[QUOTE=Brule;1178496]I understood his post as a compliment to short hand systems. The complicated flowery techniques are removed and it goes straight to the point. What the saying about to be a good fighter? 1) is having the balls 2) strength(??) 3) is the kung fu. He seems to say that short hand puts courage at the top.[/QUOTE]
it was not a compliment to the guys in that video. they are trying to bridge and my opinion is bridging doesnt work, and in actual history southern martial artists didnt bridge in real fights.
the first video has the classic wing chun dilema: everything looks fine and works until you give a hook punch. the second video has magical techniques: one guy freezes and lets other guy give 10 punch combos.
I was posting some demonstrations of the system to give people a feel for it, now look at all the supposition taking place here.
Muay Thai, Silat, San Shou, TKD, Boxing, you name it, all a person has to say is “I would kick that guy in the leg before he hit me”, “He can’t stop a good double or single leg”, etc.
It’s pretty easy to take pot shots without having to back up your position.
im not taking potshots, im pointing out an obvious thing. you are trying to make bridging work. and im saying it wont work.
[QUOTE=Golden Arms;1178530]
It’s pretty easy to take pot shots without having to back up your position.[/QUOTE]
oral tradition from my area in china says when southern fighters actually fight, they dont bridge.
when you or one of your students experience real pain and humiliation trying to pull off those moves, you will understand what i feel and why i say these things.
[QUOTE=Golden Arms;1178530]I was posting some demonstrations of the system to give people a feel for it, now look at all the supposition taking place here.
Muay Thai, Silat, San Shou, TKD, Boxing, you name it, all a person has to say is “I would kick that guy in the leg before he hit me”, “He can’t stop a good double or single leg”, etc.
It’s pretty easy to take pot shots without having to back up your position.[/QUOTE]
yep but the obvious reply is Thai and san shou can post clips of their guys making what they do work in a full contact environment, so they tend to get a ride when complaint demo’s are shown…and bawang is making some good points, both about the static compliant nature of the demos and southern arts in general, just because you dont like them doesn’t mean he is wrong
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1178463]Yep, BUT ( arguably) it fits better as a “finishing” system like most short hand ones do.[/QUOTE]
is that because the style lacks something, or because you need fighting experience to make it work and that’s easier gained through longer distance fighting that can be gloved up and spar easier typically?
if its the latter then why make up forms and complicated compliment drills, why not drill the techniques from the style under increasing resistance or do another style that allows you to glove up and go for it?
if its the former then learn a different style, dont just simple extrapolate from the existing art because chances are whats missing will still be missing
[QUOTE=Golden Arms;1178435]Short Fist uses a different set of strategies and works great against longer range systems …[/QUOTE]
The “short fist” and the “long fist” are 2 extreams.
The short fist emphasizes on both hands can strike at your opponent with the same reach. In order to do that, your arms and chest have to be in 90 degree angle.
The long fist emphasizes on the maximum reach. In order to do that, your arm and chest have to be in 180 degree angle. This will cause 1 long arm and 1 short arm.
Which approach is better? One’s PRO is the other’s CON and the other way around. To say that “short fist” is better than “long fist” is like to say “striking” is better than “grappling”. Both have it’s place in combat.
[QUOTE=Golden Arms;1178543]I think I am done wasting my time.[/QUOTE]
I think you are being to hard on Bawang, he is stating an opinion and one based on his view of classical TCMA history.
If falls on you to argue your point,that’s all.
That is what forums are about.
I agree AND disagree with Bawang.
I do NOT think that bridging is effective in a striking context BUT do believe that it works very well in the transition from striking to clinching or vice-versa ( VS attempted grabs as opposed to strikes for example or using a strike to lead into clinch work as another example).
The issue with bridge work in this day and age of the MA is that it WILL lead to stand-up grappling ( clinch work) which MAY lead to ground work.
As such BOTH must be addressed by short hand systems that like to bridge ( Like Wing Chun).
Personally I don’t use bridging unless I want to clinch.
[QUOTE=Frost;1178613]is that because the style lacks something, or because you need fighting experience to make it work and that’s easier gained through longer distance fighting that can be gloved up and spar easier typically?
if its the latter then why make up forms and complicated compliment drills, why not drill the techniques from the style under increasing resistance or do another style that allows you to glove up and go for it?
if its the former then learn a different style, dont just simple extrapolate from the existing art because chances are whats missing will still be missing[/QUOTE]
In my personal opinion it is because “short hand” systems work against our natural “inclinations” ( we move in instead of out, get in close instead of creating distance, rely on short power - impluse0 over momentum based strikes, etc).
The advantage is that you bring something different to the table, the disadvantage is that it takes longer to make work without a prior martial art.
I would also like to add that, IMO, fighting and cross testing is even MORE crucial the more a system is “unique”.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1178635]In my personal opinion it is because “short hand” systems work against our natural “inclinations” ( we move in instead of out, get in close instead of creating distance, rely on short power - impluse0 over momentum based strikes, etc).
The advantage is that you bring something different to the table, the disadvantage is that it takes longer to make work without a prior martial art.
I would also like to add that, IMO, fighting and cross testing is even MORE crucial the more a system is “unique”.[/QUOTE]
But what does that prior martial art give you, if they are so different, simply time under pressure and an ability to be calm in combat because you are experienced at giving and receiving shots in a style that is more natural to the body and our instincts ?
if this is correct, and I think you are ….. why develop a long arm version which from what we have seen doesn’t have hard contact and still has the same traits as bakmei, ie you generate power the same, you move inwards not create distance…are you simply training the same non natural attributes at a slightly longer range, how is that helping?
