained 7-Star N. Mantis for many years. And before that, had trained nearly a decade in karate, (kenpo and TKD), and some judo. Although I long ago stopped training those other styles, when I moved on I did not suddenly drop everything that fit my body and worked for me. Things get adjusted and adapted, such as certain Mantis principles. My side and roundhouse kicks essentially haven't changed much since the karate days of my youth. Therefore, as one example, my side kick looks different from many practitioners who come from what might be called a "pure" kung fu background. Yet I don't consider it a karate or TKD or northern/southern kung fu side kick; just a side kick.

This is much different from simply collecting a bunch of styles or techniques. That had never been my intention. Ultimately you discover what you enjoy the most and what works best for you. When training CLF, I do my best to do as I was taught. But you end up actually using your own personal style anyway. Even within different schools of the same system (and within same schools) you see personal variations in the way people spar or do the same forms, due to differences in physique, experience, demeanor, age, etc. Yet they are still doing the same system.

Also, I'm not really sure what traditional CMA means. Is CLF, for example, practiced now as it was in the 1800s? I don't know. I'm sure a lot was added and refined between then and now. Originally, CLF had few forms; now it has dozens. Mixing and combining martial arts or m.a. principles isn't anything new. Mantis and CLF were examples of "MMA" of their day. That doesn't mean it's necessarily good to just randomly add together a bunch of techniques or variations at a whim, though. As far as forms go, at this point I prefer to concentrate on only a relative few.

Another reason I don't think of myself as a traditionalist...and this thought only applies to myself...is that traditionally, only Chinese were taught kung fu, and I am not Chinese. So back in the really old days, I would not have even been considered for instruction.

As far as if someone wants to add a Thai round kick into their training, I suppose if it works for them and seems to fit their style, I really can't criticize that. But I might add that if they are a teacher who's handing down a kung fu system that is traditional, it might behoove him or her to still give the students the option of doing the round kick the way the original style does it, too (that is, if the style has a round kick, etc.).

[TenTigers]

ok, I edited it slightly, see if this changes anything.

[JGTevo]

I don't consider myself a traditional CMAist either... but here's my opinion.

Personally I think to not pursue endless knowledge is detrimental to your development as a martial artist.

"Tainting" a martial art should not be adding or removing from a system. No, I believe it is when an instructor adds things that he does not understand to a system, or when he forgets or fails to fully understand a technique which he teaches.

For instance, when muay thai became popular, I saw instructor's from various schools adding in knees to their styles, knees which were sold off as 'Effective" but lacked any understanding of how a proper knee is thrown. I've seen roundhouses, jabs, hooks and crosses thrown with such extreme lack of understanding that I want to smack people upside their head for doing such ridiculousness.

But when it comes to adding and removing things... martial arts is a personal journey.. there is no end to how much you can learn, experiment, improve and understand. As a teacher, well if you teach Wing Chun, teach Wing chun. If you teach Wing Chun and your own collection of experience, teach it as such. No need to lie about it. Eddie Bravo teaches his own flavor of BJJ, tells people its his own flavor of BJJ, still respects his Master and what he teaches very much, and it's worked out great for him.

[GeneChing]

See our 2008 September/October issue: Old School Street Fighter: Master Hoy Lee, The Father of American Jow Gar. Jow Gar is traditional MMA. When you read the article, you'll know why.

[mickey]

Greetings,

I saw Guru Dan Inosanto doing the style breakdown in response to an attack on video. I did not realize that this was the "language" of the JKD people. When I saw Guru Inosanto do this, I got a lucid of Bruce doing the demo a little differently. He said, "This guy is going to attack me. Now, watch how I kick his a$$."

In response to the initial post, most TCMA are divided into two basic categories: progressive and conservative. There is some overlapping. For me, there is no difference between the two.


mickey

[GreenCloudCLF]

Originally Posted by TenTigers

If you do Hung-Ga,or Choy Li Fut, and see a Hop=Ga guy doing his punches differently, and you adopt that into your training and your forms, are you "flavoring" your Gung-Fu, or tainting it?

Heehee. He said "taint"

[Shaolinlueb]

traditionalists that act like their teachers word is never wrong and that their teacher is god i just roll my eyes at and are close minded and not worth even discussing kung fu with cause its not their way so its wrong. and usually when i watch them their kung fu is sub par.

[TenTigers]

Originally Posted by Shaolinlueb

traditionalists that act like their teachers word is never wrong and that their teacher is god i just roll my eyes at and are close minded and not worth even discussing kung fu with cause its not their way so its wrong. and usually when i watch them their kung fu is sub par.

ain't that the truth!

[Shaolinlueb]

Originally Posted by TenTigers

ain't that the truth!

ten whats up man? long time no talk. but you know what I am talking about right?

DMX!! remember that guy? ha.

[wind draft]

Why does it matter? I think it's cool if you can do all that.....Add a technique here and there.

Sure, people can be good at it all... If they're only techniques and not the whole system.

A person can only move so much in many different ways.. So if it works for you, it works for you.. My kung fu style originated from Choy Lay Fut. But has lots of flavoring from my grandmaster likes.

I can end up having my own style because of the way I like to do things.. But isn't that the unique aspect of it and why martial arts is so great? The difference and different in varieties of styles, systems, and technique; but yet how they are all so similar in many ways?

[SteveLau]

To supplement what I said before on similar topic, include foreign techniques into your art is not necessary wrong. Ultimately, whether it is good to do so depends on the why, how, and end result. For example, mixing this and that randomly by putting them in an electric blender is not good.


Regards,

KC
Hong Kong

[firepalm]

Although it gets some criticism for not being so called 'traditional' I personally like what many of the private 'Shaolin' schools, and other such private clubs in China, are doing. Once you get past the monk thing and all that, I think they have become pretty progressiveng while still retaining that certain Kung Fu CMA flavour. Many of these clubs will still employ a traditional syllabus of some sort and then have their people train extensively in other things such as Sanshou, Wrestling, Modern Wushu, acrobatics, etc... and I believe as result a superior athlete. And a better athlete is a better martial artist.

Some schools here in the West are now employing similar approaches and I think it is a good thing because that means they are producing a better martial artists as opposed to simply trying carry forward some sort of antiquated tradition.

I was at a CLF dinner function recently and several different clubs, that all originated from GM Wong Ha, performed. Each know were distinctly different in their approach but one in particular drew some criticism from some of the old guard for having what some felt was a 'wushu' flavour. And while it was true that club had many of it's CLF students cross training in wushu what they presented was purely CLF. I countered to a few of the critics that it wasn't so much the wushu tainting but just these martial artist were better athletes. Truth be known the majority of the other clubs looked liked their people had their feet stuck in mud and moved at about the pace of middle aged Tai Chi practitioner.

If it improves the martial artist then add it in!

[SteveLau]

So besides the not so good types of mix-and-match style development mentioned by Tentigers, let's talk about the serious type. IMHO, some are based on valid reasons, but some are not.


For example, invalid reasons can be

- the current system is not complete
- put the best of every style into one container
- to retain what one has learnt



Regards,

KC
Hong Kong