Many years ago, Apple developed a modern operating system called Pink. It was an object oriented system that one object built on top of one or more objects. For example, a character is an object. The word built on top of characters, the sentence built on top of words. The Pink system was very “pure”. Oneday IBM brought that technology and tried to add more development on it. Later on IBM found out that the performance was so slow. Instead of going 10 levels deep to reach something, IBM added some short cuts so something can be reached faster in order to improve the performance. After that modification, the “object built on top of objects” technique was no longer “pure”.
When a product such as Pink was in research mode, performance was not important. The moment that it will become a comercial product, the slow performance will be an issue. Sometimme a “pure” system is just not practical.
Quite often we can hear:
This is not in our system.
We don’t do this.
It’s against our style principle.
…
In the ancient time, our TCMA founder might only have to fight against another TCMA guy. Today, a TCMA guy has to fight againt both TCMA guy and non-TCMA guy. Apparently some “additional training” will be needed.
When Judo meets wrestling, Judo has 2 options:
Add “single leg” into Judo.
Make “single leg” illegal.
Of course if you only spar/wrestle with people in your own style, you can keep your style pure. the moment that you spar/wrestle with another style, the moment that you can’t be pure any more.
Does “pure system” have any value in our 21th centry? Your thought?
Does “pure system” have any value in our 21th centry? Your thought?
In my opinion, no. Not in the context of a martial art in practice. If we look at “pure” as meaning untainted and unchanged, it can’t exist and survive in an individual. “Pure”, as I’m interpreting (or misinterpreting :o) here, is stagnant. It’s dead.
Sure. Find what techniques in your kung fu system work best against specific styles, ie boxing and practice them until you can counter a boxer, for example.
Stay mobile in your stances/footwork, when they jab use a threading move like Golden Dragon Plays with Water, when they go for a power shot swallow it by shifting back in your bow and arrow and tame their hand then press forward with a mid strike such as Black Tiger Steals Heart followed by a hip throw like Felling like Felling Tree With Roots in one smooth motion. Hooks can be countered with Immortal Emerges from Cave or Tame Tiger With Double Bows to defend and strike at the same time. Uppercuts can be countered by brushing them off to the side with a false leg hand sweep and moving in swiftly with the same sequence as above, mid or high strike and/or hip throw. If they try to bounce away move with them, kung fu footwork covers more ground and is tactically faster. Pressing attacks, its all about pressing attacks, don’t let up, stay covered by keeping their gate closed, keep striking and tossing them on their butts.
There are only so many ways someone can punch, kick, grapple, and throw, if you know the application and have the skills developed through lots of training there are enough techniques in Kung fu to have ample counters for anything. It is just a matter of training to counter the situation.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1237530]Quite often we can hear:
This is not in our system.
We don’t do this.
It’s against our style principle.
…
In the ancient time, our TCMA founder might only have to fight against another TCMA guy. Today, a TCMA guy has to fight againt both TCMA guy and non-TCMA guy. Apparently some “additional training” will be needed.
When Judo meets wrestling, Judo has 2 options:
Add “single leg” into Judo.
Make “single leg” illegal.
Of course if you only spar/wrestle with people in your own style, you can keep your style pure. the moment that you spar/wrestle with another style, the moment that you can’t be pure any more.[/QUOTE]
Are you just talking about pitting two styles together in a fair match, which might mean adding or taking away certain techniques? Or are you talking about whether or not a given style can work when facing other styles without change?
We hear purist talk a lot in the Wing Chun forum. Many practitioners want to adhere strictly to the principles of the system. Bruce Lee thought it was too restrictive and added to it what worked for him. We see others doing that effectively today.
I personally think it is a good system that can handle any sort of fighter in a given situation. One just needs to trust their principles. The problem is, being placed under stress can cause trained skills to give way to instinct, possibly causing errors and leading to defeat, particularly before one is experienced enough. It takes a significant amount of training to keep an opponent’s pressure within your skill level, that is to be able to adhere to the principles and not break even when under stress. It’s when your skill level is not developed sufficiently above your instinct level that you can’t handle increased pressure and will be forced to revert to instinct, which may be to use a bad habit or techniques outside your system. Sometimes those other techniques work and that’s all that matters, but I believe it can be done, that you can keep to VT against any style if you’re trained well enough and it is often more efficient to do so.
