Military styles question

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
141

[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;794285]
it depends - realistically, military weapons training and use revolved around a multitude of issues: economic and social rank of the individual being a big one - it had a huge impact on what sort of armor/weaponry you wore/had (some armies were BYO stuff, others supplied you), also where you actually where in the field, so that changes what you knew / needed to know a lot; also, was the army conscript or regular also impacted what you learned/did; and don’t forget, the law of conservation of manpower always dictated engaging troops a minima - hence the preference of long range weaponry (archery, balistics,etc.) and/or the use of fortification basd equipment - both offensive and defensive; also pike users formed an important part of military engagements pre-firearms and even post up to a point - remember that the “gun” goes back into middle ages with the first use of gunpowder, and the idea of a personal firearm has been evolving steadily since then;

so the point is that personal H2H training was probably not evenly distributed; also,
to train the average Joe to fight H2H with skill would not have necessarilly been very time or cost effective, especially if he were conscript - regular army would get it, but not to the detriment of training in manuevering, managing equipment, undersanding communications as needed - there’s a lot more to soldiering than mano a mano - mostly it was training you how not to loose your sh1t at the first sign of combat and to run away (again, more for conscripts, I’d say, but also regulars)

I think that like during any age, people are impressed by something that was used by “the military” - you see it all the time advertised these days, who’s to say it wasn’t the same back then? a retired army officers opens up a KF school in the late 1300’s because that’s all he knows, and bills what he teaches as being “authentic military” style - people eat it up and after 800 years, who remembers what really was the deal…

I mean, the thing about training empty hand techs that are based on weapons use and being effective - that’s just crazy: there is no indication that the skill sets are similar enough to simply take away the implement and still have valid technique without significant modification; I mean, the use of an implement radically changes the way you fight - take a guy weighing 100 lbs. more than the opponent and H2H he’ll usually win; give them both a blade and the ground is leveled significantly in the weight differential area - that’s because even though the movements between a jab with the fist and a thrust with the knife look the same, the parameters necessary for the knife to be succesful require a lot less physical strength than the jab,and don’t need to be as accurate on target to damage the opponent - so to train a jab as a “empty-hand knife thrust” is implausible, because you need a lot more behind the jab than the knife thrust for it to work: for example, the jab is a lead opening technique that typically is used to set up combos/finishing moves; do the same movement with a knife and it may be the only thing you need to win

but if you’re a retired army guy, and you don’t have much empty hand stuff but don’t want to teach weapons to the average joe on the street right away, you take your weapons stuff and do the movements without them, and bingo - instant empty hand system…

142

[QUOTE=SifuAbel;794290]No, thats bull****. A punch is a punch.[/QUOTE]

I agree a punch is a punch - in fact, that’s the point MMA has been making by divorcing speific techniques from all the style-based background noise; indeed, by that argument, why bother to talk at all anymore about specific style then in the first place? why bother to defend TCMA or any other non-MMA approach? may as well drop the whole style-identification pespective and just train techniques; then you wouldn’t have to worry about someone being a sell-out - it’s all just evolution

143

Well it all started out as a punch or a kick and not a style so, wouldn’t be de-evolving instead of evolving.

144

Also, NO sets of any style (except modern fake styles) have “fluff”.
Only people with LITTLE KNOWLEDGE or EXPERIENCE to understand sets fully would think that a movement in a set is fluff.

Reply]
THIS was my original point!!! At least some one gets it!!! :slight_smile:

145

[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;794292]The straight punch in long fist with bow stance is a throw as well.[/QUOTE]

LOL @ a punch also being a throw. That’s exactly what is wrong with the TMA approach.

