Towards a new method of discourse on martial arts...

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

Presently there is a divide in many parts of the martial arts community between MMA practicioners and TMA practicioners. The problem is that this division is invalid. Many so-called MMA’s (such as Boxing and Wrestling) are actually very old. Boxing was done in England in the 1600’s and Wrestling has been practiced by pretty much every culture on earth in some form or another since time immemorial.

In addition, many TMAs are actually relatively new; Aikido is under 200 years old (mabey under 100?), Wong Fei Hung was not born until 1847 and as most of what we consider to be Hung Gar today is derived from his innovations on the Hung style, Hung Gar Kung Fu can be seen as being about 150 years old in it’s current form - quite young compared to Boxing.

So TMA and MMA becomes an empty division. It fits no real criteria for TMA forms being more “traditional” than MMA ones nor does it fit any criteria for MMA forms being more “modern” than TMA ones.

How do we categorize martial arts then?

I think it should be through a concentration on the intended goal of the martial art. Now any given martial artist may be interested in all three of these areas of concentration; it’s just that certain styles of Martial Arts are suited to certain concentration areas.

I would create three major areas of concentration:

1: Athletic competition
2: Combat
3: Self Cultivation / Health

Athletically focussed forms of Martial Arts include Muay Thai, Gymnastic Wushu and BJJ. Their advantage is that they tend to promote the greatest level of physical attainment possible in their participants through a systematized form of competiton. Their disadvantage is the fact that they are blinded by the rules that govern their competitions. Lets face it, there are no pure no-rules martial arts tournaments. If a person trains in a sport with rules, they must abide by those rules. As martial arts are dependant on physical memory a person trained with rules may unconsciously follow those rules in a real fight; a potentially lethal mistake.

Combat focussed forms of martial arts include Wing Chun, Iaido, and Choy Lay Fut. These concentrate on combat in a no-rules environment; survival in a life-or-death situation is what they aim towards. As a result these styles tend to concentrate on more dangerous attacks. This willingness to fight dirty and effectively is one of the advantages of this concentration however there is a large potential problem; in this civilized age many masters exist who have not experienced real combat. They misinterpret their own form’s applications and end up transmitting garbled information routinely. As a result this is the type of martial arts that is responsible for many McDojos that promise “deadly fighting skills” but fail to deliver. Properly transmitted these arts are the most likely to provide a person with self-defense capabilities.

Self-Cultivation and health focussed forms of martial arts include Taiji, Aikido and Xingyi. They recognise that martial arts provide an opportunity for personal improvement. However as self-cultivation often includes at least an element of pacifism these arts have often been removed from their martial roots. The stories of grandmothers killing home-invaders because they did tai chi in the park on fridays are just that - stories. This is not to say that there are no masters of Taiji or Aikido or Xingyi who can use the martial applications of their forms - there most certainly are - just that many practicioners learn the forms empty of all martial content and are quite happy with that.

By shifting the discourse away from the TMA vs MMA ****ing contest and towards one that recognizes that all martial arts have strengths and weaknesses and that attempts to share these strengths and weaknesses.

Sport arts could learn a lesson in humility from self-cultivation arts. Rule-based competition is not the same as no-rules self defense. There are martial arts out there that were not designed for that environmentl; just because YOU don’t see a move in the UFC/K1/etc. doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or that it doesn’t work.

Combative martial arts could learn a lesson from Sport martial arts. Skills need to be tested in real-situations in order to come to full fruition. People have to stop being pussies and have to start training to be able to apply the techniques they think they know - even if it hurts. Propper training will likely include bruises, sprains, strains, cuts and mabey even broken bones. It’s time to suck it up and start training the way that grandmasters 200 years ago did - **** hard. Then people may not laugh every time you talk about your “d3@d1y ski11z”.

