in the MMA vs TCMA argument-TCMA who are realistic thinkers have all agreed that ALL TCMA is based on the idea that Kung-Fu is forever a work in progress, always evolving. This being said, many TCMA people who have little or no ground game are searching for answers, whether it be in BJJ ,Judo, Shuai-Jiao,Greco-Roman-whatever, the source doesn’t matter, technique-attributes is what counts.
TCMAers also aggree that it is all in the traiining-realistic trainng brings realistic results.period.
sure, there are some-SOME, that will cling to the line that they already have it, have always had it yadda-yadda. but if you aren’t training it, well YOU don’t have it. As much as parella and I don’t see eye to eye on our personal matters, I still give credit where credit is due, and he did what needed to be done-he sought out BJJ and is doing it, as many others are.(hopefully)
Basically, MMA and TCMA people-those that think realistically about their art and its future are in aggreement.
This argument can go on and on forever, but the few speaking for the many on either side is bullsh1t. So let it go. You won’t convince the ignorant, and those who know, aren’t getting caught up in the drama, they’re training.
The others,will argue till they’re blue in the face, will post claims, phoney challenges,etc/
let it go. It’s done. Let’s move on. Look at how much time and effort is wasted on this forum and many others in this pi$$ing match. Time is better spent training.
there is no TCMA v MMA argument.
We are just a bunch of ass holes making personal attacks on the internet. I couldn’t care less about defending some of the fruit cakes in TCMA. Nobody here is exempt from being an ass hole to somebody out there.
Sanjuro-ronin said it best. That you have to at least be training against qualified people of other arts to get the feel for their strategies. You may not adopt their strategies but you sure well will know what they are.
[QUOTE=TenTigers;779909]in the MMA vs TCMA argument-TCMA who are realistic thinkers have all agreed that ALL TCMA is based on the idea that Kung-Fu is forever a work in progress, always evolving. [/QUOTE]
At that point you are no longer being traditional, you broke the TMA label. IMO the worst thing to try and do is be progressive while attempting to remain in the TMA camp.
Proggressiveness is the greatest tradition in Chinese martial arts though :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=rogue;779921]At that point you are no longer being traditional, you broke the TMA label. IMO the worst thing to try and do is be progressive while attempting to remain in the TMA camp.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect.
[QUOTE=Ben Gash;779922]Proggressiveness is the greatest tradition in Chinese martial arts though :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
In ALL MA, not just Chinese.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;779925]In ALL MA, not just Chinese.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect.
[QUOTE=rogue;779921]At that point you are no longer being traditional, you broke the TMA label. IMO the worst thing to try and do is be progressive while attempting to remain in the TMA camp.[/QUOTE]
FAIL :mad:
So it can be done? You can make changes, point out ineffective and inefficient training methods and still get smile from grand masters X, Y and Z?
Please tell me how, as my experience has been otherwise.
WELLLLLLLL… It can be somewhat frustrating being progressive in TMA. The whole “teacher as infallible idol” thing is a major stumbling block for starters. Say your teacher’s teacher was a REALLY good puncher, won every fight he’d ever been in with punching alone. Say he wasn’t very talented at Chin Na or Shuai Jiao? It’s not a problem for him because he’s a great puncher, he learns the applications his Sifu showed him, but he never really got a feel for them and didn’t understand the little things that made them work.
He then teaches your teacher. Because your teacher started in the US in the early 80s, and comes from a middle class neighbourhood, he’s never fought a challenge match and he’s never been in a serious self defence situation. He did some sport karate tournaments and did OK. He’s not quite the puncher his Sifu is, but he’s learning TCMA from a great fighter, so he knows what he’s getting must be good. He carefully learns all the stuff he’s taught, trying hard to replicate it exactly.
You start with your teacher in the mid '90s, your teacher shows you everthing EXACTLY as he learned it. He learned it from a great fighter, so it must be good, right? But we’ve already ascertained that his teacher wasn’t actually anygood at locks and throws. So somebody comes along who’s done a lot of wrestling at college and goes “this would work much better if you did this and this”. You go "that may be true in sport wrestling, but this is about reality, and these are the traditional methods passed down from my Sigung, who was a great fighter, so they must be better :rolleyes:
While sometimes I think it’s sad that Ross and MK have distanced themselves from TCMA, I can understand why.
well, for me, seeing how Guys like Wong Fei-Hung,Chan Heung,Tarm Sarm, Lum Wing-Fei all took methods from different sources to modify what they already had, Since Siu-Lum Ji was a melting pot of many different sources,how Tung Hai-Chuen gave his concepts to several disciples, all masters of their own system, who then took the Bot Gua concepts and then created the many styles of Bot-Gua, How Tai-Chi was Siu-Lum movements with Taoist concepts, which Yang Lu-Chan again modified to fit within his owm personal experience..I can go on…This is the real tradition. Evolution. Sticking with the steam engine, when others’ technology have evolved past the internal combustion engine, to nuclear power is not tradition, it’s decay. All the so-called traditional arts were created over time,and constant refinement-research and development. This is the tradition we follow.