Does “pure system” have any value in our 21th centry? Your thought?[/QUOTE]
NOPE
TCMA never had firearms. We have firearms today. Krav Maga incorporates firearms training in order to be relevant in todays scenarios. Modern weapons and tactics are severely lacking in TCMA.
Does “pure system” have any value in our 21th centry? Your thought?[/QUOTE]
I think the question is “did it ever”?
Pure. What does that mean anyway? Is anything human pure? No.
Kick, punch, throw, lock.
Have something to address attacking with each of those and defending from each of those and you’re good. Doesn’t matter if you are MAC or PC.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1237530]Does “pure system” have any value in our 21th centry? Your thought?[/QUOTE]
What is a ‘pure’ system, anyway? All systems were originally methods developed for the purpose of survival/victory over others. If the founders of these systems had access to the information we have today, and had to contend with other TCMA, non-TCMA, modern weapons, and even erratic, drug-induced non-MA, they would have incorporated whatever they needed to deal with it.
Attempting to keep a system 100% ‘pure’ is an exercise in futility, as far as the apparent original purpose of each system. It quickly becomes obsolete. As long as what you 're adding is beneficial to you as a practitioner, as opposed to adding or subtracting things without rhyme or reason.
Besides, it’s obvious that no CMA system today, regardless of how ‘pure’ it purports to be, is exactly the same as when it was founded.
in 35 years and on 3 different continents and haveing trained in Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Okinawan and western MA I can say this:
NO SUCH THING IS A PURE SYSTEM.
The only people that think they are doing something “unique” and “different” are those with their heads in the sand.
What I understood “pure system” to mean was not techniques being unique and original– obviously there is no such thing– but having an outline of certain principles and not deviating from them.
Within a given lineage, purity can have meaning. It cam reside within the notion of direct transmission from master to pupil, however that relationship is never what it used to be. Only a few rare exceptions still live with their master 24/7 in the modern world. Especially when you consider the cultural tradition of village styles or clan styles, the notion of purity can be significant is a socially exclusive way. I personally don’t endorse this kind of thinking, but I often see others that do.
There is a scientific elegance to the purity and sterility - to truly perform scientific experiments, it is a requirement. This is one of my peeves when it comes to martial art styles describing themselves as ‘scientific’. They have no idea of the scientific method and are completely misusing the term. That being said, there is something to be said for usefulness of purity, but strictly as an academic pursuit, and very few martial artists pursue the discipline academically. While some might put on airs like they do (myself included, but it comes with the job), there is a value to the notion purity in certain very specific scenarios.
That being said, I’m far from ‘pure’ myself. I’m a total martial mutt.
[QUOTE=xcakid;1237555]TCMA never had firearms. [/QUOTE] Firearms have been with us for several centuries now. Many martial academics argue that the arise of martial arts as a spiritual pursuit came about with the spread of firearms. This theory propounds that once firearms came about, hand-to-hand became obsolete, so in order to instill value into the tradition, martial arts moved towards sports and spiritual pursuits. An intriguing affirmation of this idea is the fact that many of the initial martial treatises arise contiguous to the spread of firearms. So while TCMA might not address firearms, it may well be that TMA arose in reaction to firearms.
Wang Lang added in techniques from 17 other systems to his praying mantis
Hung Hei Goon added “crane” to his “tiger” or so they say
Choy Lay Fut is a combintation of 3 different traditions
Bak Mei teaches sets from at least three different systems
“Eagle Claw” is a combination of Yue Fei’s kung fu and Faan Jih Kyuhn
And what are “principles” when we talk about combat? There is only what works and what does not, and anyone looking to fight and survive only cares about what works…
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1237624]A TCMA system may not like to “grab”. But when you spar people from other styles, you can either:
make “grab” illegal, or
learn how to deal with “grab”.