The people who practice self-cultivation arts could learn a lesson from combat stylists. The internal arts were designed as martial arts, you are selling short the history and heritage of your art by divorceing it from that base. Tai chi may be a low-impact form of exercise that seinior citizens can practice but the teachers of it should recall that taijiquan is a powerful martial art with a proud history. In short, the sport stylists and combat stylists have too much pride, the self-cultivation stylists sometimes don’t have enough.

2

Ipersonally view these divisions as mere schisms (mma tma et al) and essentially to argue one against the other is idle musing and empty to begin with.

The martial arts arefor all teh purposes you have listed. I would add that under self cultivation, that transformative practice is also included. In fact, any regimen of exercise ultimately is transformative.

Folks who make the divisions do so out of a want or need to be seen as different. In essence and as far as I am concerned it is mere marketing schlock.

All that’s really required is to begin and continue, the rest is words. :stuck_out_tongue:

3

Re: Towards a new method of discourse on martial arts…

Originally posted by SimonM
Athletically focussed forms of Martial Arts include Muay Thai, Gymnastic Wushu and BJJ.

My impression is that you are confusing training methods with training goals. A widely-held belief is that what you call here “athletically focussed” practices are ideal methods for obtaining skill at what you call “combat focussed.” From this perspective, it is the latter which is the goal.

Self-Cultivation and health focussed forms of martial arts include Taiji, Aikido and Xingyi… these arts have often been removed from their martial roots…

I think that you are “selling short the history and heritage” of these arts, which were “designed as martial arts” and remain so. The form-oriented training and competition methodology which arose out of the Chinese state’s involvement in the martial arts is no more concerned with the so-called internal arts than the external ones.

4

My impression is that you are confusing training methods with training goals. A widely-held belief is that what you call here “athletically focussed” practices are ideal methods for obtaining skill at what you call “combat focussed.”

To the contrary what I am saying is that the methods of the athletic styles of martial arts should be included in a combative martial arts style for it to be effective at delivering it’s techniques. Conversely I am saying that those who primarily participate in martial arts styles dependant on a rule-bound competition have to be aware that techniques that may be used in a real-life encounter have no place in the ring and thus are often not part of their training regimen. In other words, I am complementing athletic martial arts for their conditioning and combative martial arts for their technique while chastising both for failing to recognize the importence and significance of teh other.

5

Whoa, ChristopherM just choked out the correct with a Buddha Applies Lather, Rinses and Repeats.

6

Originally posted by SimonM
I am complementing athletic martial arts for their conditioning and combative martial arts for their technique while chastising both for failing to recognize the importence and significance of teh other.

Let me put it this way: whereas, following your idea that “certain styles of Martial Arts are suited to certain concentration areas” you have said that “sport arts could learn a lesson in humility from self-cultivation arts,” I would say that what you call sports arts should recognize that they already are self-cultivation arts. Where you say “combative martial arts could learn a lesson from sport martial arts,” I would say what you call combative martial arts already are sport martial arts; where you say “the people who practice self-cultivation arts could learn a lesson from combat stylists” I would say that they need to recognize that they already are combat arts.

For example, the advisable step of our hypothetical taijiquan stylist ought not to be to look at BJJ and appreciate it for its sparring methodology, but rather to look at his own art, taijiquan, and appreciate it in the same way.

In this sense, I agree completely with Kung Lek that “<all> the martial arts are for all the purposes you have listed,” and “these divisions… <are> idle musing and empty to begin with.”

7

Re: Towards a new method of discourse on martial arts…

Originally posted by SimonM
[B]Presently there is a divide in many parts of the martial arts community between MMA practicioners and TMA practicioners. The problem is that this division is invalid. Many so-called MMA’s (such as Boxing and Wrestling) are actually very old. Boxing was done in England in the 1600’s and Wrestling has been practiced by pretty much every culture on earth in some form or another since time immemorial.

In addition, many TMAs are actually relatively new; Aikido is under 200 years old (mabey under 100?)[/b]

the difference between tma and mma tends to be drawn by training methods. mma are into competition and becoming effective in shorter periods of time, doing so via sparring, bagwork, padwork, etc.

