I would like to hear ferom the forum, which techniques do yuo feel were placed in your forms that you believe are useless, whether they are strictly for show, or outdated.
Please be very specific, rather than simply making blanket statements such as “high kicks” or “Forms.” I would be curious one-that just how long a list we get, and two-whether people can find a legitimate reason for such moves.
Non-spinning backfists.
The backhanded forearm to the throat seen in almost all chi sao demonstrations.
Cross stepping.
Stylized wrist movements.
Trapping.
(Sorry for simple terminology. I forgot the chinese names for the techniques a long time ago)
Trapping= Mantis catches Cicada
twin dragon in search of pearls = ala three stooges two finger poke in the eyes
twisting stance with left hooking hand and right rising elbow break.
ummm parry hand with fist strike to the ribs while in cat stance
lead rising hand block with rear punch.
Cross hand trapping or most trapping to being with.
Theoretical Chin na: The over the shoulder elbow break
just fyi, I am of the current opinion that most material from any given form do not work. The concepts of a given system coupled witht the basics work alot better than so called advance material.
If you were to boil any kung fu system down you would have all the basic kicks, punches, elbows, knees, throws, and working locks. All the “next level” stuff could be tossed out the window. No more silly Dim mak, Theoretical Chin na, overly complex throws that would never work ect ect.
non-spinning backfists: Backfist covers a multitude of sins, some more effective than others. I’m really not a fan of those short pat-hit backfist you see in Wing Chun etc, but the hanging fist and whipping fist seen in southern longarm styles are very powerful shots.
Interestingly I was watching one of Mark Hatmakers DVDs the other day and it would appear that the backfist was a part of a pre-Queensbury boxer’s arsenal, known as guillotines or hinged shots.
The thing with backfists is they require setup, and are often a shot of opportunity. Even the short backfist has a place in that if that’s where your hands end up and that’s your striking option then you’ve got to take it, and hope that it’ll create an openning for something stronger.
The problem I think is that because the short backfist is quick, easily controllable for sparring and looks good in Chi Sau, it gets overused and taught inappropriately.
Cross stepping: again this week I was watching an Erik Paulson DVD where he uses cross stepping in his guard passes. Misteaching of stancework is a real problem in the Kung Fu community. Cross steps are not about movement, they’re about kicking and leg trapping, and for this they’re pretty effective.
Trapping works, it’s just it should look more like clinching and pummelling (in fact it should look EXACTLY like clinching and pummelling), not a stylised flurry of hands.
Pointless wrist flourishes are indeed a bad habit.
Agreed ^
Most of gung fu is outdated.
The movements one uses should be consistent with the perils of the day; I agree that most of the above is in fact quite useless, all except the trapping that is–for the same reasons that have already been stated.
It shouldn’t look like patty-cake or slappy hands, it should look like a strong immobilization followed by a pummelling. Just like ground and pound–except standing.
Here’s another thought that came to my mind from this thread:
What about the ideal that what is useful to some is useless to others, and vice versa? Remember that every person is different and the individual is always more important than the style/techniques chosen.
What works for you may not work for someone else…
I have not found anything useless in my style yet.
What about the ideal that what is useful to some is useless to others, and vice versa? Remember that every person is different and the individual is always more important than the style/techniques chosen.
Reply]
I think this is a good point. Most styles of today are built on the experiences of many generations, each adding thier favorite tactics. Because of this, I’d say MOST of a given style is not going to fit you. Once you master the basics, it’s a smorgas board that you pick and choose what seems to fit you.
It won’t all fit you, because the style was not built by one person with all the answers. It is a collection of stuff that worked for many people. Even the creators would not agree about the contents of the art if they could be brought back today for discussion.
[QUOTE=Vankuen;786164]
What about the ideal that what is useful to some is useless to others, and vice versa? Remember that every person is different and the individual is always more important than the style/techniques chosen.
What works for you may not work for someone else…[/QUOTE]
This is exactly it! Most people in the traditional styles have a system that encompasses many techniques…only some of which you will be good at and even less you will be great at. But if I only teach what I like, you’ll never figure out what you life and how to use those things.
