I constantly hear people talking about which is better: “the traditional man getting good at one style to the point of mastery.” Or “the evolutionary man who learns whatever he can, mastering a few techniques from a few styles, to create what works for him.”
Where do you all stand on this? Considering that real fighting has no preferences, what do you do to combat and deal with this truth?
“From one thing know ten thousand” - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings
I suppose I’d say that traditionally, martial arts are eclectic. And that what we now regard as being traditional was actually a few steps further than that.
If martial arts had their origins in personal combat (without discounting other more esoteric notions), then I fully expect that those martial artists had some experience with various sorts of attacks. Either you were prepared to handle the guy tackling you and trying to stick a knife in your forehead or you weren’t. Proof was in the pudding and the knife wasn’t lodged in the forehead.
I think that what we term ‘traditional’ arts really came about when we got too comfortable. When personal combat was no longer a reality for most of us. So we could settle into a routine, get comfortable with what we knew and understood, and overlook what we didn’t.
Before I step on any toes, I believe that there are many traditional stylists out there that train in a way that is genuinely effective and truly traditional. I just don’t know that they’re the ones we picture when we use the word.
In short, traditional arts get a bum wrap. The distinction, to my mind, is eclectic (whether ‘modern’ or traditional) vs. noneclectic.
I regard myself as eclectic. And ‘modern’ if I had to put a label on it. I do believe that you have to experience something to be prepared for it. And that citing that your system “is a complete combat art” guarantees nothing. At the end of the day, I suppose the formula is the same. Guy tries to stick a knife in your head, either you can handle it or you can’t.
I don’t mean to discount the more esoteric aspects to an art either. I just think they afford more leeway. Less self evidence. Some guys talk about mushin and prana. Some guys talk about adrenaline dumps and fight-or-flight responses. But they’re all efforts to address the same basic human truths.
Not even sure I answered the question after all that.
Yeah I like that statement…can you believe its mine too? Hopefully no one will take it.
Stuart, I liked your reply and agree fully on what you said. I think that its right on. At least in my opinion.
I feel that when styles stopped evolving…and just tried to stick to exactly what they were told to do and nothing else, thats where the downfall of a lot of Traditional arts occurred. Their achilles heel was the fact that they were no longer pliable, and flexable in what they did. It was “this way” only, and “this way” was the best. To think that one has all the answers is a fallacy, dont you agree?
“From one thing know ten thousand” - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings
I consider myself eclectic. I believe that to be best prepared, I need to be proficient in all ranges of combat and at least experienced different styles and training in different ranges. I currently train in northern shaolin, but have trained in muay thai, grappling, karate, jun fan and kali. I had several friends who were boxers, tkd stylists and wrestlers, so I’ve had pretty good exposure to several different styles and methods of fighting also.
“You ain’t got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I’ll choke a ***** out wit his own gi” - Rass Kass
Now lets say, where does the difference lie in augmenting or enhancing a particular style (say one you were a sifu in) and bastardizing it ?
Most Traditional schools of thought wouldnt dare to take away or add to their art, as that would be almost blasphemy.
Then you have those (like myself) who have no choice but to take what he or she has learned through the years and formulate it into a personal fighting system, while even sometimes giving it a tangible descriptive term.
Much like Seven star and Im sure many of the others here on this board, too, have a good amount of exerience in various arts. The reasons range from just wanting to learn something different, to geographical relocation, etc. Thats besides the point. Do you try to keep seperate all that you have learned? I would think that its an inherent and subconcious act of blending all that you know into one cohesive art. If you absorb it, then it becomes part of you does it not?
So then that being the question at hand, where does the line change from enhancing to bastardizing? Is is a matter or perception?