146

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;794335]LOL @ a punch also being a throw. That’s exactly what is wrong with the TMA approach.[/QUOTE]

yeah - I mean, you can look at just about any movement, like a reverse punch in bow stance, and say it is “such and such” - ok, great - THEN what? to say you have it isn’t the same as being able to do it; what exactly is the advantage conferred by having supposedly multiple layers of applications in a form? to me, it seems more about “look how clever this construct is” and that it automatically makes or even gives the potential for a TCMA guy to be a better fighter; I don’t know - the whole thing about uncovering moves - it just seems like a waste of time - and lord knows I’ve done it - used to really “investigate” what was going on - up to a point it’s fun and cool, but TBH - it doesn’t yield any more comprehensive knowledge than sytems without that sort of convention - and there the students don’t waste time mining forms for hidden techniques; again, I don’t see why that particular construct is desirable to being with - you certainly arn’t getting automatic transfer of training from practicing a move as a punch that you later go on and apply as a throw - i’ts a completely different set of parameters that share some similarities in the out appearance, but in functional context require totally different sets of muscle firing patterns, which is basically determined by the loads involved in a given task…

147

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;794335]LOL @ a punch also being a throw. That’s exactly what is wrong with the TMA approach.[/QUOTE]

No, that what’s GREAT about TCMA, I can be as versatile as necessary.

I have been in MANY fights, many, I grew in Newark NJ during the 1960s and 1970s, I had to fight to survive just to get to school or to the store and back.
You learn fast what works and what doesn’t.
I came to TCMA WITH this knowledge and experience and applications were readily obvious and I made the teachers WORK to show reality in the movements.

I am friends with a few people who were martial artists and now are police officers. Also, I take private lessons today and there are policemen, jail guards, bodyguards, and law enforcement trainers in my classes. They all use TCMA to be more efficient and effective and they always point out what is necessary for a law enforcer to do the movements so that it will keep them alive.

ALL of them have said to me that the way the law is around here (NJ / NY) if you hit back you are ‘attacking the attacker’ and a vigilante in the eyes of the law and you will get a BIGGER fine and jail time than even the attacker!

All of the them have said that what is great about TCMA is that what looks like a punch or a kick is a fast takedown in application.

IN order to not be arrested for assaulting your attacker, you have only the right to stop the fight without fighting the attacker, which means taking down the opponent and neutralizing their attack.
So, a punch is NOT a punch only.

Unless you are in a controlled sportslike environment, on the street punching an opponent will prolong the attack. It is not self defense, it does not stop the attack.
In a punch fight, the LUCKIEST person wins (many factors are interacting: speed, ability, knowledge, power, strength, age, weight, aggression, etc, etc, etc., that change the odds with each moment, hence the luckier person wins).

AND< all the OLD shaolin monks that I have knowledge of have always said that what looks like a punch or a kick in a form is really a takedown and they do their forms with this application in mind.

What looks like you are stepping and punching in a form like this is a scissoring move that trips their supporting leg and cuts the opponent in half at the waist so that they immediately lose their balance (hard or soft up to you), ans down they go in one swift movement.
THAT’s real TCMA, everything else is baloney.
Barely anyone will teach the true applications to TCMA forms.

Sure you can use the move as a punch, but if you know only that, I guarantee that someone well trained who knows how to maneuver your attack to scissor you will beat you fast.

Of course you don’t do this in a boxing match, in a sport like MMA, and so on, you do it in self defense situations.
Anyone can do this, unlike MMA where only the gladiator hardened person can do it. The average old, young, female, etc person can do TCMA, not so with Boxing or MMA sport.

Always people like you compare apples and watermelons, TCMA is a self defense art that deals with an ambush.
MMA and Boxing is a sport like art, they are not the same thing at all.

They are based on different parameters, different necessities.

148

[QUOTE=cjurakpt;794359]yeah - I mean, you can look at just about any movement, like a reverse punch in bow stance, and say it is “such and such” - ok, great - THEN what? to say you have it isn’t the same as being able to do it; what exactly is the advantage conferred by having supposedly multiple layers of applications in a form? to me, it seems more about “look how clever this construct is” and that it automatically makes or even gives the potential for a TCMA guy to be a better fighter; I don’t know - the whole thing about uncovering moves - it just seems like a waste of time - and lord knows I’ve done it - used to really “investigate” what was going on - up to a point it’s fun and cool, but TBH - it doesn’t yield any more comprehensive knowledge than sytems without that sort of convention - and there the students don’t waste time mining forms for hidden techniques; again, I don’t see why that particular construct is desirable to being with - you certainly arn’t getting automatic transfer of training from practicing a move as a punch that you later go on and apply as a throw - i’ts a completely different set of parameters that share some similarities in the out appearance, but in functional context require totally different sets of muscle firing patterns, which is basically determined by the loads involved in a given task…[/QUOTE]

Look, you didn’t train right, that’s the deal.

