Something else I was thinking about...How do you approach the traditional vs eclectic styles fightin

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Street/Reality Fighting
21

“If it can be presumed that a technique has been handed down for generations…”

I doubt groundfighting was a major issue in china back then, or they would have more ground fighting in the system. Neither the cold hard ground up north, or the softer gunk down south were conducive to rolling on the ground, so they probably avoided it. Asphalt is not an ideal place to get taken down either, but today it happens. so today, it is good to have some grappling experience. Even if you don’t crosstrain, you should spar with a grappler

“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).”

The problem with theory, some might say, it that you don’t want to be on the streets at the time of testing~the theory. Analysing is what the fighter should do while training, so that they don’t have to go through that step while they are getting their head handed to them on the street~

“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 Kas

22

However, that way, unless you go over every possibility with partners, you aren’t necessarily prepared for the next encounter.

Partner people seemingly become dependant on dealing with what they’ve worked-on. If they haven’t worked the variations or something on the street they haven’t trained in Their thinking doesn’t allow them to adapt. A theorist can understand how to adapt. -general broad claims :-)~

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

23

All ranges covered in some traditions…

This is an excerpt from an interview with Matsumura Orthodox Shorin Ryu Matser Hohan Soken in the 70s. Soken was the grand nephew of Sokon Matsumura, grandfather of the amalgam of Shaolin combat techs and the Okinawan fighting traditions called 'Te" or “Ti”, now generically called Karate. I have been a practitioner of one type of Shorin or another all my adolescent and adult life. Our style covers all the bases, but I still cross-train in BJJ and other arts to tighten my all-around skill. I agree that the stylists makes the style. Anyways enuff of the rant, here’s what Soken says about “traditional karate”: “[It should also be noted that Soken preferred to speak in his native dialect of Hogen. He often stated that he did not care for the Japanese language that much. – Editor]”

Interviewer: Sensei, you say that Shorin-ryu Matsumura Seito Karate-do is an old style with many secrets. Since you also say that you are getting old, what do you feel needs to be passed on to modem day students of Okinawan karate?

Sensei: There are many secrets in karate that people will never know and will never understand. These ideas are really not secret if you train in Okinawa under a good teacher. You will see the teacher use these so called secret techniques over and over again until they will become common knowledge to you. Others will look at it and marvel that it is an advanced or secret technique to them. That is because they do not have good teachers or their teachers have not researched their respective styles.

Karate is much more than simple punching and kicking and blocking. It is the study of weaponry and of grappling. Weaponry and empty hand fighting go together. How can you learn about defending against a weapon unless you are familiar with what the weapon can do?

[Soken-sensei used the Spanish word for wrestling when describing this art-form but I felt that a more apt term would be grappling - much like Japanese-style jujutsu. He stated that many people often referred to the Okinawan grappling arts as Okinawan-style wrestling mainly because it was never systematized and looked like a free-for-all form of fighting.

Soken-sensei continued by stating that as a youngster on Okinawa, that grappling was taken very seriously and it was not uncommon for individuals to suffer broken arms and legs as a result of taking part in this light form of entertainment. Soken-sensei would use the terms “te-kumi” or “gyaku-te” as identifying this old Okinawan art form.

The danger of reminding Soken-sensei of the “old methods of playing” was that he would often stand up, grab you, and then apply one of these painful methods of common people entertainment - he enjoyed watching Americans “squeaking like a mouse who had been stepped on.” – Editor]

The entire interview is very refreshing. My sensei trained with him in the 60s and 70s. Soken moved to Argentina before WWII in order to avoid fighting for and teaching Japanese soldiers what he knew. He returnred to Okinawa in the early 50s to find Karate in a sad state. His ideas about being a good karateka and a good reality fighter are pretty advanced for the early 70s. He lived to almost 100 years old, and practiced his art up until 2 years before his death. If folks think that Bruce had a monopoly on cross-training they are wrong. This is how all fighting traditions should be approached. Whether traditional or modernized, reality always defines efficacy when it comes to self-protection.

24

“A theorist can understand how to adapt.”

no doubt, but can the theorist apply his theories for the first time while getting his head kicked in?

“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

25

If you look back at all the ‘traditional’ systems, the best pracitioners were the ones that were well rounded. Unlike today’s society, however, they had a strong foundation in their primary art BEFORE exploring other systems.

Things that took several years to develop included a good horse, sensitivity, coordination of the body, rooting, and application of power.