“From one thing know ten thousand” - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings
I wouldn’t say that I bastardize the style because it’s my style. I train in Northern shaolin currently. I don’t add karate techniques to my forms during training. I keep the methods separate, as that’s the way I learned them. The blending comes in when I fight. When I’m sparring or in the ring, I don’t just use one style, I use the techniques I know work for me, regardless of what style they come from. In class the low block is commonly used to block kicks. I don’t like that too much - I prefer to raise my leg, or drop my elbows, as in muay thai. By not using other techniques that I feel are effective just because they are from another style, I am only limiting myself
“You ain’t got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I’ll choke a ***** out wit his own gi” - Rass Kass
you are taught down blocks against kicks? wow man maybe you need to learn from another teacher, no disrespect here but that is so dangerous for the defender its not funny!
my view on this topic guys is every system has or should have the main fighting ranges, kicking, punching, trapping and grappling(stand up or ground)…forms are the answer its all there, anti grappling techniques, long and short range fighting as well as pressure points!
no need to go and study judo, to add grappling to kung fu! its all there in the forms…
Dangerous? Not really. They also raise the leg (golden rooster), but mainly the low block. When I was in karate, we also used the low block. Before getting into muay thai, I used the low block, and have used it in fights. I have never had a problem from it. I just prefer to use my hands for defense above waist level. What is the problem that you see with them? Are you referring to someone feigning with a kick to get you to drop that hand, then moving in? That could pose a problem, you just have to know when to block with what. My sifu is very good, and our sigung is regarded as an excellent fighter
“You ain’t got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I’ll choke a ***** out wit his own gi” - Rass Kass
“no need to go and study judo, to add grappling to kung fu! its all there in the forms…”
I think this is what Van is talking about when he referred to styles not evolving. I agree with you to an extent, it is in the forms, but
The throws and locks contained in CMA forms that I have seen are applied while standing. You CAN do the locks from the ground, but you need to practice on the ground against a resisting opponent to do so (we do grapple in class, but not all schools do), not just forms practice. That being said, by cross training in grappling, I get constant training in ground grappling, which gives me the opportunity to apply the locks I learn in forms on the ground.
In my oppinion, in order to be properly prepared for the street, you need experience against things like a double leg take down, for example. What better way to get that than by training in grappling or from time to time working out with a grappler? There are many (I’m not saying you, as I have no idea) that say “If he does this, I’ll do this, based on the application in the form” but when you try it, it often doesn’t work that easily, especially when dealing with grappling.
How common was it for a kung fu practitioner to get double legged back in the day? I would imagine that it was very rare, but it is a fairly common thing now. In order to be an effective fighter, you have to evolve in order to be able to deal with these things, IMO
“You ain’t got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I’ll choke a ***** out wit his own gi” - Rass Kass
“OK so you rush me going for the takedown, but what if i palm strike your nose bone up through your brain, your right the fight did go to the ground, but you aint getting up!!!”
He was hopefully either joking or trolling, but sadly, people do think along these lines. THEORETICALLY, it like this. REALISTICALLY, they find out something different. That’s why grappling has had the impact that it has had on the MA community.
“You ain’t got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I’ll choke a ***** out wit his own gi” - Rass Kass
I saw that post too. I wanted to say something but figured he would get enough flame from everyone else. So I left it be.
And yes Sevenstar, that is what I was talking about. Those that thought that everything under the sun could be found in their forms…they just have to “find it”. (Which often times is simply the imagination of how many things “this could be”)
It’s true that forms have many applications, and that some chinese martial arts styles do contain ELEMENTS from just about every range. But that also doesnt mean that they often times practice that range to a proper and viable extent. When I studied Shaolin, I learned their kicks, I learned their strikes, I learned chin na from a stand up, Shui Jiao, I also learned weapons. Lots of good info huh?
To make a point, I have never ever seen a shaolin class teach a “form” where you are on the ground defending an imaginary grappler. Have you? (and if you have, that still wont make you good at it unless you go against those that are)
It is my belief, that a style can not encompass all things to an equal extent. You may get a little bit here and there…but nothing to actually specialize, as that in itself is the downfall. Sure this form set has one chin na in it. Doesnt mean you can grapple. See what I mean? Going against and learning from the ones that specialize in a certain area gives you a tremendous advantage. Its similiar to the phrase, “always learn from the best teacher”
“From one thing know ten thousand” - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings
“you are taught down blocks against kicks? wow man maybe you need to learn from another teacher”
What one finds useless another finds useful. Didn’t you say that “its all in the forms”? The gaan sau (low block) to defend against the gurk (kick) is very common in gung fu forms…
But could you elaborate as to how it is dangerous? I was curious myself. In wing chun, whenever we do that particular block, we’re also moving in at an angle and hitting you with the other hand at the same time.
