Faith in what you do

[bailewen]

No. It doesn't really blow his argument out of the water at all. The top masters of those three styles all had generally already agreed that they were teaching the same thing. More comparable to various ryu of jujitsu than to actual different styles. They were all considered "the internal style" or alternately "Wudang Pai". Furthermore, that older, more traditional way of training with more than one master is extremely different from "cross-training" as it is being discussed here. The students in question do not go shopping around to find ways to fill up perceived holes in their style. They get formally introduced by their own shifu to another shifu. Cross-training, as it is being described here, would generally get you disowned by your own shifu.

Take Liu Yun-qiao for example. He trained many styles but not for "balance" or to strengthen weaknesses. His faith, as it were, in Baji, was unshakeable. He had to get the snot kicked out of him before he was willing to even consider for a moment that he needed anything but what Li Shuwen taught him. That was mantis. He was quite stubborn about NOT wanting to learn any Taiji as well. He only learned the internal stuff after "brother" Zhang pressured him to do so. I am getting this all all from Liu's own writings.

As to the examples of Su Dongchen or Luo De-xiu, they may have trained in other styles but how much cross training did they do after they discovered master Hong? Anyone?

I personally have trained a hell of a lot of styles but most of that was either just searching for a style I liked or a teacher that was right for me. Sometimes it was because I was in the states and it was not possible to continue to train Baji.

I'm actually in agreement with Spring. I can't go back and do it again and I am not really a decent example of the results of sticking with a single style. My own style is extremely ecclectic. Debating the relative benifits of "purity" vs. cross training is sort of an intellectual exercise for me and nothing more. So really I am just dissecting the argument. I also am often jealous of children of masters. If I had found my shifu when I was a teenager, I may have never trained in all these other arts. Good or bad, I don't know. I am just unconvinced that Spring's argument has been destroyed or even especially damaged. I kind of like the threads he has been starting lately. I've been lurking and on this one he actually got me posting again.

Been a while.

[Chris Fleming]

Ok then. I'll put it another way. Two other ways to be exact.

1. If your teacher wants to train you in, lets say, the three internal arts at more or less the same time, who are you to argue? Just practice your gong fu--or are you going to tell him you know different? Or that you heard on EF from some dude that you shouldn't "cross train"?

2. If you truly don't have the ability or just can't develop the skill to see the differences between taiji, xing yi, and bagua (or whatever else) and just cannot help yourself from mixing them all up (in terms of their characteristics) when you train, then you are probably too dense (read: stupid) to be doing those arts.

Also:

"Take Liu Yun-qiao for example. He trained many styles but not for "balance" or to strengthen weaknesses. His faith, as it were, in Baji, was unshakeable. He had to get the snot kicked out of him before he was willing to even consider for a moment that he needed anything but what Li Shuwen taught him. That was mantis. He was quite stubborn about NOT wanting to learn any Taiji as well. He only learned the internal stuff after "brother" Zhang pressured him to do so. I am getting this all all from Liu's own writings."

This example doesn't really help your argument Omar...

[bailewen]

Liu Yunqiao's path has a story to it. He didn't, AFAIK, go looking around for other arts to supplement what he had. He was in one case, beaten up, and then went to learn the art he was beat with. To me, that still speaks to the larger topic of "faith". Nowadays people take it as an article of faith that they must train in other stuff to be "complete" (whatever that means). Liu's story, to me, speaks more about dedication to a single art. He never went looking for another art. He went looking for people to challenge.

In the other case(s) it was more like studying the 3 internals. He had a mentor who introduced him to other teachers. It's also worth mentioning that, like my own path, Liu did not have access to his Shifu (Li Shuwen). It was a time of political unrest and he was traveling all over so it makes sense that he would have to find someone to continue training him. I don't know if he would have ever moved on to fall in love with Baguazhang the way he did if he had never been separated from his childhood Shifu by forces beyond his control.
=============================================================

Your other points, when rephrased like that, I can agree with completely. The whole discussion in very academic on that point. It is completely theoretical to me that some BJJ guy can kick my ass or that I need jujitsu to be a sufficiently good fighter. I'm not saying it's not true. I'm saying it's just very theoretical because I am not currently being stalked by any professional MMA fighters. My modest skills in purely Chinese arts have been sufficient so far. More importantly though, I just like being really good at something and it looks like that "something" may not have to be hand to hand death matches. I'm pretty stoked at just being good at Baji or at Yang taiji.

[edededed]

Like Omar said, in China, going to learn from teacher A, B, and C will probably get you disowned from all of those teachers in the end (unless you are just a "money student" - then it is mostly okay, but you won't get taught the good stuff).

