MaartenSFS wrote:...That type of training is the Yang part of the art that few masters teach, let alone have. It wasn't taught to everyone. It's one of the key ingredients to making an art work.
I'm not going to sacrifice my body in the hopes that some people may believe that CMA has some amazing things to offer that are unique in the martial arts world and worth preserving. In sparring I can either go all out and risk seriously injuring my opponent (and myself if they are just better at fighting than me) or go softly and risk people saying that it's worthless. It can also go horribly wrong in the other direction....
At least with the sword fighting we can fence full-contact and there is minimal risk due to modern protective gear and people will immediately understand. I will literally take on all comers and have. I can't do the same thing with unarmed fighting. It requires too much trust on both ends.
When I leave there will be no one that will receive the [weapons] full-transmission and it will die out.
You state that one of the key ingredients to making the art work isn't taught to everyone, that is, the "yang" training. You state that one must fight/spare with the art to gain mastery of it. You also state that training that with a partner or opponent has a high risk of injury. For that reason you won't be teaching empty-hand engagement. Instead, you'll be teaching only weapon (sword) engagement, since, you believe, the risk of injury is lessened by doing so.
That makes me wonder weather or not one can effectively learn to use the art in an empty-hand encounter if one has only trained weapons in an encounter. Unless one walks around with a sword in their pocket, fighting those who also have a sword in their pocket, it doesn't seem like a practical or "real world" choice of defence. While teaching that might prevent the "full-trasmission" of weapons practice from dying out, I can't help but wonder if the core of empty hands practice and application will not be transmitted.
In short, I'm a little confused by your statements. You'll keep the transmission of the "true" art alive by only teaching a small, safer part of the art, the part that uses weapons against weapons?
One of the difficulties in learning a "true", practical, martial art is that martial arts, by their very nature, involve physical risk of injury. One of the reasons that many Taiji "players" don't engage in sparing is for that very reason: if one is practicing to improve and maintain one's health, where does engaging in a practice that is likely to cause one injury fit into that goal? Competitive sport, for example, can be a different goal, one that many who do so will accept some risk of injury. What is the distinction between what you will be teaching - fully padded/protected sparing with minimal risk of injury - and competitive sport? How does that relate to traditional martial arts practice "on the battlefield"? In other words, what is the relationship between what you will be teaching and the traditional skills and environment who's "transmission" you are trying to prevent from dying-out?