In modern society, the average person does not have the time, patience, or attention span to dedicate the amount of time for these skills. Nowadays, the majority of people are technique collectors and only a small minority have the patience to develop really solid basics. There are only 24 hours in a day and more things that require your time than 200 years ago.

Many of the ‘traditional’ systems have a set of underlying principles towards combat. The forms, drills, partner work, etc. are the methodology that the sifu uses to teach the student. This methodology, however, is only as good as the teacher and student and can take several years before true understanding even begins. Look at your own clasmates and observe the differing skill levels even though they train under the same instructor. Some people get it, and some peope don’t.

In today’s more civilized society, those who don’t get it are just as likely to teach as those who do. The arts become diluted and it is up to the students to seek out the best instructor they can find.

I am a mixture of traditional and modern, but I don’t consider myself eclectic. I don’t believe that combat can be broken down so simply into ranges, cultures, or techniques. I believe that a strong foundation is important first and some systems and instructors are better at teaching it than others. After the foundation is learned, it’s easy to see how all the MA are trying to teach you the same thing, just using different methods. Only then does it help to cross train. I enjoy training with others of different systems because it opens my mind and shows me different perspectives and methods. Without the foundation, the house might as well be made of cards. Ultimately, however, its just a matter of application.

Dzu

26

All too often, the need to crosstrain is due to the incomplete training in a single style of student or teacher or both.

27

Heres what Im failing to understand

What I keep hearing from hardcore traditionalists is the idea that “the only reason one needs to cross train is because he is deficient in what he’s doing.”

This idea comes off to me in other words as, “it’s because you’re not perfect at what you do.” And that in itself is a fallacy. No one is perfect at what they do, nor will they ever be.
In a perfect world that statement would hold water, but not in real life, not with imperfect beings such as ourselves.

Keep in mind that everyone at one point must change. It’s the way of life. It’s okay to hold true to where the things came from, but to limit yourself from stubborness or from a fear of change is ultimately self defeating isnt it?

Like I said, I think it is better to pick a style that one can embrace fully, their major. And then go ahead and enhance yourself as a martial artist by minoring, and learning a bit or all of some other art(s) that deal in areas your style might be lacking in. And yes, no style, is complete, sorry to burst your traditional bubbles.

So then correct me if Im wrong, but do you actually think that the totality of real fighting can be found in your style of martial arts?

“From one thing know ten thousand” - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

28

Also to No know:

“Partner people seemingly become dependant on dealing with what they’ve worked-on. If they haven’t worked the variations or something on the street they haven’t trained in Their thinking doesn’t allow them to adapt. A theorist can understand how to adapt.”

Those are unsubstantiated claims as well. The difference to me is, that partner people will have more experience doing what they practice hands on, rather then imaginary application. And if they train with the proper mindset, in a spontaneous manner, making sure to analyze the variations, then in my opinion they are one up on the “theorists” that you speak of. Would you rather learn how to ride a bike from someone who’s actually ridden one for years or someone who has never seen a bike, but just read books on the different ways one could ride a bike?

The answer to me is clear.

“From one thing know ten thousand” - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

29

Oh! and then theres something else Id like to clarify on…

What Im talking about, when I say complete fighting, or totality of fighting, is not simply having one of two techniques from every “range”, but rather one who has EXPERIENCE with those different ranges, and has put in some time dealing with the variety of situations one can find himself in. Does that make sense?

To make an example, some people nowadays are saying that they have techniques from all ranges:

“We have punching, kicking, shui jiao, chin na, grappling, sweeping, jumping, pressure point fighting, etc.”

What this usually equates to is:

Lots of forms that contain plenty of punches and kicks, some prearranged sets (no so much forms) that are with partners that you learn maybe two or three throws, also within those partner sets you will see a handful of chin na from standing. The grappling might be an insertion from recent events, or something “hidden” in the formset. The pressure point fighting is because they learned some of the basic meridians, and common points that even club bouncers know about.

Now this doesnt mean that you have a good working knowledge of any of those “ranges” let alone experience. What needs to be done to be good, is to have a hands on “workshop” in various areas, where you can see the things that work and dont work, getting some real training hours in instead of just practicing a few techniques in the air or in a prearranged set with a compliant partner.

Hopefully this doesnt seem like Im attacking anyone in here, Im not. So pleeeeeeaaase dont get sensetive on me. Im just trying to get to the bottom of this thinking ya know? So when you debate this, which Im hoping you will, use logic, rather then degenerate into insults as Ive seen on other threads please thank you!