That said, you could still learn more than one art if:
1. Teacher A introduces you to teacher B and C and sets you up to learn from them
2. Teacher A dies and teacher B and C were his buddies and let you learn from them (or you just go and learn from them)
3. Teacher A is your dad and thus you are still free to learn from teacher B or C (not both)
4. You secretly learn from teacher A, B, and C without any of them finding out
5. Etc...

In addition, sometimes two or more schools were friendly with each other (like baguazhang and xingyiquan in Beijing), so learning one of the arts often offered opportunities to learn the other.

Still, it is hard enough to learn just ONE art well - the baguazhang system is HUGE, for example. I have learned like 1% of it so far...

[Mut]

personally I agree that X-training is not the best thing if you don't have a strong foundation in a given art..... I do tend to think that often people go and x-train before they have a good grasp of what they call their primary or base art. Having said that though I would go on to say that the time to x-train is not once you have mastered an art but when you are proficient enough to go and look at other methods and develop a greater understanding of your core art. Being able to look at another art from the perspective of your core art can help you understand your core art much better. At what stage this happens is differently for different people, but personally i like to see people with a solid base.... say 3 years solid training start to look around.... By broadening your horizons at this sort of stage you can start to understand if you methods are based on dogmatic belief or experiential learning.

To me though the purpose of x-training is essentially to better understand your core system.... exposing yourself to other skillsets will certainly help you understand your own art....

[Fubo]

As to the examples of Su Dongchen or Luo De-xiu, they may have trained in other styles but how much cross training did they do after they discovered master Hong? Anyone?

I believe Su visited and trained with some masters in Japan (people who know more about him can chime in) "after" studying with Hong, while with Hong he trained a number of styles . Luo also trained a number of styles with Hong, and I believe he also visited and trained with other Cheng style people after Hong.

If it's good enough for them...

[SPJ]

I think it is already pointed out--

but really it is not about faith about something you practice or do,

1. but about knowing the limits of a certain technique, moves or postures.

then we would come up with tactics and strategy of using them.

2. do we need to expand a style or pick up something else from other style? it is totally up to you.

for some people, they are very good in just a few moves, but that is already enough for them.

can not recall all the names right away,

but

a. a dude only knew a few moves in tan tui, he was a very good fighter at his time, he did know or practice the whole 10 or 12 roads.

b. guo yun shen, half a step beng quan.

c. yang lu chan, ban lan chui.

d. ----- dan huan zhang

--

my point is that, if we are very good in a few moves (1), and we know their limits (2), then we come up with tactics and strategy for using them (3).

everything else is a set up (tactics/strategy) for you to do your best few moves.

--

just to add some thoughts.

back to regular programs.

[spring]

Fubo, with all respect for Mr. Cartmells accomplishments, he states he did about nine different styles of martial arts, do you think because he did not squeeze all the juice from the twelve animals - which is a huge period of work taking many years - maybe he had to find 'groundwork' in BJJ?

Look at the difference with him and Lo in the film they out out, it is night and day.

Observing his structure, and that of the other famous american teachers, not a single one has anything like the clear, solid, tremendously rooted and connected structure or stancework of the present day high level Chinese. Its just how it is. Look at the few demos they put out of five fists and compare to the Chinese. At best it is 'good try'. Mostly they are mimiking, without depth.

Of course they can fight, that is not the point, anyone can fight and after 25 years training .....

Please , anyone put up a video to prove me wrong. Form does reveal a lot, after all.

In UK its is widely held amongst long termers that only two public teachers have deep mastery - Steve Morris and Paul Whitrod. Two men in 60 million. Yes there are others who dont teach publicly, but we cannot have film to tell.

I will wait for any offers

For Su Dong Chen, my brother trained with him for years in Japan and it is definate he is a Hebei Xingyiquan master, as is Luo, its what they practice and their foundation.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Darth, good try, but you have not directly addressed a single point in the original post.

I was addressing points. I was pointing out that your entire premise is flawed.

Then your statement "of course they can fight" more or less cherried that cake.
How presumptuous.

take your faith into a fight and see how it weighs up. It is that simple.

[spring]

Darth, you normally make strong intelligent points in your posts, but here you are not.

Anyone can fight, period. In CMA we train to develop a certain kind of structure, this is central.

Without this special structure (lets say the Six Harmonies give a good clue as to what it is) you may fight, but you wont fight with the special trained power which is CMA.