TMA by design takes longer to learn, may not be as interested in competition and uses more traditional seeming methods of training, like stance training and forms.

aikido is a good example - it’s not a tma by date - it is not a japanese koryu system and is therefor not considered classical, but it’s training methods are.

[b]Athletically focussed forms of Martial Arts include Muay Thai, Gymnastic Wushu and BJJ.

Combat focussed forms of martial arts include Wing Chun, Iaido, and Choy Lay Fut.

Self-Cultivation and health focussed forms of martial arts include Taiji, Aikido and Xingyi.[/b]

that would never work - there is too much crossover.

8

highly disagree about xing-yi being about self cultivation
it goes on the combat focused list (if one is using your lists)
it can be focused elsewhere… depending… but thats another story
its main core is at combat

9

Sevenstar just bought the correct a nice dinner, slipped it a roofie, and drove it up the hershey highway.

10

I think all arts are all catagories. It’s how it’s taught that counts. Are you being taught to do just the outside of your form only, or are you taught how to use it’s content in a free form enviroment against resisting opponenets?

11

“…just that many practicioners learn the forms empty of all martial content and are quite happy with that.”

I call BS on that one. You show me one martial artist that is learning “the forms empty of all martial content and are quite happy with that”, and I’ll show you twenty who don’t feel that way. That goes for ANY martial art. Ain’t no teacher who wants students like that either, unless he or she is some hippy-dippy lame-o who dosen’t know what they’re doing.

I just came back from a seminar today with mat burns on my elbows, a black eye and a split lip. Self cultivation? There’s nothing more humbling and sobering than taking a shot in the chops for the sake of a little Budo. Ego goes right out the door.

Real Tai Chi, real Hsing-i, and real Aikido people are all VERY serious about learning thier art for combat. I have yet to meet someone who can skillfully practice one of the three with no eye to combat effectiveness whatever.

12

Agreed to most of the points.

Xing Yi was modified and used to train Chinese Army, marine, Navy etc since the early 1900’s.

No matter what your emphases are, MA is still MA.

Out of MA, you may ‘play fight’ with rules.

So if you are trained with MA, you are trained with MA.

Training for combat sports as 7 pointed out, it has to be fast turnover.

13

You know, maybe to avoid the crossover you could try another tripartite scheme that many consider accurate:

  1. Tradition-based [not necessarily “ancient” or “pure”]
  2. Not Tradition-based [not necessarily made up or bad]
  3. Flaky [which may partake of either of the above]

Maybe its more to do with how its taught than anything else…

14

Originally posted by Christopher M
[B]

For example, the advisable step of our hypothetical taijiquan stylist ought not to be to look at BJJ and appreciate it for its sparring methodology, but rather to look at his own art, taijiquan, and appreciate it in the same way.

And taijiquan propperly applied is a martial art. Those methodologies do exist. I agree. My complaint is that many times they are not used. When I talked about learning lessons from other arts I did not mean specific techniques so much as general outlooks. My entire point in proposing an alternate system of analysis in this issue was to attempt to dissolve the divisions caused by the MMA/TMA discourse. I agree that in the very end the divisions are ultimately imperfect but you missed some things I said on the issue previously.

Now any given martial artist may be interested in all three of these areas of concentration; it’s just that certain styles of Martial Arts are suited to certain concentration areas.

It is possible that I was not clear enough in my intention in the introductory paragraph; if so I appologize for the vagarity however what I still personally get from this statement is that I say from the outset that these categories are not perfect slots to stick one martial art into but rather ways of thinking about the intended goals of some martial arts.

Continuing from that when I gave examples of each three I was not saying that each of theses arts are just of that “type” so much as I was saying that each of these arts tends to have it’s primary goal in line with the category I was discussing.

