Right. Recently theres been a lot of hoo har between MMA guys and Traditionalists. Many people are saying that traditional kung fu and traditional training are useless as it can never be used in the ring etc. I read a site the other day stating that forms were almost pointless for learning to fight and that people shouldn’t see them as ‘how you fight’. It also said that stances are never used in a real fight and other things to that effect.
So I ask. If this is true then WHY was the style created in the first place? Why would there be ‘unusable’ techniques within a form? I dont get the logic behind saying TMA is basically bollacks…
Maybe our understanding of TMA is different to that of old…maybe we have missed the point somewhere along the line.
I think you have to look at stances as fluid rather than static postures. We trained ALOT of stance work at our school, but it was always emphasised that you dont hold them when fighting because you dont stop moving. Power is generated by bodyweight in motion (Up/down, laterally forward/back/side-to-side, and by twisting…or by combinations of these). Stances are positions you move through while generating power, not positions you hold.
Theyre like towns on a map. You may drive through several to get where youre going. The journey isnt just the towns, but its not just the roads inbetween either.
For example, if someone throws a kick to your head and you take a 1/2 step back while dropping your weight…youve just moved into a backstance. Now while move in to counter-punch you typically transfer your weight evenly to both feet (Horse stance) then to you lead foot as you reach full extension (Front stance) and then maybe draw your weight back again as you change positions (Horse or Cat stance). Mobility and balance are so important for being in the right position defnsively and offensively. That is the #1 reason for practicing stance work. You hold static postures to devlope strength in the legs and balance so that as you pass THROUGH the posture while moving you dont lose all your power and fall over.
I was a bouncer for 2 years and aside from just bear-hugging someone to pull them out of an active fight, everything I did was TCMA. Blocking,striking, chin na, throws, footwork,weapons training, its all there. As for forms not being useful...Heavybags teach structure, but are very limited in teaching footwork. Conditioning is important,but doesnt teach you to hit. Sparring is a great tool, but it doesnt allow me to use all my tools as agressively as I might want all the time. Forms training does all these things. Obviously forms arent the end-all,-be-all of traditional training, but they teach things that cant be learned as effectively in other ways. Forms training requires alot of thought to understand the many possible applications for a type of movement. And because it requires alot of thought...its harder to immediatly se the value of it. But think of it this way, until you break down a forms various movements and annalyze the applications which you might want to practice seperatly, while youre just doing the form a couple 100 times to learn the movements…you`re learning balance ing new positions, getting aerobic conditioning, building strength, practicing footwork, and building muscle-memory. Not a bad way to spend class, eh?
It is important to keep in mind that different methods of training are designed for different goals, needs and environments. The methods of fighting when the CMA were originated and organized into their styles were different then than they are now. Culture influences how individual combat is perceived and fought. The forms we do today may not have been exactly the same as those 500 years ago. If one was working as security for caravans or as a bodyguard then most likely the training methods they used were closer to today’s MMA. I am not referring to the grappling per se, but the more realistic training methods.
Special Forces and police Special Teams train in as close to real world environments and scenarios as possible. This is because psychologically, when we are under stress we tend to react automatically according our trained programming. If we have programmed into our behaviors actions that are superfluous then we have done ourselves a disservice. We have endangered ourselves and the others we are intending to defend by programming actions that are not useful to the purpose at hand.
On the other hand, if we are utilizing the MA as a way of life with a greater purpose of learning to unify our mind, body and spirit, then forms training will teach us to move with speed, agility and grace, enhancing our cardiovascular system, develop concentration and fortitude under physically stressful circumstances.
It isn’t that the traditional ways aren’t beneficial or useful, but they are not always the most efficient use of our time depending upon our personal goals.
The argumant that fighting has changed is not a valid point. Aside from the firearm, nothing has changed. All strikes are simply angles of attack, whether fist,sword, clup, knife. Grappling has always existed. Adrenal response has always existed. The only thing that has changed is that the western mind is all about instant gratification, and McDonald’s I want it now, my way mentality.
There are many people teaching “Traditional Chinese Martial Arts” but in reality, there are very few who actually understand it, and are teaching it correctly.