I mean when you really get down to it, its all dangerous, and there’s always a chance you’re going to get hit right? Were just looking for the most efficient means to an end. But please, elaborate for us as to the specific dangers you speak of…
“From one thing know ten thousand” - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings
Adaptation versus bastardization? I suppose it’s a question of perception. And of priorities. It’s a matter of where your loyalties lay in your own head. Do they lay with a particular style? If so, then alterations to or even queries about that style may be perceived as a bad thing.
But if your loyalty lays with yourself (developing your own personal method), the ‘real’ world, or a philosophical notion of ‘truth’, then it becomes adaptation. You become the center, and you draw relevant ideas to you from all sides, as you see fit.
That’s my feeling anyway. I certainly have no problem with someone sticking to a given style. And what’s more, I think they’ll discover depths to that style that I never will. It only makes sense. Someone who’s trained in taekwondo for 17 years is going to find nuances that make it more effective (if that’s what they’re looking for) that I didn’t find in my 6 years in taekwondo.
I think that’s what makes so much of the prevailing “this style does this and that style does that” attitude so pointless. Styles don’t define a person unless the person chooses to be defined. Otherwise, the style is shaped by the stylist. And their priorities, experience, and abilities are what will make their art effective, eclectic, traditional, and so on.
“Evolution is a part of life, those that don’t adapt will perish”
The same applies to everything we do. If you want to survive, then you must accept true knowledge for being just that…the truth. Do not get caught up in superficial boundries and such. Waste of time waste of time.
I think the analogy of the collegiate major/minor works very well here. Major in an art that you love, minor in other arts to ehance your styles shortcomings.
“From one thing know ten thousand” - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings
tonight in class, one of my sihings and I were going over some grappling techniques with a couple of students who are about to enter a local grappling tourney. My sihing and I both fall into the eclectic category. I have another sihing that does not. While we were showing a particular takedown, he came over and said “You know, in a real fight, from there you should just kick him in the nuts and hit him in the throat” The eclectic sihing and I were like “yeah, whatever” and kept training.
“You ain’t got enough calcium to have a bone to pick wit me,
like a Gracie, I’ll choke a ***** out wit his own gi” - Rass Kass
“To make a point, I have never ever seen a shaolin class teach a “form” where you are on the ground defending an imaginary grappler. Have you? (and if you have, that still wont make you good at it unless you go against those that are)”
If it can be presumed that a technique has been handed down for generations it had some value to it for Life/Death environment, If one truely understands the technique it can be applied inseveral of it’s variations without practicing those variations. And like the arcade player who gets used to how the computer moves~, even for different movement styles and mass or power hitters and damage takers; working with a partner or partners with what you’ll want to try in a real fight~. But that’s the same-ish as going over forms–it’s learning the technique or learning it better. The Kung-Fu person does stiil need to train to understand the control, resistance, effects of actually using it, but they are bot learning what to do.
Theoretically, some might say, that a real fighter must be able to analyse stuff they haven’t trained against and see how what they have trained fits in to this situation to deal with what they haven’t trained against. Trainging for realism is something. Yet it seems nearly not anything compared to actually really understanding the technique(s).
Kung-Fu has more than one form. Not all of these forms are the same. Each form contains something. While, each many to each form might contain a little of everything; not each form contains everything. One must be expert in several forms to be the greatest-type fighter. Unless that person or persons studyied a form that was broad enough in a little of everthing that the variations could deal with everything~.
Knowing one or a few, or a great many does not ensure that you are expert at any of the techniques…it is not necessarily enough to know…
No_Know
Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.