I happen to teach alot of kicks. I like kicks. I also know how to deal with kicks. My students now know this as well. I also have studied under teachers who did not kick, and their students not only cannot kick, but cannot defend against someone who can. Now some people can stick up their nose and claim that now what I teach is not traditional. I have a teacher who is in his seventies, and a hardcore traditionalist from Guangzhao. He added more kicking techniques to his Hung Kuen-for the same reasons! (probably why we get along so well-kindered spirits) You can bet if he saw the recent “developments” TCMA are doing with their systems by incorperating methods from groundfighting, even though Hung Kuen is a “stand up fighting system,” you can bet he’d applaud their efforts.
So would Wong Fei-Hung.
[QUOTE=rogue;779935]So it can be done? You can make changes, point out ineffective and inefficient training methods and still get smile from grand masters X, Y and Z?
Please tell me how, as my experience has been otherwise.[/QUOTE]
You can expand, improve and drop ineffective or inefficient techniques and still remain true to the “core” of your art. It is your job to add on and improve with the times. None of us are in 18th, 19th or even early to mid 20th century China.
We are fighting different people, different systems and an entirely differnt mindset. You admit there is inefficiency - what justice do you do yourself, your students or your art by continuing to train them? Why not improve them fill in the holes.
That is the true spirit of “martial arts” our job is to grow and to expand - and you can do all that and still keep true to your core. The grandmasters that you speak of - with all due respect to any elders in the systems across the board - they are not fighting TODAY - they had the opportunity to make their changes advancements to suit their time. Although I always respect and absorb any wisdom that comes from our “elders”, the rest of how I pass it along is up to me and if I feel something is pointless, will never be used or will get someone’s butt kicked if they try then why do it.
Just my opinion.
MK did you break from the traditional ranks? Does “FAIL” mean you agree or disagree with my opinion?
Ben,
Sounds like my experiences. And I do agree that change was part of the tradition, but somewhere along the way most arts harden up in their outlook. Look at a young art like JKD, they have branches that are very rigid in what they teach.
[QUOTE=rogue;779944]MK did you break from the traditional ranks? Does “FAIL” mean you agree or disagree with my opinion?[/QUOTE]
MK took his kung fu to the people! It’s my kung fu, not my teacher’s. I evolved it to fit my needs.
I disagree with your opinion.
[QUOTE=rogue;779928]Incorrect.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you are incorrect indeed.
[QUOTE=MasterKiller;779951]MK took his kung fu to the people! It’s my kung fu, not my teacher’s. I evolved it to fit my needs.
I disagree with your opinion.[/QUOTE]
That’s cool and the same attitude I had toward karate. The problem came from other karate people who were shocked that I dropped kata, most Japanese names for techniques, bowing (I shake hands) and most of the other traditions.
So if you consider yourself still a TCMA, do other TCMA still consider you one?
“I evolved it to fit my needs”
isn’t that how all our styles came about, judo, bjj kung fu, karate. if not, we’d all be beating each other with sticks and stones
[QUOTE=rogue;779957]That’s cool and the same attitude I had toward karate. The problem came from other karate people who were shocked that I dropped kata, most Japanese names for techniques, bowing (I shake hands) and most of the other traditions.
So if you consider yourself still a TCMA, do other TCMA still consider you one?[/QUOTE]
I haven’t abandoned kung fu entirely. I’m just focusing 100% on fighting right now while I’m young enough and healthy enough to internalize the skills. I still do forms, just not in class.
And whatever anyone else thinks of what I’m doing, if they have a beef we can cross hands and settle it. That is the kung fu way, afterall. 
Some definitions of “tradtional”:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traditional
- of or pertaining to tradition.
- handed down by tradition.
- in accordance with tradition.
- of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the older styles of jazz, esp. New Orleans style, Chicago style, Kansas City style, and Dixieland. Compare mainstream (def. 4).
traditional
adjective
- consisting of or derived from tradition; “traditional history”; “traditional morality” [ant: nontraditional]
- pertaining to time-honored orthodox doctrines; “the simple security of traditional assumptions has vanished”
[QUOTE=MasterKiller;779965]I haven’t abandoned kung fu entirely. I’m just focusing 100% on fighting right now while I’m young enough and healthy enough to internalize the skills. I still do forms, just not in class.
And whatever anyone else thinks of what I’m doing, if they have a beef we can cross hands and settle it. That is the kung fu way, afterall. ;)[/QUOTE]
Good attitude.
For me I found that over time I related less and less to my traditional cousins. Couldn’t see the point of having to discover what was in the art while others are busy working on, well, making things work.