Unfortunately,“TCMA” is becoming a catch phrase, and will be thrown around more and more. I have been in Martial Arts for over thirty years. I have met many, many people, many, many well known Sifus, and Senseis. Very,very few who actually understood, and are teaching Traditional Martial Arts. It is not neccesary to mention names. All you need to do is ask yourself,“Is what I am learning an art that was developed for life and death conflicts, or am I learning something less than effective?” After thirty years, I still am a student, and I still marvel at how many of the real techniques are just so incredibly devastating, and when I witness someone who truly posesses these skills, I am overwhelmed.
I am not saying TCMA is useless or any TMA for that matter. One argument can be made that:
A) Empty-hand techniques were paid attention to only sparingly as most fighting since man evolved has always been done with weapons. Similar to how our armed forces rarely practice it, and 200 years from now somebody could be studying the ancient art of US Marine-do and make the same “it was used in combat” argument for the effectiveness of his art.
B) Stylized, ritualistic combat… Much like how Civil War reinactors train with muskets and old, out dated battle techniques and tactics. They wouldn’t be foolish enough to claim that in a modern setting in modern culture, that these techniques are effective in battle.
Myself, I think it is a blend of the above and the fact that most TMA’s don’t train to fight really. You can have the sharpest technique in the world, but if you don’t spar a lot to work it against resisting opponents, hit bags to develop power, and hit pads to develop timing and distancing, then you are going to be way behind the game.
The majority of people who gravitate to a TMA have a different mind set than the majority of people who gravitate to a combat sport. Thus the training is different and it is reflected in the ring.
TCMA is alive and well.. AND quite applicable.. The problem is that whenever people are amazed by some new style’s temporary domination of the sport they jump ship to be on the “cutting edge”.. True TCMA will dig into their art and find the cure for the latest flavor of the month.. too few people have the discipline to find the answers in their own arts.. TCMA has lineages spanning thousands of years, and nothing “new” has developed in that time.. combat is still combat and anything goes.. the longevity of a system is evidence of its history of dealing with challenges, the weaknesses of today’s students are not the style’s weaknesses.. Though, it will become so if teachers keep diminishing the Art to caress the $ out of lazy students..
The first place to look when you question your art, is in the mirror..
There is no training that when done with correct mind and intention, fails in the area of application.
From any style, any system etc etc.
Most of the people who make derogatory comments oabout traditional martial arts methods have little or zero experience with them and have simply spent too much time hanging around reading threads at bullshido.
it’s true.
There are more people in the MA world (that’s tma, mma, all of it) who talk out of their asses than just about any other sport or practice.
Fighting does change over time. Hopology, ie the history of combat, teaches us that the knight in plate armour did not fight like the Renaissance gentleman…
More directly to the point, police instruction in different parts of the world IS geared differently because different cultures do fight differently
In the US, major metropolitan areas have become “boxing towns” (NY, Detroit, Chicago, etc)… while rural areas retain a strong wrestling tradition (just got back from doing a fight event in Willard OH… big boys with good wrestling made for a fun night of MMA)…
In teh UK, the head butt is an ingrained part of their fight culture (Korea as well)
Japan is a knife culture, it’s police train with the full expectation that a knife is hidden and will be used
BJJ wasn’t part of mainstream fight culture in th 1980’s …
Fighting in inevitably influenced by the fight culture that originated it… a lot of TCMA is based upon a structure of bridges, sensitivity, clinging and trapping… if an American boxer doesn’t “give you that structure” your technique is going to change…
Almost any area of human involvement- physical performance, computers, transportation, telecommunications, medicine, space travel- has been tremendously enhanced by modern technology and scientific knowledge.
Unarmed combatives are no different. Training methods and fighting techniques that were used hundreds or thousands of years ago are mostly outdated today. Modern technology and knowledge allows for more efficient and effective use of training time and techniques.
Modern human performnace training makes use of principles such as periodization, plyometrics, complex training, specificity of training, peaking, force/velocity relationships, specific energy system training, blood lactate monitoring, and many others that bring human performance to maximum levels.