Now, the development of that structure is evident as soon a man sits or stands up, let alone walks. Thats why we see a very fast beautiful Xingyi form and all go - wah!!!!! Wushuuuu...

Or not. We look with eyes that see the small things which give the game away.

Darth, look at the footage we have of Wang Pei Sheng, for example, or Su Dong Chen, issuing force and fighting, It is not jujutsu. Look at footage of the western 'masters' and see the big difference. Can you see?

[DeusTrismegistus]

Darth, good try, but you have not directly addressed a single point in the original post.

I was addressing points. I was pointing out that your entire premise is flawed.

Then your statement "of course they can fight" more or less cherried that cake.
How presumptuous.

take your faith into a fight and see how it weighs up. It is that simple.

When you go into a fight or a match what do you know about your opponent? If you are lucky you have watched some videos of him fighting. If you have never fought before you will not know what he will do, whether you can avoid his favorite techniques, or whether you will be able to land yours. If faith is trusting in something that is unknowable, then the very opitimy of that is getting into a fight or match. You have no knowledge with that particular opponent, you have no experience unless you have fought before and even then fighters change over time. There is no knowledge that can be known about how you will perform in the fight or match. If you don't have faith in what you are doing, that it will work, that you will come out on top, then there is no way you will be able to. If you don't have faith that what you are learning is useful, then you will never take the time to discover the uses. Even if you explore if you have already made up your mind that there is no way a technique will work, your chances of finding a way to make it work are slim to none.

Having faith in your style is simply an extension of this. When it comes to different ranges of combat you have to look at your own practice and see what you are weak in and why. If you aren't comfortable on the ground is it because of lack of practice there? Does you system spend any time on the ground? Does the principles of your style work on the ground, and before you answer that one have you ever spent any significant amount of time trying to see if they work on the ground? Without faith that your style has something useful in a given range of combat how can you explore that range of combat with the drive and dedication and open mind it takes to discover what works for you?

Fighting is not science class, there is no objective answer to any questions. Everything comes from your experience and a large factor in being successful in what you do is having faith that what you do is worthwhile. Without that you set yourself up for failure. Personally I would rather set myself up for success.

[MAFAN]

IMHO, all the techniques in the world and no 'kill' attitude/ will/ faith...? dare I use that term? = total fail.
have to have faith/ belief/ confidence or just lie down and die.
yet again all bluster/ ignorant misplaced confidence- and no actual h2h ability = fail also.
think if u got only one system and it is time tested- then the best cxhance u can give it to do the right thing by u is to invest fully in it- but u also need proper mentality / awareness etc etc.

those arguing for x training have point mosdef.
if it helps u have open mind- then IMO= useful coz have to have open mind to adapt (to what comes ur way trying to kick ur arse)
if it just makes u think u tuff coz UFC advocate it, then u= bumhole.

so if u just do 1 system and u have the goods (and know it's true from soaking ppl in it) then good 4 u champ!!

also gud 4 u champ if u want x train, just don't get carried away thinking u r the shit coz u watch Kimbo vids and got hit in the face once or twice etc.

[Chris Fleming]

"Observing his structure, and that of the other famous american teachers, not a single one has anything like the clear, solid, tremendously rooted and connected structure or stancework of the present day high level Chinese."

Lame.

I thought this was about "cross training" rather than China vs. All. You obviously have met all teachers. Care to show your skills if you too think that everyone is in the dark when it comes to their martial arts practice? You can have the best stance work, rootedness, etc and still get your ass beat. Training stances and Zhan Zhuan all day don't equal fighting ability. It could help, but I just don't buy the "only chinese people can do martial arts at a high level" line.



So if I am hearing you correctly, a person ought to have faith in the ONE style they have chosen "to dedicate their lives to", and can only learn something else once they become a master at that one style, but mastery takes a life time and any questions you might have show that you have more work to do in that style. Which one is it? Sounds too loopy to take serious.

NEXT!

[river rider]

"cross-training" and "faith in your style" are not mutually exclusive categories. When I see something in another style that interests me, the first thing I do is look to see if it really is in my style, to see if it actually is there and I just never noticed, or perhaps it's further down the training line than where I'm at now. My next move will be to try to find out if my style actually does deal with the issue of concern, but just has a different "answer" than that of the other style. Finally, if neither of these two options apply, I'll look for a way to incorporate the technique or whatever in a way that does not violate the core principles of my style. If none of this yields the desired result, then a) maybe my style does have a lack or weakness in this area, or b) maybe I just don't understand my style as deeply as I thought I did.

[MAFAN]

fair call.