And a throw is not a takedown.

I move EXACTLY as if I did the full on punching movement, but the end result I applied it to was to takedown the opponent.
A throw is not a takedown, it is a throw, and you move like you are throwing.

A takedown is a RESULT of your movement.
ANY movement in any form operates at four levels at once, to be used as necessary to the force required at the time:

  1. Punch or kick
    OR
  2. Joint lock
    OR
  3. Takedown
    OR
  4. weapon in hand

I have shown people how to use their forms from any style: Karate, TKD, Kempo, KF, etc, etc., and shown them how, by not changing anything in the actual movement of the form they are executing, they can takedown the opponent (upset their balance so that they fall fast and hard) as the result of their movement.

ALSO, movements in a form work in groups, to do a takedown, what looks like 3 seperate punching moves in a form is ONE fast movement that results in a takedown.

I learned this on the streets and I learned this in TCMA classes.
When I visited a school that did not know this, I would leave, to stay there would be wasting my time.

149

[QUOTE=ittokaos;794294]Good points as always Sal!

BTW My Sifu and his Sifu used to watch Mike tyson fights and marvel at how good his SPM was. They say that the reason he started losing was he forgot his old style of fighting and got into some bad habits. Don’t know if he trained in SPM tho. Funny huh?[/QUOTE]

He stopped training and started partying.
And, I think that some fights were thrown.

By the way, the week after he lost his title the first time, I was at a light in NYC in front of Bentley’s, the was a bus in front of my car.

I heard people screaming on the left, and saw that Tyson had like five guys on his back trying to hold him back. He ducked and then lifted and they all feel over.
He ran to the bus in front of me and punched a big dent in the side.

THEN he went up to my car and smiled at me and so fast he punched my window with the side of his hand, a glancing blow with his pinky, and the window just fell straight into the car instead of shattering!
We looked at each other in shock and then everyone started screaming “drive, drive, drive” and I drove around the bus and out of there!

150

[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;794363]Look, you didn’t train right, that’s the deal.[/QUOTE]
LOL - great argument - I disagree with you, so obviously I didn’t train right - try something more original next time, and maybe actually have a clue about what I’ve done and with whom - you;re not the only person around who’s trained with the “old guys” you know…
guess what, I learned the same type of approach, and am well aware of how to “interpret” foms in the way you describe; what I am saying is, why bother? just train the techniques, why spend all the time “figuring out” what you are doing? like it or not, skill in techniques are context specific - if you train the move in and of itself, it does not automatically confer skill - you have to train it in a striking context and in a takedown context to have proficiency in either, regardless of if the move looks the same doing it in a form

[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;794363]And a throw is not a takedown.[/QUOTE]
throw / takedown, whatever - semantics - you find both in forms that are supposedly just punches/kicks - the difference is that for the takedowns it’s usually a step through versus the throw involves a body turn (like at the end of aroad in a form, you turn and face 180 deg in oppo direction and hit some sort of pose - that’s typically the throw; whatever)

[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;794363]I move EXACTLY as if I did the full on punching movement, but the end result I applied it to was to takedown the opponent.[/QUOTE]
you may move the same, but the parameters of what you are trying to do are different, plain and simple

[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;794363]I have shown people how to use their forms from any style: Karate, TKD, Kempo, KF, etc, etc., and shown them how, by not changing anything in the actual movement of the form they are executing, they can takedown the opponent (upset their balance so that they fall fast and hard) as the result of their movement.[/QUOTE]
yeah, it’s always fun to see a TKD BB’s face when you explain what that “down block” at the end of the line in bassai really “means” or a karateka’s when you show that the opening sequence of naihanchi kata is either a series of joint locks and escapes / counters or a recipie for a push-hands-like drill and the second half is a series of trapping range exchanges (guess I figured that all out from my sub-standard training, hmm?); but still as “neat” as it is, just knowing it doesn’t help and having it in a form doesn’t either - in fact, I would argue that training forms can have the opposite effect of what you want - it has the potential to confusion that needs to be dispelled by someone else - better to just practice the techniques and variations as such from the outset and then live as soon as the person has some reasonable structure

[QUOTE=Sal Canzonieri;794363]ALSO, movements in a form work in groups, to do a takedown, what looks like 3 seperate punching moves in a form is ONE fast movement that results in a takedown.[/QUOTE]
great, but again, why practice it out of context? if your cop friends are interested in contolling people and not hitting them, that’s what they need to practice - the form aspect is fine and all, but without it they wouldn’t be at a disadvantage in terms of practical application of the techniques in question

151

I thought you were joking when you first said Chuck was using kung fu.

