All “styles” were created by guys who cross trained in many styles and creaed their own synthesis.
When people, who can speak multiple languages, speak it is often a dialect made up of the different languages they speak. “Chinglish” is an example. This dialect is neither of the two or three dominant languages but. Mix of the two. In the families I know the kids understand each other fine. It’s the grown ups that have the trouble often forcing my friends to try to stick to one language.
Martial arts are no different. A choy lee fut/mantis man would be interesting and more well rounded than someone who only studied one of the styles provided that:
[QUOTE=SavvySavage;989635]I must disagree with you on this point.
The methodologies of these two styles may LOOK different superficially. .[/QUOTE]
I must disagree with your disagreement. TT wasn’t saying that systems cannot be combined. I believe his point was that the styles were to be taught to beginners as separate entities. It’s very confusing to the student and, again, they use different structures and different strategies.
Chan Heung, for example, was able to learn from three teachers and end up with a good self-consistent style. A good system comprises the combined experiences from many sources as filtered through the nervous system of one genius (look up the etymology if you think I mean “a smart person”).
It isn’t impossible to learn two distinct systems at the same time. Just very difficult and time consuming. And perhaps a disservice to the students.
[QUOTE=SavvySavage;989635]I must disagree with you on this point.
That takes care of the power generation aspect.
[/QUOTE]
that is describing only one type of strike, as tucking the sacrum describes only one aspect of rooting, however SPM generates power from many different angles through various “coils,” and shifts, in a different manner than CLF.
Yes, we know that we all have two arms and two legs, and therefore in many cases, much of what we do will be the same, with differences being subtle and based on personal preferences. However, that does not negate that there are some styles that have developed a different method altogether, based on the weapons available at their desired range and outcome.
Will their fighting look different? Certainly. If both fighters are thoroughly trained to the point that their style is firmly ingrained in them, it will look very different. However, if both fighters merely practice some forms and a few drills, and mix that in with other stuff, what would you expect?
I think Sanjuro mentioned this-If you watch MMA, although many of the same techniques are used, you can see when a person comes to the ring with a strong Kyokushin or TKD backround, as opposed to Muay Thai. Sure, it may be subtle, or go completely unnoticed by the average viewer unschooled in these systems, but to a trained eye, it is obvious.
-and that is with two fighters using styles that share a great many similarities.
I agree with you, I am curious what a CLF/SPM stylist would be like.
Probably alot like Hung Kuen!
HG and SPM engage initially at a closer distance than CLF and CLF has the hands further away from the body’s center than HG and SPM.
And while all three use waist and hip to torque the power out to the hands, CLF tracks a much wider arc to develop power as opposed to the rather short arc that HG and SPM employ.
So while its not impossible to learn CLF and SPM at the same time, trying to teach them simultaneously will have students learning skill sets, postures and fighting theory that are different ends of the power generating spectrum and IMHO will inhibit a person from fully developing their potential.
I think you could do both at once - it’s just a question of emphasis; if you break down the different skills and clearly understand the requirements of each, you could do it; and remember, CLF was made up of 3 parts and, AFAIK, the “Faht” aspect is all the shorter range palm work which isn’t completely alien from SPM-type stuff;
the trick with teaching any curriculum is in clearly delineating what one is teaching and how one aspect of it relates to another (even if they are associated more by their differences than anything else);
I think that if the teacher was skilled enough in each and also knew HOW to teach, it would be do-able;
it’s all human movement - it’s just a question of how one engages the system;
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;989985]I think you could do both at once - it’s just a question of emphasis; if you break down the different skills and clearly understand the requirements of each, you could do it; and remember, CLF was made up of 3 parts and, AFAIK, the “Faht” aspect is all the shorter range palm work which isn’t completely alien from SPM-type stuff;
the trick with teaching any curriculum is in clearly delineating what one is teaching and how one aspect of it relates to another (even if they are associated more by their differences than anything else);
I think that if the teacher was skilled enough in each and also knew HOW to teach, it would be do-able;
it’s all human movement - it’s just a question of how one engages the system;[/QUOTE]
very well put its all about human movement and as much as people like to believe it to be different, we all tend to move the same and have more simularites than differences
[QUOTE=Frost;990479]very well put its all about human movement and as much as people like to believe it to be different, we all tend to move the same and have more simularites than differences
as for the picture at the botom of the post :eek:[/QUOTE]
Does CLF contain Ha Hum Batt Boy? Or follow the principles of chum boy chum jeurng (sink the shoulder, sink the elbow)? If it doesn’t then its definitely not like SM or short hand systems. Understand, that those principles are just some of our basics in understanding how to generate power from a close distance with ging.