On the other side of the spectrum, you have many traditional martial artists who believe that forms and static stances are good ways to develop technique and power. These things may have been useful in the context of the past where little was known about physiological and biomechanical adaptation, but not by today’s standards.
I’ve heard this argument before. It is partially true, but not whole in truth in my opinion.
The reason being, the body form has remained fun****etally the same for many thousands of years.
Empty handed or non firearm weapons fighting has been trained to levels that go beyond any new machine or device of the modern age can give. Knowledge of the act of fighting is something that is only augmented by diet and nutritional knowledge, technique refinement is done through practice of the technique and there is still no proof that modern ways are much different than old ways in the areas that really count.
strength development has always had the use of weight or weighted devices as well as body weight exercises which are done to teh zenith in asian practices.
conditioning is always about enduring incoming and having the gas to go the long haul as well. Methods for this are numerous and not greatly improved by tiny enhancements in technology to carry them out, you still have to do the work.
technique is from many known principled sources and validated through application of it.
static stance training is always called on the floor in regards to inefficiency but in context to the art it is combined with, it is a fundamental step in making progress and it is a beginning method to set the foundation. Stances move onto the mobile delivery platforms they are intended to be as soon as the student develops the correct structure through static training. I have yet to see anything tabled that makes it 100% clear that this method is inefficient. I’ve seen more cases that show it is an efficient way to get structure ingrained to a student to move forward in the art that is based off those structures.
Because someone calls something a name that hasn’t been used before, does not mean that thing did not exist prior to it’s ‘final definition’. A good example is plyometrics. All the rage right? What if you knew these exercises were done ages ago? What if they are still done now, but called something else?
What about force feedback, bagwork etc etc? What if you knew that this was all around for ages. What if you found out that superficial anatomy has been around for centuries and knowledge of motion has been around for ages before it was termed kinesiology?
Training for fighting these days is geared towards a venue specifically. If it is competitive fighting in all ranges, then training is geared to get the results for that venue. Some of those training methods have great overlap into other uses, ie: mma to the street does ok, but so does for real tma. You gotta train for what it is you’re gonna do. How does a modern and efficient fight trainer go against someone armed with a knife? And if they want to ask or get some info on that, where are they going to go to find out?
In short, the efficient v proclaimed non efficiency of tma v mma is moot. Has never been satisfactorily prooven outside of fairly spurious imo claims.
Yes, advances have been made in teh understanding of the workings of our body, how we burn fat, how to train endurance without being counterproductive to the whole and so on. But much of these are common sense in many respects and have been done correctly for years. Even olympic athletes can only shave micro seconds in their given sports with all these amazing advances. Boxing, wrestling, et al have on teh other hand, when it comes to application and expression remains relatively unchanged but for the rules and venues they have applied to them.
There’s many a boxing gym in the modern day that doesn’t have very much difference to what is in it from what you would have found in a boxing gym 50 years ago.
some validity to that argument in short, but doesn’t cover the big picture by any means.
out argument is that if you want to fight in the ring, you need to change the way you train. it’s not your style that’s not working, it’s the training methods employed.
forms can be used to created fighting drills which CAN be used for fighting. Practicing the entire form over and over won’t help much.
it was created in the first place because at one time it was needed. things change over time. people used to ride horses everywhere. Why don’t we now?
stances are never used in a fight - at least not statically. A lot of cma train them statically. stances are transitional and should be trained as such. this is another training methodology difference. “modern” styles don’t spend a lot of time on stance straining. footwork drills teach you how to move. Also, stance training doesn’t increase strength, like many think. It increases muscle ENDURANCE.
stances are never used in a fight - at least not statically. A lot of cma train them statically. stances are transitional and should be trained as such. this is another training methodology difference. “modern” styles don’t spend a lot of time on stance straining. footwork drills teach you how to move. Also, stance training doesn’t increase strength, like many think. It increases muscle ENDURANCE.
Yoga isn’t used in a fight, at least not statically. A lot of modern styles (including BJJ) recommend Yoga training to increase flexibility and to train your body to hold extreme postures so that in a fluid, transitional state you can explode through the posture without damage.
