So, MA and especially CMA is really for health first
Totally disagree.
So, MA and especially CMA is for health first for some people, and is for fighting first for others.
That would be more accurate. 
It’s Amazing!
It’s amazing on how many of you wish that you could disagree with me but actually reaffirm everything I said. This is probably because most of you are learning the real $hit, which is good.
I said: “Martial Arts especially traditional CMA follows a very linear A to B to C to infinity process. First, you condition and strengthen the body through exercise (so you can be physically able to fight). Second, you learn to fight. Third, you develop the internal powers. Why do people believe that they can start at C? I don’t know the answer but it’s killing CMA.”
I would have to repeat all of KungfuJew’s (quite possibly one of the coolest names on KFO) post, but you get the point.
First, Health (to fight). Second, Fighting. Third, Longevity, greater insight, Chi, personal development—Yada Yada Yada…
The original poster was asking about the length of time to get any proficiency to be able to fight. I say, in a real school, 6 months to a year.
So, MA and especially CMA is for health first for some peope, and is for fighting first for others.
Well, as my Shirfu put it, if you get your arse handed to you, are you in good health? No, you just got beat up and probably have some bruises, scrapes, and maybe more injuries… So, when people ask me why I study CMA, I tell them for my health.
Mental, physical, etc.
if you get your arse handed to you, are you in good health?
I knew that would come up. However, that is arguing semantics. I am arguing mindset. If you could fight better your health would not be questioned. Take this statement for example:
I take vitamins, eat right, and visit my physician for health. I take martial arts classes to learn to fight better.
That is a mindset. That is true to the person that said it (thoretically…stay out of this Braden:)). And not all styles focus on health. So to say that all martial arts focus on health first would be inaccurate.
mightyb,
The original poster was asking about the length of time to get any proficiency to be able to fight. I say, in a real school, 6 months to a year.
and i’d probably agree with you, if that were their priority.
what i disagree with is the assertion that this should be their priority.
stuart b.
Teacher says to keep your head upright not to improve your posture but because you want your range of vision as wide as possible when fighting multiple opponents.
I think he made this one up.
Even the elderly and the handicap learn to punch and kick, and then how to defend against a punch and a kick…
How else can you teach kung fu?
Re: Seven Star
Originally posted by MightyB
[B]You said you disagreed, but you actually agreed… :eek:
I said:
“Besides, perfection of a few moves is way more effective than mediocracy in many.”
and:
“It’s the magic and mysticism that boggs things down.”
You said:
“I know someone who, for their fist year in xingyi learned but one stance and one punch. It wasn’t due to mysticism, but due to perfection. He wanted his student to fully understand everything he possibly could about the punch and stance.”
I betcha he could apply that punch too. [/B]
Yeah, I agree - I half read the post. I’m sitting in an ALL DAY SQL class and I read bits and pieces of it while I was on break.
Originally posted by MightyB
[B]Even the elderly and the handicap learn to punch and kick, and then how to defend against a punch and a kick…
How else can you teach kung fu? [/B]
that doesn’t necessarily equate to actually fighting though. if you started introducing more intense self defense drills, with padding, more contact, practice weapons, etc., many of those same students may not be interested in taking part.
so is it the movement and exercise they enjoy? or are they truly looking for combat?
stuart b.
“that doesn’t necessarily equate to actually fighting though.”
In the ol’ days, it did. You wouldn’t learn otherwise. It’s only in our pansified 21st century that we’ve lost site of what it means to be a martial artist. 
Originally posted by MightyB
[B]Even the elderly and the handicap learn to punch and kick, and then how to defend against a punch and a kick…
How else can you teach kung fu? [/B]
What about 120 easy installments of $19.99 each?
anyway, I’d just like to reiterate an earlier point made that sports such as boxing don’t bestow a degree of mastery upon the practicioner within a short time frame-- they just seem to drill the basics into you that much faster. I’m by no means a golden glove boxer, but after a few months of instruction, you start to get the hang of the basics-- hands up, basic combos, etc… But there’s a lot I didn’t learn-- counterpunching, clinch strategy, so on and so forth.
So, I think (for an outsider looking in) this idea that Kung-fu is more complex than other types of fighting is a fallacy. Almost any fighting art is complex, and requires a lot of dillagent study before you begin to approach any kind of mastery of it. However, I see no reason why I wouldn’t be able to take what I’m learning and apply it within a few months.
Just my canadian nickel.
Crippled Avenger
Preach on,
Can I hear a little–
AAAAAhhhhmen,
Listen to ya,
Oh Lord,
Got to getcha,
Preach On…
Why the F*** do you think that it’s called the Grand Ultimate Fist style?
