true, but they were trained differently than modern sanda/mt people use them. They were lighter and the person hitting them would mvoe around them and not just work on power but cordination, and rhythm. Not to mention they would often hit mroe than one bag at a time as in practising vs multiple opponents.
Originally posted by Strangler
pad work and heavy bags didn’t exist in ancient China
I’m gonna have to voice disagreement with this as well. The traditional martial arts of China include many training methods using a wide variety of striking surfaces, including pads and bags. A good example would be the dog skin pads in piguazhang; another would be the sandbag training in Chen Zhaopei’s taijiquan. When we include other types of tools playing the role of the punching bag, there are also, of course, many very famous examples of this sort of training, such as wing chun’s wooden dummy, baguazhang pole training, and the many forms of iron hand and body conditioning.
true, but they were trained differently than modern sanda/mt people use them. They were lighter and the person hitting them would mvoe around them and not just work on power but cordination, and rhythm.
This statement is wrong from both sides. On one hand, there are plenty of examples of traditional chinese methods using stationary training for power generation and conditioning – I mentioned some above. On the other hand, boxing and kickboxing training does include movement around the bag and training of coordination and rhythm.
read these articles:
http://www.greatlakeswushu.com/baguaMag1.html
“He was a very good teacher and he helped me to udnerstand Xe’s art. From him I learned alot of fine points, such as developing force by striking into empty space rather than striking objects.”
LOL, fatherdawg
“Everything looks the same to the untrained eye.”
That is very true. Somehow if a CMA guy used a standard punching combo he isn’t using his art. Very typical. Very wrong. This has been said before. Jab-cross is COMMON.
“Why not train how the anient masters by suing nature and with other people by doing two mans ets, light bare knuckle sparring, push hands, tui shu, etc.?”
Sorry, but this is flat wrong. Objects were hit all the time. And they most likely didn’t have padding or gloves. Objects were also used for timing and focus ala pads. You are talking about people that toughened themselves to the point of multilation.
BTW, you ever hit a full sandbag? They are NOT light. Even a sandbag that is the size of a watermelon is friggin hard and heavy.
We have a 200 pound corn bag in the main school. That sucker is like hitting a moving brick wall.
An old man once said something to me that is very true.
"The young think that the old were always old. That they were never young. That they didn’t do what they now do or know what they now know. But for the most part, the truth is every age is same turn of the wheel. The next row of teeth in the sharks mouth. "
Originally posted by Strangler
read these articles
Me?
You can’t make sweeping statements about ALL kung fu styles and schools from the issue of ONE instructor or style. KUNG FU is not just Ba Gua.
there is a difference between external and itnernal kung fu.
Originally posted by Strangler
there is a difference between external and itnernal kung fu.
What’s your point?
ima mostly train by hitting air and focusing on chi.
So?
Originally posted by Strangler
ima mostly train by hitting air and focusing on chi.
No they don’t. I’ve already referenced the sandbag training in taijiquan and the pole training in baguazhang. As for the unrelated point about qigong, external styles practice this as well – for example, there are famous qigong sets from white crane as well as associated with the variety of Shaolin long fist traditions.
And even if this were right, your assertion that bag training doesn’t exist in traditional chinese arts would still be false, since there are plenty of traditional chinese arts other than the internal ones.
yea but the internal styles are always regarded as the best and most powerful, just read any biographies if internal masters or history of chiense tournaments where the internal stylists generally won.
I already provided links of standard ima curriculum. I think hitting poles and bags was the exception not the rule.
Originally posted by Strangler
yea but the internal styles are always regarded as the best and most powerful
Even if this is true, your assertion that bag striking methods don’t exist in the traditional chinese martial arts is still wrong.
I already provided links of standard ima curriculum.
No you didn’t, which isn’t surprising, since there’s no such thing as the “standard ima curriculum” – there are multiple IMAs, each have distinct curricula, and there are multiple styles within each of the IMAs, which again each have distinct curricula.
“ima mostly train by hitting air and focusing on chi.”
Sorry, that’s just wrong.
Knifefighter - you’re wrong as well. Tai chi (for example) includes striking as well as stand-up grappling. So it’s not going to end up looking like boxing or kickboxing is it?
Re: Re: Re: “If a CMAist would train with the same intensity as a boxer…”
Originally posted by SifuAbel
If you can’t count your form training in AS conditioning; then please, by all means, stop doing them. Weak forms don’t help.
Lol
Thanks for the tip:rolleyes:
What I tried to communicate (inneffectively), is that instead of forms being the primary method of training (as is is many, many Kung fu schools) ,to place more emphaisis on conditioning, drilling, and sparring. The weak thing you added yourself.
But of course if all you’ve learned is forms…
Originally posted by Knifefighter
Efficient and effective standup fighting with strikes against a skilled, resisting opponent looks like boxing and/or kickboxing. That’s why they fight that way. Anyone who spars with intensity against skilled opponents finds this out pretty quickly. If you are fighting skilled opponents and doing well with your kung fu, it will look much like boxing or kickboxing.
Yes and No
I believe it would look a lot like … d r u m r o l l … San Da.
If not geared towards the ring, would probably still be a lot like Chinese Military San Da with slight variations for different styles, as well as more open handed techniques, elbows, chin na, etc.
Why don’t you just try to train your CMA ‘with the same intensity as a boxer’ and find out? Then you could tell us your personal results.
Re: Re: Re: “If a CMAist would train with the same intensity as a boxer…”
Originally posted by Strangler
The anient masters of old didn’t get those superhuman abilities by kicking ehavy bags and immitating modern thai boxers.
The ancient “masters” weren’t superhuman. They most likely weren’t even as good as today’s modern fighters.
They most likely weren’t even as good as today’s modern fighters.
In a lot of ways I agree with this. There are progressively tougher and better skilled fighters as time marches on.
Also keep in mind that many “art” type martial arts are in many ways highly ritualistic and have less to do with fighting than with outrward expression of an idea or a story or many sundry other concepts.
Not that they aren’t good for a body and not that it is likely that in the past as it is today there were dang good fighters who could mop the floor with most who stood against them.
But if we look back even at some old american or british boxing films from the early 1900’s say, well, their form and style would be laughable today.
I have seen a few crackled films with such display and it was quite funny to watch in many senses. The toughest men of the day would be regarded as a joke these days and would pizzizzle themselves if faced with an Ali, a Lewis, a Tyson or even a Klitschko.