“On the other side of the spectrum, you have many traditional martial artists who believe that forms and static stances are good ways to develop technique and power.”
You have proved my point-these so-called traditional Martial Artists don’t understand their art, their forms, or usage. Like I said, TCMA, when taught correctly is highly effective. Just because a guy wears a satin uniform or a starched white gi, has an altar, or tatami mats, speaks fluent Cantonese/Potung,Japanese, says “Oss” every five seconds, and can quote Sun Tzu, means absolutely nothing.
Bottom line-if you are practicing a Traditional Chinese Martial Art, and it is not effective, it’s not the art that sucks.:eek:
I am so sick of this argument. MMA practitioners and even wanabes all say that TCMA isn’t applicable.
My first question is: What’s your deffinition of “traditional”? Everyone has a different deffinition of that word. For some people it means stance training. For others it means forms work. For still others it means something different. Just because I do stance training or work on forms doesn’t mean that I don’t also spar against a “resisting” opponent.
My second question is: Applicable to what? If the answer is MMA style of combat then maybe it isn’t applicable. But don’t tell me it’s not applicable to combat on the street or combat with weapons. MMA vs. a person with a knife or stick, guess what, MMA looses. MMA vs. multiple opponents, again, MMA looses. So MMA guys are all about saying that it doesn’t apply but again, what they mean is, it doesn’t apply to their prefered style of “sport” combat.
I’d love to go into this more but it is so ridiculous.
not really. There is a difference between using your footwork against nobody and using it against an opponent. Likewise, there is a difference between using all of your techniques full force against the air using them against an opponent.
you`re learning balance ing new positions, getting aerobic conditioning, building strength, practicing footwork, and building muscle-memory. Not a bad way to spend class, eh?
you’re building muscle endurance more than strength, but I digress. forms are good for the other things you’ve listed on some level.
I don’t disagree with that. He was saying that one of the arguments is that stances aren’t used in fights. I’m agreeing with said person. doesn’t mean don’t train them. i also stated they build endurance…
the typical definition of tradional is people who train stances and forms as opposed to more “modern” things like bagwork, mittwork, weight training, etc. for example, karate and tkd are considered traditional. wrestling and thai boxing are not, even though wrestling is older than both tkd and karate, and tkd really isn’t traditional at all.
as for applicable, this goes back to what we have all seen. I have seen more than a handful of TMA get their arses handed to them in streetfights. the ones you didn’t wanna mess with were the wrestlers and boxers. the TMA almost always got stomped. And I was in tma at the time, so that jaded my outlook of tma. heck, on my night job, the tkd guy we had got his arse handed to him on a few occasions. But that happens and can happen to anyone, which is what people don’t think about. As for mma vs a person with a knife or stick, there was an article recently about a thai boxer (read: sport fighter) who chased THREE armed assailants out of his home. so, just as we can’t make our generalizations about what is applicable, you can’t make it about mma vs weapons. I personally have been in multiple assailant fights at the club I work. I won. generalizations suck.
I would disagree - I think you are looking at the obvious and not beyond. tactics are what has changed. considering most attacks these days don’t start with a wrist grab, why are TMA still teaching them? if they were as evolutionary as green willow stated, then most schools would’ve phased this out by now. naturally the angles are the same - as long as we are human and our number of limbs and range of movement don’t change, it will be the same. Heck, a lot of tma and sport styles have the same techniques, but it’s the training methods that matter most. Going back to tactics, people now will pull your coat over your head and stomp you while you can’t see. Did they do this back then? if not, fighting is different, as it has changed tactically. Also, there are more people now who have training. This changes fighting also, because now you need to be that much better.
There are many people teaching “Traditional Chinese Martial Arts” but in reality, there are very few who actually understand it, and are teaching it correctly.
Unfortunately,“TCMA” is becoming a catch phrase, and will be thrown around more and more. I have been in Martial Arts for over thirty years. I have met many, many people, many, many well known Sifus, and Senseis. Very,very few who actually understood, and are teaching Traditional Martial Arts. It is not neccesary to mention names.
whose fault would that be? if they didn’t understand, why were they allowed to teach?