There are some techniques I have never been good at, despite trying a lot in sparring, yet some training partners utilize them from the get-go.
What about the ideal that what is useful to some is useless to others, and vice versa? Remember that every person is different and the individual is always more important than the style/techniques chosen.
What works for you may not work for someone else…
Ok my background is both in TCMA and Muay Thai, Grappling just as a point of reference for my comments.
There will always be those few indivduals who can make techniques that seem tottally impossible a reality. These indivdual are those gifted few who can pull them off and even then it is complete situational.
I think this is a good point. Most styles of today are built on the experiences of many generations, each adding thier favorite tactics. Because of this, I’d say MOST of a given style is not going to fit you.
The above is only true if the totality of the system was proven completely viable and applicable. If a technique was truly useful all those years ago it should be useful now by all assumptions. We have to test our material in order to determine if it has been corrupted over time, not properly tested, or no longer viable due to change in combat methodology. Honestly, there is only so many ways we can strike, throw or choke a person and once they portrayed anything else is just fluff.
Once you master the basics, it’s a smorgas board that you pick and choose what seems to fit you. It won’t all fit you, because the style was not built by one person with all the answers. It is a collection of stuff that worked for many people. Even the creators would not agree about the contents of the art if they could be brought back today for discussion.
RDS, I am not trying to be mean or a jerk but this kind of thinking allows Martial BS to exsist. There are things that would never work in alot of TCMA and labeling them as things that you could not accomplish but maybe someone else can is just harmful. For example, multi-tiered hand trapping into fancy chin na locks are often seen in many martial arts demos and a lot of people believe they actually work.
Don’t you think keeping stuff like that around is doing a disservice to your students?
Hell, I learned pressure points to some extent and yeah I thought they worked because they hurt like hell when I was a complaint uke. When I tried to apply them in real fight they were easily dealt with by my opponent. There is a wide gap between applicable in a pressure situation and a static in kwoon scenario.
Even the creators would not agree about the contents of the art if they could be brought back today for discussion.
It is true most masters would not agree with what works and what doesn’t but reguardless if they discussed this or not the final test would be in combat. All the talking would go away and the truth would be in the application. If master A says “Your elbow strikes are nonsense” all master B has to do was defeat Master A with his elbows and that is the proof. No talking is neccesary.
I have not found anything useless in my style yet
Keep looking, there is no TCMA that is exempted from possessing BS stuff. TCMAs were developed to defend against similar attacking methods and they evolved with the times. But since the advent of the firearm, hand to hand skill has become secondary and the need to develop it not as important. This factor alone has allowed martial arts to become a sport as well as an art form. The art form side has allowed more intricate maneuvers to be developed that may or may not be applicable in a modern situation.
There are some techniques I have never been good at, despite trying a lot in sparring, yet some training partners utilize them from the get-go.
Let say something about sparring, which I am sure you already take into account, when you hit someone for real the opportunity to apply a technique increase or decreases with the reaction of your opponent. The level of sparring will allow you to pull of the more “gray area” techniques. Your opponent is not going to try and take your head off when you are attempting to apply it. For example, when some tries to grab and pull you during a friendly sparring session you are less likely to full ressit and pull your arm back because you are not in imminent danger or threat. In a full contact situation you will react diffrently. As I am sure you undestand this I suggest you try taking techniques from the lad of light,middle contact “friendly” sparring to the next level to really test what you think is applicable.
Final thought if a technique works you will be able to pull it off no matter the level of intensity of your training. If it does not fight this rule of thumb, imo, throw it out.:eek:
Keep looking, there is no TCMA that is exempted from possessing BS stuff. TCMAs were developed to defend against similar attacking methods and they evolved with the times. But since the advent of the firearm, hand to hand skill has become secondary and the need to develop it not as important. This factor alone has allowed martial arts to become a sport as well as an art form. The art form side has allowed more intricate maneuvers to be developed that may or may not be applicable in a modern situation.