CLF was made up of 3 parts and, AFAIK, the “Faht” aspect is all the shorter range palm work which isn’t completely alien from SPM-type stuff;
actually…the Fut in our CLF is from Fut Gar Kuen that was passed down from Monk Ching Cho. Chan Fam uses alot of the palms, but the Jeung Hung Sing lineage has more FUT GAR KUEN in it than anything.
[QUOTE=hskwarrior;990561]actually…the Fut in our CLF is from Fut Gar Kuen that was passed down from Monk Ching Cho. Chan Fam uses alot of the palms, but the Jeung Hung Sing lineage has more FUT GAR KUEN in it than anything.[/QUOTE]
cool; would you characterize the Faht / Fut stuff as being more like so. short hand (SPM, BM, etc.) or not?
[QUOTE=Jorge;990538]Does CLF contain Ha Hum Batt Boy? Or follow the principles of chum boy chum jeurng (sink the shoulder, sink the elbow)? If it doesn’t then its definitely not like SM or short hand systems. Understand, that those principles are just some of our basics in understanding how to generate power from a close distance with ging.
Thanks,
Buby[/QUOTE]
hum hung baht bui is a principle found in many systems of TCMA, including the taiji I practice (it’s principle #2, in fact); the same can be said about soi gin chum jow (#3 for us); so these are not exclusive to SPM and whatnot; in fact, they are concepts essential to any sort of efficient postural organization, martial or otherwise - you find the concept in things like Alexander Technique, just not articulated quite the same way; therefore, I would argue that they necesarilly have to be in CLF as well, in order for there to be effect alignment; however, I think that the way these principles are interpreted / applied in SPM as opposed to CLF takes on a different shape and emphasis…
[QUOTE=Frost;990479]very well put its all about human movement and as much as people like to believe it to be different, we all tend to move the same and have more simularites than differences[/QUOTE]
the body is the body is the body, and what you do with it is based on what it is; so-called “internal practice” is not based on some esoteric, alien concept, but rather just one way of manipulating normal anatomy / physiology to get a specific result;
[QUOTE=Frost;990479]as for the picture at the botom of the post :eek:[/QUOTE]
also the body, and also about what you do with it; if you have any complaints, speak to the Senator (he’s lurking around here somewhere…)
would you characterize the Faht / Fut stuff as being more like so. short hand (SPM, BM, etc.) or not
yes…in fact…the older way of our gung fu via Professor Lau Bun pretty short handed. elbows close to the sides to protect your ribs as opposed to soo exposed.
you can see that fut gar kuen is short to mid range…
[QUOTE=taai gihk yahn;990565]hum hung baht bui is a principle found in many systems of TCMA, including the taiji I practice (it’s principle #2, in fact); the same can be said about soi gin chum jow (#3 for us); so these are not exclusive to SPM and whatnot; in fact, they are concepts essential to any sort of efficient postural organization, martial or otherwise - you find the concept in things like Alexander Technique, just not articulated quite the same way; therefore, I would argue that they necesarilly have to be in CLF as well, in order for there to be effect alignment; however, I think that the way these principles are interpreted / applied in SPM as opposed to CLF takes on a different shape and emphasis…[/QUOTE]
Bro, I never said it’s exclusive to SPM. Exactly, different shape and some shapes are more effiecent then others at close range. Atleast when it comes to generating ging. I guess what I’m asking, is for someone to point out those principles within CLF.
[QUOTE=hskwarrior;990578]yes…in fact…the older way of our gung fu via Professor Lau Bun pretty short handed. elbows close to the sides to protect your ribs as opposed to soo exposed.
you can see that fut gar kuen is short to mid range…
Thanks for sharing hskw! I learned something new. Never knew CLF played with elbows in. Thanks for the vid.
well…for many years, the primary branch of CLF that had all the publicity was the Chan Fam branch. Hung Sing people have stayed in the background for a long time. still, with certain techniques…the old was was elbow in and the hands were NOT stretched out like we see today. Fut San Hung Sing Kwoon still uses the elbow in method as well.
Also, the recipe. Sanjuro made a point I agree with, start with CLF, finish with SPM. Some systems are better at different things, some more subtle, some more practical.
And, not everything goes together, i.e. Beer and Pizza, is a lot better than Beer and ice cream…
Both are fine arts, you’d have to be ambitious, or perhaps impatient, to want to tackle both. To each his own.