You weren’t apparently.

Chuck Liddell has never done kung fu. He is not doing kung fu.[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;794171]it doesnt mean he is using kung fu

Reply]
If he is using a Kung Fu technique, he is doing Kung Fu. He runs in Kempo circles right? I know they have some Chinese influences. Maybe someone he has come in contact with is a Long Fist player, and he picked it up informally from them, but he IS doing a signature Chinese punch. All the details are correct.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;794200]If he’s doing the punch, he’s doing the punch. If it’s something specific to Long Fist, and he’s doing it, then he’s doing it.

It does not matter where he got it from, he is still doing it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;794220]Yes, I saw it. That is what made me realize he’s doing Kung Fu.

What he was showing looked exactly like a Kung fu lesson.

Even the way he stays on his feet, and strikes down from a standing position when his opponent is on the ground, is typical Chinese thinking.

He has a VERY Chinese fighting method.[/QUOTE]It’s time to call a spade a spade, and you sir, are a ****ing idiot. :smiley:

[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;794270]Ok then…The RNC is originally ( as introduced to the west via the east) a Judo move, from JJ, from probably a CMA influence, so…

Reply]
That one is not very unique though. Lots of styles have it. It probably comes from ancient Greco /Roman if you go back far enough.[/QUOTE]You’re now saying the RNC comes from Graeco Roman wrestling originally therefore implying that the Eastern styles got it from there? My English vocabulary is huge, but I can’t find a word to describe you. :o

152

[QUOTE=cjurakpt;794368] . . . [/QUOTE]

I think we are on the same page actually.

Yes, the old way is to practice the techniques until they are part of your body, like one learns to drive a car or bike, precisely.

The forms are just a device to memorize strings of techniques.
You don’t “need” them (I happen to love doing them) to be proficient.

The techniques indeed do come first. We’re saying the same thing.

153

[QUOTE=SifuAbel;794264]This is coming from a more deep seated place than style.

Its more about the double standard of whats acceptable. Style bias.

Chuck does a similar punch that is identical to the one done in another style.

Whether or not its from long fist is irrelevant. They are exactly the same.

Yet chuck’s version is acceptable while the same exact technique will be seen as folly coming from the non-sanctioned styles.

We all put on our pants the same way. Throw the pants up in the air and do a double back flip into them before they touch the ground. Don’t you? Am i right? :D[/QUOTE]You are completely correct, except that in this case this is nothing to do with the argument. Reread over the thread to see why Chuck was brought in to the argument.

Plus, most people would argue that it’s not the fact that the punch is in a ‘non-sanctioned’ style, just that it’s in a form in a non-sanctioned style and that the style is non-sanctioned because they don’t practise in a realistic manner, so nobody throws the punch against a live resisting opponent. That too, is completely irrelevant to this thread! Except in relation to when we were talking about kenjutsu techs becoming unrealistic as soon as they left the battelfield.

Do try and keep up, and don’t bring your MMA vs TMA obsession BS into every thread, old chap. :stuck_out_tongue:

154

[QUOTE=ittokaos;794230]Liddel looks like he is using Hop gar.

Mr. punch, u r correct in saying that the arguement that kung fu has no fluff b/c krav maga has no fluff is pish(i don’t know what that means) but that isn’t what i said(at least I don’t think I did). What i meant was that krav maga carries on the spirit and techniques of kung fu and uses them in a military setting. If you were to break down the techniques one by one you would see that they all come from kung fu. “The Burst” is a technique used in Wing Chun, Hung Gar, etc… The various small locks are basic Chin Na. I have seen the use of Eagle Claw and tiger Claw in various techniques. All (or most0 the techniques that Krav Maga uses were taken from other styles that mostly came from kung fu.[/quote]Nice clarification, thank you. My point was that you were saying if you look close enough you’ll find kung fu in krav maga, and that although these techs may resemble kung fu and almost identical techs are found in some kung fu styles, it doesn’t mean that kung fu stylists can claim krav maga as their own.