Reply]
I think a lot of that is because the actual context of the usage has been lost, and people are trying to reverse engineer the techniques into situations they don’t belong in the first place. If they knew HOW the techniques was supposed to be used, then it would work.
For example, the butterfly kick is not really a kick, but more of a sizzor leg take down. In the form it is just represented so you can land on your feet and continue with the form, but in use you follow through to it’s logical conclusion as a take down.
I think in many of the newer styles you may be right, and there are techniques that crept in to them from non fighters who put theoretical moves in, that don’t work, but in a really old military based style like mine, you really don’t see that. Especially since it was preserved due to it being considered culturally sacred due to it having come from the Imperial court. Other styles were probably not as perfectly preserved because they were not considered sacred treasures and thus the practitioners felt free to modify as they desired.
I think a lot of that is because the actual context of the usage has been lost, and people are trying to reverse engineer the techniques into situations they don’t belong in the first place.
Reguardless if it was loss it can be reversed engineered. If they are not viable because the scenario they are ment to work in is no longer exsistent then it should not be preserved.
For example, the butterfly kick is not really a kick, but more of a sizzor leg take down. In the form it is just represented so you can land on your feet and continue with the form, but in use you follow through to it’s logical conclusion as a take down.
I suggest that you speak with whom ever told you that a butterfly kick could lead to a take down and have them show you. I really don’t know where to begin with that statement. I can only say what you have already stated “people are trying to reverse engineer the techniques into situations they don’t belong in the first place”
The butterfly kick is not a take down no matter how you apply it. The mechanics for a scissor leg take down is not comparable to a butterfly kick. Doing a scissor leg take down in a form leads to Dit tang. This would normally get represented by someone being on the ground doing a scissor leg motion representing the take down.
I think in many of the newer styles you may be right, and there are techniques that crept in to them from non fighters who put theoretical moves in, that don’t work, but in a really old military based style like mine, you really don’t see that.
Sigh, I come from Seven Star Praying Mantis…its pretty old and is known for fighting. It has some BS stuff in it just like any other system. All moves are theoretical and are designed to counter or attack in a manner to increase the outcome of success versus an exsisting system. When the mode of combat changes so must the techniques being used.
If you are not used to defending against jabs, crosses, or throws, then the material your using has to be updated. If you wish to perserve it then say so, but do not fool people into think it will deal with all encounters especially the attacks your system was not designed to defend against.
Especially since it was preserved due to it being considered culturally sacred due to it having come from the Imperial court. Other styles were probably not as perfectly preserved because they were not considered sacred treasures and thus the practitioners felt free to modify as they desired.
Do you honestly think that the practioners of your art did not add their own flavor
or techniques to the art to gain favor of the courts or to show their expertise? Nothing exsist in a bubble no matter how well perserved it was. The transmission from your teacher to you is enough to effect a change.
By the way what system do you study? ( I pray you do not say long fist )
I just looked up your other name Royal Dragon and you have listed North & South Long Fist - Shaolin - Tai Chi…
Long fist has tons of stuff in there that is either, no longer applicable, flowery, BS to begin with along with the stuff that works.
Shaolin… what does that consist of?
Tai Chi- Yeah, there is alot of stuff as well in Tai Chi that has been corrupted or never was truly useful in combat.
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;786166]I have not found anything useless in my style yet.[/QUOTE]Isn’t that because you only practice forms?! 
I find all of the finger jabs in wing chun to be bollocks.
The ‘backhand’ in wing chun is way over-emphasised and overused, but I think it has its uses.
Do you honestly think that the practioners of your art did not add their own flavor
or techniques to the art to gain favor of the courts or to show their expertise? Nothing exsist in a bubble no matter how well perserved it was. The transmission from your teacher to you is enough to effect a change.
Reply]
Maybe, but over all the techniques are still the same.