[QUOTE=Frost;1178637]But what does that prior martial art give you, if they are so different, simply time under pressure and an ability to be calm in combat because you are experienced at giving and receiving shots in a style that is more natural to the body and our instincts ?
if this is correct, and I think you are ….. why develop a long arm version which from what we have seen doesn’t have hard contact and still has the same traits as bakmei, ie you generate power the same, you move inwards not create distance…are you simply training the same non natural attributes at a slightly longer range, how is that helping?[/QUOTE]
Prior MA gives you a “launch platform” of sorts, think doing Olympic lifts or power lifts and how they translate to stronger isolation moves as opposed to only doing isolation moves.
You can get a strong bicep curl by doing bicep curls ( isolation) but you get there stronger by doing pulling compounds and then doing isolation work.
Easier to go from big to small than to start small.
Remember basic MA 101?
First time you are taught to defend VS a punch or kick it is to “step back” and counter, why? more natural and easier.
2nd stage is the “bridge” - defend and counter as ONE.
Final stage is “no bridge” - attack IS defense.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1178639]Prior MA gives you a “launch platform” of sorts, think doing Olympic lifts or power lifts and how they translate to stronger isolation moves as opposed to only doing isolation moves.
You can get a strong bicep curl by doing bicep curls ( isolation) but you get there stronger by doing pulling compounds and then doing isolation work.
Easier to go from big to small than to start small.
Remember basic MA 101?
First time you are taught to defend VS a punch or kick it is to “step back” and counter, why? more natural and easier.
2nd stage is the “bridge” - defend and counter as ONE.
Final stage is “no bridge” - attack IS defense.[/QUOTE]
But that is not the same as developing a system to teach a specific art is it? Prior experience will of course help, it does with anything
if I go to bakmei from a decade in CLF and thai boxing, will I pick it up easier than someone just entering MMA? of course simply because of all you write about
If I go straight to a bakmei class and they say no I can’t learn the art because I need to take a course in long arm first, will I really be better than the guy who went to another sifu and just simply took bakmei for the year I did long arm?
[QUOTE=Frost;1178642]But that is not the same as developing a system to teach a specific art is it? Prior experience will of course help, it does with anything
if I go to bakmei from a decade in CLF and thai boxing, will I pick it up easier than someone just entering MMA? of course simply because of all you write about
If I go straight to a bakmei class and they say no I can’t learn the art because I need to take a course in long arm first, will I really be better than the guy who went to another sifu and just simply took bakmei for the year I did long arm?[/QUOTE]
Every case is unique and NO, I don’t think that a highly specialized MA like Bakmei NEEDS you to know a prior MA.
No MA every needs prior MA experience, but I have found that the more specialized the system the BETTER it is to have prior MA experience.
[QUOTE=Frost;1178613]is that because the style lacks something, or because you need fighting experience to make it work and that’s easier gained through longer distance fighting that can be gloved up and spar easier typically? if its the latter then why make up forms and complicated compliment drills, why not drill the techniques from the style under increasing resistance or do another style that allows you to glove up and go for it?
if its the former then learn a different style, dont just simple extrapolate from the existing art because chances are whats missing will still be missing[/QUOTE]
This is just my opinion but, I think most people misunderstand the whole forms and drills thing… I think people give too much credit to forms and drills at times and not enough at other times! I don’t think forms were ever meant to create a fighter like movies portray. Forms and drills were meant to be used to help a person understand speed, timing, distance etc… when there was no teacher around. They were a way to catalog movements, techniques etc..
In keeping with tradition a lot of that stuff was deemed secret and blah blah blah! The meaning was lost and people have used forms as a crutch since! I have never heard my sifu say you’ll be a fighter from training forms or the drills we have… he has always stated that you have to touch hands (fight) to be a fighter! You need to be hit so you can suffer the pain of being hit… if you can’t suffer the pain then you’re fooling yourself!
[QUOTE=Golden Arms;1178406]Here are a couple videos of Short Fist Boxing, I know that few have seen what it looks like. I don’t think I can embed vimeo videos so I just put them in here as links.Short Fist is a system built to teach Pak Mei fighting concepts and shapes quickly. A student that gets good at it would then have many of the tools needed to hit the ground running with Pak Mei.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=jmd161;1178656]This is just my opinion but, I think most people misunderstand the whole forms and drills thing… I think people give too much credit to forms and drills at times and not enough at other times! I don’t think forms were ever meant to create a fighter like movies portray. Forms and drills were meant to be used to help a person understand speed, timing, distance etc… when there was no teacher around. They were a way to catalog movements, techniques etc..
In keeping with tradition a lot of that stuff was deemed secret and blah blah blah! The meaning was lost and people have used forms as a crutch since! I have never heard my sifu say you’ll be a fighter from training forms or the drills we have… he has always stated that you have to touch hands (fight) to be a fighter! You need to be hit so you can suffer the pain of being hit… if you can’t suffer the pain then you’re fooling yourself![/QUOTE]
You wanna unlock the secrets of any MA? than you do what the developers of that MA did when they created it, you fight and you fight other systems, just like they did.