Imi Lichtenfeld, the founder of KM, was a champion gymnast, boxer and wrestler, taught SD by his dad who was a member of the poice force in Bratislava. There is NO recorded contact with kung fu of any kind.

uses Choy li Fut ,wing chun, and a form of tai chi. I don’t really know where tho. I heard it from a military buddy. I’ll ask when I see him again.

i hope this helps

WF
I’ve heard this before about many styles, but only once, for one specific special forces unit have I ever heard anything resembling evidence to back it up.

With the exception of bayonet and Hsing Yi in China, and the juukendo art in Japan there is next to no practical connection between kung fu and the military in the modern world. I am not assuming that modern military H2H is necessarily the most efficient MA in the world, nor am I assuming that all historical military arts are ‘full of fluff’: I am suggesting that because a TMA used be a military art is by no means any indication of its effective, now or in the past, for self defence or warfare.

Hope that’s clear enough.

155

but still as “neat” as it is, just knowing it doesn’t help and having it in a form doesn’t either - in fact, I would argue that training forms can have the opposite effect of what you want - it has the potential to confusion that needs to be dispelled by someone else - better to just practice the techniques and variations as such from the outset and then live as soon as the person has some reasonable structure

Reply]
Based on my study, it does not appear forms were for training students in the first place. They were for the teachers to help organize thier curriculum, and refine thier body mechanics.

156

[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;794380] but still as “neat” as it is, just knowing it doesn’t help and having it in a form doesn’t either - in fact, I would argue that training forms can have the opposite effect of what you want - it has the potential to confusion that needs to be dispelled by someone else - better to just practice the techniques and variations as such from the outset and then live as soon as the person has some reasonable structure

Reply]
Based on my study, it does not appear forms were for training students in the first place. They were for the teachers to help organize thier curriculum, and refine thier body mechanics.[/QUOTE]

Not really, Forms were created to:

The original fist Shaolin sets: to test students for graduation - to prove that you know your stuff and to prove that you went to that school. Only top students learned forms and passed and were allowed to do them. No pass: no graduation, no allowed to do forms.

Most post-Song dynasty sets: to preserve the body of techniques in a style in case it gets lost, these were given in a book to the inheritor of a style only, generation by generation.

157

Hmmm, ok that adds some dimension to it, but it still all boils down the the fact that students didn’t do them for developing thier skills, only the top dogs did them. By the time they got the forms, they had already been pretty much fully trained and had accomplished skills.

In other words, forms were not the tool used to train skills. They were the last step in the process, maybe akin to a diploma.

It was all study of loose technique while you were learning and developing your skills.

158

[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;794394]Hmmm, ok that adds some dimension to it, but it still all boils down the the fact that students didn’t do them for developing thier skills, only the top dogs did them. By the time they got the forms, they had already been pretty much fully trained and had accomplished skills.

In other words, forms were not the tool used to train skills. They were the last step in the process, maybe akin to a diploma.

It was all study of loose technique while you were learning and developing your skills.[/QUOTE]

Yep, forms were the end of the line.
If you didn’t know HOW to do, you didn’t receive the forms, which were WHAT to do.

Forms were a memory device and a testing device.

159

Agreed, although I’d probably add that they were a tool for the top players to further refine and also maintain body mechanics during solo practice as well. Maybe they were not intended to be that, but they are a good tool for that purpose anyway.

160

[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;794397]Agreed, although I’d probably add that they were a tool for the top players to further refine and also maintain body mechanics during solo practice as well. Maybe they were not intended to be that, but they are a good tool for that purpose anyway.[/QUOTE]

If you didn’t know this already, it would be way too late by the time you learned a form to save you.

TODAY, forms serve this purpose, because no one has the time to do techniques for months until ready to do the next one. they are a tool for all, not just top players.

But if you have not perfected the techniques, what good is learning a form that you do all wrong?