I do Tai Tzu Chang Chuan. It is the art of Sung Tai Tzu, and there are forms supposedly form his Imperial guard in there as well. Although, the forms are newer. originally the style was just a collection of loose techniques used by Sung Tai Tzu, and his troops.
LMAO!!! OK who are the the guys who said trapping is useless ??? Please raise your hands for the rest of the class to see who you are…LOL why didnt you add punching and kicking to your lists…
this board gets smarter and smarter every **** day
OK who are the the guys who said trapping is useless
Depends on what you mean by trapping, you talking about just grabbing, holding and hitting the guy than that fits into functional trapping but if your talking about a series of rapid traps to establish a bridge then yeah its pretty low percentage.
[QUOTE=Mr Punch;786232]
I find all of the finger jabs in wing chun to be bollocks.[/QUOTE]
Who are you learning your Wing Chun from? Your finger jabs are supposed to aim at the eyes, not the bollocks.
hang on it was mantis7 and knifefighter… knifefighter?? well we all know thats with a grain of salt however I am curious about this comment.. from mantis7
just fyi, I am of the current opinion that most material from any given form do not work. The concepts of a given system coupled witht the basics work alot better than so called advance material.
mantis brother…the forms ARE the system and when you spent enough time practicing you would eventually see this. every fighting application in our particular system is in the form. If you belong to a school that capitalizes on form collecting that i totally agree …quit and find another school, however ar’nt you in chi xing chuan?
mantis brother…the forms ARE the system and when you spent enough time practicing you would eventually see this. every fighting application in our particular system is in the form. If you belong to a school that capitalizes on form collecting that i totally agree …quit and find another school, however ar’nt you in chi xing chuan?
Trapping and multi tier trapping technique is complete rubish. I came from Raul Ortiz camp, spent a short time amoung the Chuen Luen camp as well.
the forms ARE the system and when you spent enough time practicing you would eventually see this.
This is just bull and is the kind of comment that allows bs to take root in TCMA, take apart bung bo or chaap choi and see how much stuff is applicable and what is no longer viable. Sifu Raul was and is not a form collector, we spent most of our time drilling and using the techniques in a fight orientated format but even then some of the material is just not applicable. What can be applied at light and medium contact does not denote effectiveness at full out contact.
Basuically, It is not the teachers fault nor the systems fault but time passes and things become antiquated. A system, like any body of knoweledge, has to be adapt or become useless. Why do you think so many kung fu systems developed and so many were lost over time. When the need to do h2h became less than important, the systems did no longer needed to prove themselves as much and those that should have died out, techniques I mean, were not filterd
If you are so adamant about “Mantis” trapping being succeful as taught please give us an example. But please notice I said Multi-tier trapping and bridging. I am not speaking about pressing and lifting or grabbing and plucking. I am talking about double pressing,cross hand trapping thinking you can actually trap a jab cross combo nonsese.
Now trapping, pressing, lifiting ect is viable in a clinch but that double hand bull**** is not.
Example of nonsese in the Mantis system ( read what I posted) or review any mantis form. The priciples and concepts are sound but the techniques… well you know how I feel.
Sigh and you are from an 8 step schools as well? You guys are in the same position as any other Mantis or TCMA style. It wasn’t to long ago witht he advent of Bjj that you guys all of a sudden had the great anti-grapple and super secret Dit tang ground fighting.
making a clinch and entering into attack is trapping and bridging.
patting/slapping entering and locking is bridging and trapping.
I think one of the biggest problems with those non-proponents of tcma is taht they don’t get the lingo and despite that the regimens have been around a long time, it is this little hurdle that causes the biggest misunderstandings.
I mean, look at all the bull**** technical papers on modern training with all the slick linguistics and such. They do tend to simply reiterate the same stuff that’s been around for pretty much all time.
so trapping is simply grabbing and holding to set up whatever comes next.
when you have something, you don’t let go unless you want to move to a finish or there is a threat presented that merits leaving.
man…
just to punctuate my point I went to your website and this is what I found
http://www.8stepusa.com/photokf_a.php
I’ll let your photos speak for themselves