“From one thing know ten thousand” - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

30

It’s an interesting point that crosstraining is made ‘necessary’ by a student who didn’t get the whole picture in his base style or by an instructor who wasn’t skilled enough to present the whole picture.

But if a teacher is capable of presenting the totality of martial art while still adhering to one style, it seems to me that it’s because someone somewhere along the lineage of that art was eclectic. Someone crosstrained. And that was passed on to the point that students today don’t need to crosstrain.

If such schools exist, I say great. Sounds good. I don’t think there’s any inherent need to crosstrain if your school is addressing your needs. The only thing is that it takes a certain amount of understanding and honesty with yourself to figure out whether your needs genuinely are being met. If they really are, then game on, as far as I’m concerned.

One of the arguments that is constantly passed along is that because style A has been practiced this way for so long, then there must be good reason for it. And therefore it must be effective. But if you look at it historically, imagine this:

A soldier in ages past trains a sword technique. He’s a good swordfighter. No questions asked. His swordwork is quick and precise. But then a new enemy is introduced into the mix. This new enemy has heavier armour, or horses, or bows, or whatever. All of a sudden, there’s a need for this soldier to wield a heavier sword (to cut through the heavier armour), or polearms (to deal with attackers on horseback), or larger shields (to protect against arrows). Presumably, he’s going to need new training to address that new situation. And that’s crosstraining. Now, maybe the results of that crosstraining remain in this soldier’s ‘style.’ Perhaps he teaches new recruits this style. Including the heavier sword, the polearm, and the shield. Now they have a more complete system.

But now it’s modern day. People don’t swordfight. Or ride horses. Or shoot arrows. They don’t wear armour either. So perhaps the elements of those arts that are no longer so pertinent fade a little. Teachers pay less attention to them in favour of techniques that are more timely. Or teachers simply have no experience applying polearm combat against horseback attackers. Etc. And slowly, what was a complete system changes. It’s still complete in that those elements are there. But they haven’t been aptly tested in a while because there’s not the need there once was. And because the system was indeed applicable for a while, there’s also not the sense that new needs should be investigated and addressed.

Safe to say that the ‘enemy’ today is a little different. We’re not fighting swordsmen or archers. Maybe handgunners. Maybe knifefighters. Maybe just drunks out for a Friday night pissup. presumably, much of that changes the combative landscape. while wrestling in armour may have been a nightmare (limited range of movement, difficult to get up again because of the weight, guys running around the battlefield stabbing you while you’re down), perhaps today it’s more of a likelihood. People aren’t fighting for keeps anymore. They’re not looking to kill an invader. Just to enforce their will. So your needs, as a defender, might change.

I don’t know. I’m not really making an argument here. Just thinking out loud.

What do you think?

Stuart B.

31

The heavier, bigger to fight the new, is not cross training. The soldier became expert in that technique for that style of fighting. And hopefully understands that there are only certain situations in which that technique is to be soundly used. This soldier desisted that style. This soldier began a style of fighting that was reasonabl as he will be dealing with it. Although he can’t practically use the literal technique of the lighter style, the mechanics develped from the looking-at and study and repetition of the concepts of that single technique are likely useable by comparison at least of the core of the heavier style.

Soldiers have divisions-ish. And specialize. If this Heavy style is the new warfare, the lighter system would not be used; as it is not suitable for a well equiped miltary. Pieces of the ligthter style might be mandatory instruction because, part of the new warfare requires ditching the heavier style methods when the armor or shields or sword has been demolised, elimiated or knocked off or knocked away–Judo, karatedo, Kendo, chado, Kyudo…There was perhaps an intensity that led to serenity that comes from having your life and another’s hinged on each decision/move/reaction you make~that there are pieces of in the Arts I mentioned. Without the skill, this Intensity (from realization) might not be the same as Juijitsu, Okinawan Kara-Te, Kenjistu, chajitsu, Kyujitsu…any more.

“no doubt, but can the theorist apply his theories for the first time while getting his head kicked in?”

Yes.

"And if they train with the proper mindset, in a spontaneous manner, making sure to analyze the variations, then in my opinion they are one up on the “theorists” that you speak of. "

If they do this then they are theorists.

“Would you rather learn how to ride a bike from someone who’s actually ridden one for years or someone who has never seen a bike, but just read books on the different ways one could ride a bike?”

If the booker read more than books on ways to ride a motorcycle–rules of the road, safty hazards of the road and other drivers, the best conditions for riding. Emergency situations when riding. How-to for simple motorcycle repair. Whose your friend when you’re a biker. Dangers of the road. People you meet on the road. Safty when you’re off your bike…and told me things that that person can’t tell me, then they would both say the same things. In this case, Either.