IMO, the 2nd approach is better. It adds something extra into your system.[/QUOTE]
not liking something doesn’t mean it isn’t going to be applied to you in combat.
if something doesn’t address all ranges, then it is incomplete and training needs to be picked up elsewhere to fill it out.
For instance, the Kung Fu I have been taught has Chin Na but zero wrestling techniques practiced although there is applicable holds and throws expressed in the system it was almost invariably never taught in a viable situation. So any and all wrestling I have comes from training done and carried forward out of the high school team I was on.
Boxing technique I have learned has seeped into my Kung Fu. What can I say, I find the simple technique to be more comfortable, adaptable an effective than using weird hand forms. I like fist or palm, I use fists and palms. I use Fu Jow for Cradle blows and grabs exclusively and never use snake hand or crane or sword fingers etc. None of that gets applied in sparring, ever.
But, I still keep it anyway because hey, just because I don’t know what to do with it now, doesn’t mean I won’t find out somewhere down the road.
I think that going to the complex or obscure over the basics can give you the surprise element you need, but it is going to wear thin fast if you do it a lot and you will be countered and dumped for it eventually. At least, that’s how I’ve seen it go down a few times over the years.
TCMA never had firearms. We have firearms today. Krav Maga incorporates firearms training in order to be relevant in todays scenarios. Modern weapons and tactics are severely lacking in TCMA.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LFJ;1237542]Are you just talking about pitting two styles together in a fair match, which might mean adding or taking away certain techniques? Or are you talking about whether or not a given style can work when facing other styles without change?
We hear purist talk a lot in the Wing Chun forum. Many practitioners want to adhere strictly to the principles of the system. [/QUOTE]
I’m more talking about “a given style can work when facing other styles …”.
My roundhouse kick had gone through 4 changing stages.
1st I learned it in longfist. The kick was something between a side kick and roundhouse kick. It’s not noticeable. This is why some people even say that roundhouse kick does not exist in longfist.
Later on I had cross trained the white ape system, In one of the white ape forms, I learned a clear roundhouse kick.
Oneday I found that TKD’s roundhouse kick is better. It has more detail such as pointing knee to your opponent, bend your leg, kick out, and pull your leg back along the same path. These level of detail was never taught in my longfist system. I was very excited and spend a great deal of time to it.
Later on I found out that MT roundhouse kick is even better. Instead of kicking up, you let your leg to drop and hit your opponent on the way down. Also the body pulling leg can generate much more power than the TKD way.
If I can find any way that’s better than the MT way, I will change my roundhouse kick again. Of course I won’t go to my longfist teacher and tell him that his roundhouse kick is not the best method. I just keep it to myself. I was the person who changes it alter all.
From my personal experience, I don’t understand why some people just don’t want to change. If I keep training my longfist roundhouse kick for the rest of my life, I don’t think it can reach to the same level as the TKD method or the MT method.
if u learned the real shaolin u would know dis[/QUOTE]
Well, it doesn’t now and monks taking up arms out of necessity or being pressed into it is hardly saying that TCMA had firearms incorporated into the mix.
Also, there isn’t much in the way of recording that the Monks actually took up arms in peacetime to understand them and to define a kind of Kung fu that uses them.
so. No. NO TCMA does not have firearms just because there are a few old pictures extant of some monks or tcmaists using guns to fight the japanese or engaged in the civil war.
if u learned the real shaolin u would know dis[/QUOTE]
Show me documented training of firearms within TCMA. Just cause a TCMA practitioner picked up a musket and shot it, does not mean TCMA has a proven firearms training curriculum. Unless it was added to a system as an after thought.
this coming from shaolin do practitioner[QUOTE=David Jamieson;1237646]Well, it doesn’t now and monks taking up arms out of necessity or being pressed into it is hardly saying that TCMA had firearms incorporated into the mix.
Also, there isn’t much in the way of recording that the Monks actually took up arms in peacetime to understand them and to define a kind of Kung fu that uses them.
so. No. NO TCMA does not have firearms just because there are a few old pictures extant of some monks or tcmaists using guns to fight the japanese or engaged in the civil war.[/QUOTE]
ya. just because shaolin monks trained firearms doesn’t prove they trained firearm