Essentially I was attempting to discuss varying mindsets within the martial arts community and the strengths and weaknesses inherent in each in order to forward understanding and eventually dissolve the divisions that appear to currently exist.

15

The Start-ish

Hello-Heaven Hi, that boxing and wrestling are older than Hung Gar was cute. When I walked into it, Martial arts was a phrase to lable Chinese Kung-Fu for western understanding (possiblly from Wu-Shu–war art). Internal was just for Chinese Kung-Fu. As the interest grew, interested and curious people thought outside of the presentation. Later Martial arts included the popular countries of China and Japan, even later Korea. That was the mainstream. There were people privy to direct access to fighting of other Far East countries (Even the phrase Far East (or Oriental) can be an indication of the perspective is from the West).

Pepole applying terms outside initial context and having different yet very valid exposure to wonderful conditioning/ training/ skills/abilities challenged for Justice or put in their bid that these other things are Martial Arts and Internal… or hard or soft and eventually hard And soft… it still blooms. I think that the seeds were attempts to label One countries interesting doings in an attempt to share understanding it. Dumbing it down Fruited it up.

As to finding lables now, go for it, as we are allowed to choose.

I No_Know

16

boxing and wrasslin are older than hung gar…

17

Re: Towards a new method of discourse on martial arts…

Originally posted by SimonM
It fits no real criteria for TMA forms being more “traditional” than MMA ones nor does it fit any criteria for MMA forms being more “modern” than TMA ones.
There are no forms in modern MMA training.

18

boxing as we know it now probably can be said to have it’s foundations laid with the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

these were penned in and around 1866 I believe.

as a codified system of fighting, Hung Kuen outdates modern boxing. Believe me, what they called boxing before the good Marquis was absolutely nothing like we see today.

Wrestling is myriad in shape and form and style. It predates probably any and all martial arts and exists in every culture.

Western wrestling as we see it now a la WWE does NOT predate Hung Kuen.

just sayin :stuck_out_tongue:

p.s Hung Kuen is related to if not spawned from Shaolin Temple boxing methods. Which were notable in the Tang dynasty.(618-907) so it’s prety much a stretch to say there was any wetsren martial arts that were codified and in existance that even approached teh complexity of CHinese martial arts of both Buddhist and Taoist origins, or even teh Confucian based wu de(martial ethic) etc etc. It’s kinda silly to say that carte blanche western martial arts have an older or better heritage than the Chinese martial arts.

the Chinese were in a state of high civilization while europeans were still living in caves and scavenging other preators kills.

It’s not rocket science to understand this guys. For pete’s sae you have the internet right at your finger tips and I’m sure you all know what Google is and ca likely understand how to cross reference sources.:rolleyes:

19

Re: Re: Towards a new method of discourse on martial arts…

Originally posted by Knifefighter
There are no forms in modern MMA training.

and not all TMA have forms, Knife. (though most do yeah)

20

Re: Towards a new method of discourse on martial arts…

Originally posted by SimonM
[B] Lets face it, there are no pure no-rules martial arts tournaments. If a person trains in a sport with rules, they must abide by those rules. As martial arts are dependant on physical memory a person trained with rules may unconsciously follow those rules in a real fight; a potentially lethal mistake.

Combat focussed forms of martial arts include Wing Chun, Iaido, and Choy Lay Fut. These concentrate on combat in a no-rules environment; survival in a life-or-death situation is what they aim towards. As a result these styles tend to concentrate on more dangerous attacks. [/B]
Systems that are supposedly combat focused are just as likely (probably even more so) as the sports oriented systems to be unable to use supposed deadly techniques because they don’t actually perform these techniques in practice. How often does a WC student practice biting his training partner or sticking his fingers into his eyes?

If I have practiced actually hitting an opponent who is fighting back full force in the face, I will be much more likely to deliver a killing blow to an opponent’s trachea in a real encounter than the person who has only practiced his hits by stopping them before they hit the mark.