Your example is empty. Although it might have been the same as what I just outlined~ it looked a lot like an attempt to trap me into realizing that one needs more than book learning (under the presumption that book learning is seperated from actually understanding the words or the reality or application of the information).

A person would need to be cross-trained~ yet, this does not require cross-training.

[This message was edited by No_Know on 10-05-01 at 12:17 PM.]

[This message was edited by No_Know on 10-05-01 at 12:19 PM.]

32

No Know,

I believe that is crosstraining. Recognizing a deficiency in your personal abilities and seeking out a source of practical information.

You’ll love this part though. It’s largely semantics. Right? If I recognize a deficiency in my personal abilities and go to my own instructor for answers, it’s just progress. And if I go to another teacher, it’s crosstraining.

Maybe the soldier ditches the elements of his training that are no longer applicable. (After all, we don’t still teach the military to swordfight.) But that’s presumably because a soldier’s allegiance is to winning. But a teacher, who’s first allegiance might be to preserve and pass along an idea, might keep those elements of a previous style. Even though they aren’t necessarily applicable, they are a part of the whole that the teacher is attempting to preserve. That’s his goal.

That, to my mind, is the dichotomy. Whether you’re looking to preserve an art or to address specific issues. Either, I think, will lead to proficiency. It’s just a question of approach.

I have no earthly idea whether that makes sense. Put a fork in me. I’m pretty sure I’m done.

Stuart B.

33

I believe that the majority of people that cross-train in other arts do so because of a ‘deficiency’ in their core system. For example, some people may supplement Wing Chun with Eskrima, Tae Kwon Do with Judo, Muay Thai with Brazillian Jujutsu, etc.

If you look at the traditional styles, it was not uncommon for a student to have several Sifu or Sensei in certain skills. These Sifu or Sensei may have been well rounded, but they either had a preference or a specialty that they were known for. In many cases, the student was referred to another Sifu/Sensei more accomplished in another system to help augment the student’s skills.

The danger in being eclectic is that the underlying concept behind the technique may not be fully understood before discarding it or selecting it. The traditional systems were built from the ground up with certain specific concepts and approaches towards fighting. The techniques were based off of these concepts. When you selectively cut and paste techniques to create a melting pot, the conceptual part can be left behind.

For example, many in JKD use a strawman arguments against Wing Chun to justify Bruce Lee’s modifications. Wing Chun has it’s own method of generating power that is similar but not the same as Boxing. ALthough both are based upon human anatomy, the Wing Chun punch is tailored for Wing Chun footwork. You can try to make it work with Boxing footwork, but then you lose some of the little things that make it so effective to begin with. The reality is that they may be discarding based upon false assumptions without experiencing enough of Wing Chun to make an educated decision. The same can be said of many other Martial Arts that cross train for the sake of shoring up a deficiency.

I think it is important to be exposed to other systems and it can be fun to train in more than one. I also think that a strong core should be developed first so that later on, if the decision is made to train in another art, it’s an educated one.

All systems have evolved over time with each master contributing and making the changes. In a sense, they all are eclectic because a Martial arts system is more work than one person can perfect in a lifetime. You do your best and hope that your students can carry on your work by making their own contributions.

I’ve studied other systems, but it was always in search of one that fit me best. I still enjoy studying other systems, but I keep them separate and enjoy them on their own merits. The systems are nothing more than a collection of knowledge and training methods. In the end, it’s my own style and expression that is applied in combat, and not the system itself. I’m the one that hit you and not the system.

Dzu

[This message was edited by dzu on 10-05-01 at 03:50 PM.]

34

All very good points!

Wow, are you guys that post here the same ones that post on the main forum? Everyone here has very sound views on what works for them and I think that in the end that is all that matters.

Training in a system that deals with only one range of fighting, gives the practitioner a false sense of security. For example, many people who train in BJJ exclusively, without any knowledge of striking, think they will be as effective as a Gracie if they had to use it on the street. They may be right, for one-on-one encounters involving familiar terrain, and open spaces for groundwork.

Could you use this type of art in a confined, crowded place, or let’s say, on an airplane? Hmmmm, maybe and maybe not, depending upon whether or not you’ve drilled in BJJs Self-Defense techs. If all you do is train for Sport JJ comps, then your abilities might not be efficacious in certain situations. In fact, it could be a hindrance, and of no practical real-world use at all.