You just stepped on something that I’ve waited to comment on a long time …
It’s not called (Taiji) the Grand Ultimate because the name intends it to mean ‘the most kick ass’, but it is called (Taiji) the Grand Ultimate because it refers to the most basic principle of existance, the grand ultimate principle as it were.
Taiji does not mean “absolutely kick ass”. Taiji is a philosophical thing. Look at the yin/yang symbol and you see Taiji. Taijiquan is a martial art ‘derived’ (or at least incorporating/being inspired by the Taiji philosophy) from that.
That stuff said, I entirely agree with the point made, though. Taijiquan is about kicking ass and busting skulls, just like all MA. Geez. The folks who do this stuff for other reasons, .. blaah. I’m tired of hearing that as well. However, I don’t say one cannot find meaning beyond combat and benefit beyond fighting potential from martial arts. They can also be a spiritual pursuit. Just .. please .. learn to fight before you get there. Learn to fight, or go take yoga, which is perfectly fine and made for that kinda stuff.
Old people are all about fighting.
I think there’s room enough for all groups.
I will mention that I’ve seen good fighters learn to fight in styles under teachers who were more teachers than fighters. However, that requires that the teacher knows the specifics of the art, and the fighter knows how to train for fighting, as some teachers who are into the arts for the love of the style as opposed to fighting don’t run their schools to turn out fighters. That does not mean that they couldn’t, they may be perfectly capable of it, but are not inclined to do so.
As a fighter, I would like to be an effective one.
As a teacher, I would like to be able to help others become effective fighters in their own(not my) way.
What can make me an effective fighter cannot make me an effective teacher of anyone but those exactly like me.
What can make me an effective teacher does not necessarily make me an effective fighter, as I must be proficient enough with moves that don’t favor my build to teach them, even though I do not use them in fighting, and therefore I have more moves to deal with, and thus less training time for my core fighting moves.
Re: Crippled Avenger
Originally posted by MightyB
[B]Preach on,
Can I hear a little–
AAAAAhhhhmen,
Listen to ya,
Oh Lord,
Got to getcha,
Preach On… [/B]
Momma said, I always did look good in a collar.
mightyb,
Originally posted by MightyB
[B]“that doesn’t necessarily equate to actually fighting though.”
In the ol’ days, it did. You wouldn’t learn otherwise. It’s only in our pansified 21st century that we’ve lost site of what it means to be a martial artist. [/B]
i think you’re over-romanticizing the olden days, my friend. back then, perhaps martial arts were the state-of-the-art for combat. in that case, they were trained by soldiers. soldiers fought and soldiers died. even in a time when combat was literally sword vs. spear. and now you’re suggesting that here, today, a person is pansified because they don’t like those odds. gun vs. empty hand.
to my mind, training for something other than combat is at least as reasonable as training for a fight. getting fun, exercise, coordination, etc. out of it are realistic goals. expecting to survive a shooting, gang fight, knife attack, etc. using anything resembling martial arts are considerably less so.
so… who’s the pansy? the person that takes on a new hobby because it’s physically, emotionally, and mentally challenging? not by my definition.
stuart b.
daredevil,
Learn to fight, or go take yoga, which is perfectly fine and made for that kinda stuff.
is it so difficult to let other people make up their own minds? live and let live? all that?
me? i want to be combative. i want to be capable of that. so that’s what i keep in mind when i train. but i’m not going to tell the guy next to me that his training is invalid because it simply makes him feel good. i will tell him (assuming he asks) that he’s not ready to defend himself from blah, blah, blah. i do think people should be informed by others and honest with themselves about what they’re doing. but if they’re doing it with open eyes, i don’t see the big problem.
stuart b.
Apoweyn
Boxing fits your description.
Judo,
BJJ,
Fencing,
TKD,
and Possibly CMA, Possibly
I’m not going to debate the old soldier-vs-MArtist. It’s been done to death, and I agree with you on that issue anyway. The debate here is TCMA losing fighting as a focus. Without the fighting, you are studying Contemporary Wushu. Actually Wushu still teaches applications. Without the fighting, you are learning to dance my friend. And it’s not even a dance that you can take to the disco. I’d hate to quote Ralek, but there’s a reason why people think like him when he equates TCMA to Traditional Chinese Folk Dancing. Forms without the Fight is the reason. If you are being taught to punch and kick, you are being taught to fight. Where you take that depends on you. Without an emphasis on fighting, at least in the beginning, you are Nothing But a PAPER TIGER doing useless routines that lead to nowhere. To develop Jing, to develop Chi, to cultivate everything that a Martial Artist strives for, you must develop the fighting ability FIRST. You may not know this then you probably aren’t with a good Sifu. Tough Luck. How many of you want to learn from an eighty year old cripple who started kung fu at the age of 70? No one no matter how cultivated they pretend to be.