Similarly, a person who trains in Boxing or Muay Thai, may find that their styles don’t translate that well in a one-on-one grappling scenario. Flashbacks of the first couple’a UFCs come to mind. Muay Thai guys like to over-commit with their strikes, and this can lead to balance probs which would not be good on the street. Boxing guys put 10 pounds of gauze and tape on their hands when they fight and train, and this is not good for executing hard fist strikes on the street, hence the term “Boxer’s Fracture”.

I think in the end that we all train for different reasons. I know my training intentions are purely based on my experiences with knuckleheads in life. I also know that so far my training hasn’t had a negative physical or mental effect on me. I’ve been around the world and interacted with different cultures, each having a slightly different view on this subject.

Most of the real fighters I’ve had a privilege to meet and train under or interact with, had similar views on self-protection, though. Caique has basically the same opinion as to what to do in a real life scenario as did the excellent American, Okinawan and Filipino Senseis I’ve had the privilege to train under.

Conversely, my boxing coach and Judo sensei had more of a self-glory view about fighting and how it relates to money and prestige for yourself and your “art”. I didn’t necessarily agree with them, but I know where they are coming from. They never claimed to be teaching bujutsu or “martial science”, just violent sport, which can help or hinder you in the long run.

I learned many good techs when I boxed and trained Judo, but since then, I’ve learned effective real world solutions to the vexing problem of self-defense. That’s my feelings and I’m sticking to them.

One more thing. Many BJJ/GJJ guys that trained in Brazil, like all of the Gracies, Joe Moreira, the Machados, and Caique (to name a few) fought for the reals, on the street alot. These guys have practical fighting experience outside of a controlled venue. They don’t need to focus so much on the street stuff 'cause they already figured out what works for them. The emphasis on Sport JJ in the U.S. doesn’t hamper their street fighting skills at all, but for Americanos who during their adult life have never or rarely been involved in a street altercation, it just might. You fight like you train, period.

Oh yeah, Wasn’t that guy that bum-rushed those hijackers on the 3rd plane a Judoka? I wish we could actually know how effective he was in that situation. From the looks of things what he did worked to some degree. I think it’s apparent, though, that training in any legit MA will make you a better person in the long run, regardless of what your ideas behind fighting might be. Thanks for your attention. This was a great thread! Smart training…

35

To the Celtic son of…

Loveable concept ap Oweyn.

It was ditched for the battlefield’s new direction, yet he maintains and advances the lighter style for private and personal situations. As the heavier style is too lumbersome and defensive costly w/o the armor and shield and damage-done by the bigger sword.

Good position stumper, one’s own teacher progress~, another, crosstraining. Hence the invention of whatever whatevr, thingies, whatever you believe, and the such :slight_smile: .

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

36

Thought you’d appreciate that, No Know. :slight_smile:

37

It seems to me that whatever works for you, just works.

What I like about this thread is that we are analyzing everything, rather then just agreeing. I like your comment no know on my bike analogy. I didnt think of it in that way. I didnt even elaborate in my own mind to that extent. So its nice to sometimes see an idea from a different perspective.

Im not saying that one should always crosstrain or that being traditional is “bad” by any means. Im just saying that I think that those who are trapped in their own “Iron will” of theory, are doing themselves an injustice by not at least seeing what other sources have to offer.

Yeah

“From one thing know ten thousand” - Miyomato Musashi, Book of five rings

38

this has been an excellent thread

The marines have put in place a 12 million dollar training program which teaches MA to the marines, looking to make them all black belts. This takes eclecticism™ (I think I made up a new word) to a new height - the article I read referred to an intructor who was proficient with particular dim mak strikes, and another who preferred knives. It sounds like they are taking their MA experience and military tactics and creating theif own style, similar to the chinese lien bu chuan style. Their aim is to make a “gentleman warrior”.

“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

39

Every REAL kung fu teacher I ever had consistently taught the techniques of other forms.

My sifu, who is a master of his one style, always talks about Baji and Wing Chun and Pigua and Bagua and Hsing Yi and UFC and everything else he can think of.

However, he’s less interested in teaching me the actual techniques from those arts as he is in getting me to think of solutions to those problems using the style that I have.

I don’t think that it’s necessary for one to consistently train the techniques of other styles, depending on what one’s goal is.

40

Huang,

I think that’s a good point. The objective is perhaps not so much to master multiple styles (whatever ‘master’ means in this context) but to avoid being in situations that are completely foreign to you.

So while I might never be a brilliant grappler, at least I can get to a point where I’m not completely clueless in the face of a shoot. Or a double leg. Or whatever.

Stuart B.