All great GrandMasters were Great Fighters, in retrospect after a career of fighting, they placed emphasis on cultivation. Name the Lineage.
There’s an old saying “You can’t get there from Here”. If you don’t learn the fighting, the applications, then you can’t get there because your not starting in the right place.
The original poster wants to be a fighter, he questions TCMA as an artform. If I teach someone who wants to be a fighter, they WILL be able to fight in 6 months if they put in the effort with what I teach. Fighting first, cultivation is the byproduct of TCMA. It’s not the other way around. That would be Yoga.
I gotta go, Work gets in the way of a good discussion, I’ll be back later.
Peace out,
Re: Apoweyn
Originally posted by MightyB
The debate here is TCMA losing fighting as a focus. Without the fighting, you are studying Contemporary Wushu. Actually Wushu still teaches applications. Without the fighting, you are learning to dance my friend.
i think you and i are closer to agreement now. much closer. personally, i’m all for drawing a distinction between fighters and hobbyists. i don’t know what the proper terminology should be. but i don’t think that the solution is to tell any noncombative martial artist to ‘get out’, ‘study yoga’, etc. artists take a subject (in this case, combat), interpret it, and express it in a way that appeals to them. personally, i don’t have a problem with that.
that said, i think people need to understand when what they’re doing isn’t going to work in reality. if they’re okay with that, then i’m okay with it too. we don’t all have to do this for the same reasons. in my opinion, learning martial arts for the same reason that you might learn to dance is perfectly acceptable. it doesn’t make you a fighter, mind you. and as long as everyone concerned understands that, all’s well.
if some guy learns point fighting and then waxes tough guy, claiming he could take my head off at will, i’d be all about him getting enlightened with a clue-by-four. but if he wants to practice point fighting because he likes point fighting, then that’s cool.
Without an emphasis on fighting, at least in the beginning, you are Nothing But a PAPER TIGER doing useless routines that lead to nowhere. To develop Jing, to develop Chi, to cultivate everything that a Martial Artist strives for, you must develop the fighting ability FIRST.
that’s assuming that your final destination is combat effectiveness. if you’re honest that this isn’t your final destination of choice, that changes things a bit. a paper tiger, yes. and a paper tiger pretending to be a real tiger is a problem in need of shredding. a paper tiger who’s happy being a paper tiger is just fine though.
to my knowledge, developing qi might be valuable to a martial artist. but it’s also valuable to non-martial artists. and there are many interested in its benefits without combat. consequently, there are qigong exercises only peripherally related to martial arts at all.
All great GrandMasters were Great Fighters, in retrospect after a career of fighting, they placed emphasis on cultivation. Name the Lineage.
right. but you’re looking at a segment of the population that isn’t interested in fighting or in being a grandmaster and telling them to get out. and i don’t see any need for that. the fighters will fight. the grandmasters will… grandmaster. and the hobbyists will do their thing.
that’s partly why i don’t think mcdojos are necessarily a bad thing. they provide the majority of martial arts students with precisely what it is that they’re looking for. the trick is for everyone to be honest about what it is that they do.
There’s an old saying “You can’t get there from Here”. If you don’t learn the fighting, the applications, then you can’t get there because your not starting in the right place.
again, you’re talking about a population that doesn’t want to get where you’re describing. if someone does want to get there, then by all means strip them of their misconceptions. they’ll need that.
The original poster wants to be a fighter, he questions TCMA as an artform. If I teach someone who wants to be a fighter, they WILL be able to fight in 6 months if they put in the effort with what I teach. Fighting first, cultivation is the byproduct of TCMA. It’s not the other way around. That would be Yoga.
agreed. it would be the martial arts equivalent of yoga. it’s just that i don’t have a problem with that sort of martial artist. if they know that they’re about as combat ready as they would be with yoga, and they’re still happy, then game on. if they have delusions, cure them. that’s it.
I gotta go, Work gets in the way of a good discussion, I’ll be back later.
you’re a better man than i.
Peace out
amen.
stuart b.
I’m sitting in an ALL DAY SQL class
SevenStar, I am truely sorry bro. No one should be subjected to that type of inhumane treatment.