The Fundamental Logical Flaw of Martial Arts

[Chris McKinley]

D_Glenn,

That regimen might not be exclusive to the Russian model, but it is by no means at all representative of the typical CMA class structure, especially not with the eventual degree of intensity required to contextualize the material for real combat, not just (as Shooter puts it) playing pattycake.

[Mut]

...Beat me too it and put it better...

[D_Glenn]

Very simple example- pushhands: start with fixed step single arm -> fixed both arms -> stepping single -> stepping both -> then moving free-form. See the same pattern in all the 2 person drills- bagua has 'ban and kou' (moving and capturing) drills, 'mian and sui' (soft and following) drills, or 'hua and xie' (transforming and removing) drills, then moving and stepping free-form.

[Chris McKinley]

D_Glenn,

Okay, so there are certain vague similarities in the examples you provided. However, there are important differences, the most crucial of which is that nothing in the push hands material is directly trained for combat use specifically, and none of it is ever contextualized, only practiced to varying degrees of proficiency. Further, the progression you discuss does not often occur within the parameters of a single given class, but rather represents a progression over a much larger span of time, sometimes even years, before regular free-form practice occurs. Even then, as already mentioned, there is still minimal contextualization of the skill, no matter how many years it is practiced.

Baguazhang, with the drills you mentioned as example, generally tends to provide exercises that are a little closer in approximation to the realities of movement in combat, IMO, but still rarely if ever spends any time contextualizing them as trained in a typical class. The most common notable exception is the practice of rou shou, which like free-form tui shou, is itself a contextualization exercise. However, and also like free-form tui shou, many if not most do not take rou shou far enough in intensity to complete the contextualization.

Xingyiquan practitioners generally have more of their material from the start as being closer to actual combat tactics, and they often begin contextualization of their material earlier in the training progression, as well as often getting a little closer to sufficient contextualization intensity than their sister art practitioners, but even they do not generally achieve the threshold for the average student. There still isn't much significant contextualization under any appreciable duress in the training environment.

By and large, your examples represent the status quo of martial art training, at least with regard to the Chinese internal arts. As the original post made clear, this thread already begins from a point of assumption of having evaluated the status quo of martial arts as a whole, including the CIMA, and found it lacking to the point where the original problem presented by this thread becomes the topic of discussion, picking up from that point of beginning and moving forward. Merely providing example of that material and/or training which has already been judged insufficient does little to provide new insight into actually solving the problem.

What's needed, at least in the case of existing traditional arts, is not necessarily to throw the baby out with the bath water, but rather to find solutions in training that take that material and return it to the functional, fully-contextualized combat method it once was. Today's version of "traditional" training, if it even accurately is truly traditional, is failing miserably at that job.

[BruceP]

What's needed, at least in the case of existing traditional arts, is not necessarily to throw the baby out with the bath water, but rather to find solutions in training that take that material and return it to the functional, fully-contextualized combat method it once was. Today's version of "traditional" training, if it even accurately is truly traditional, is failing miserably at that job

There are very few ways in which a variety of individuals with vastly different backgrounds can be trained to acquire similar fighting method within an 'art' like tjq while retaining what is considered inviolably 'traditional'. It's gonna be real interesting to see what kinds of ideas and solutions people come up with.

[BruceP]

Gary wrote:

Commercial martial art schools often use a bogus sales pitch which promises students the ability to effectively apply self-defense and fighting techniques learned at today's class in the bar later tonight. This illusion is likely to prove disastrous if put to the test against an angry and uninhibited opponent who wants to hurt you, and who isn't afraid to really fight.

Unfortunately, real fighting skills just don't manifest quite that fast or that easy

That just isn't true. If the tactics are simple and effective and don't require anything but gross motor function, they can be applied almost instantly.

How hard is it to dial 911? Even little kids can do it under real pressure.

I started a new job a month or so ago and get lots of questons from a couple of my co-workers about fighting. I tell them how easy it is to learn and show them lots of shit they can do with no training at all.

Last Friday I showed one of them corner-pocket. He went to an event the following Saturday and got in a scuffle with a guy who purposely poured his beer on my co-worker's wife. The aggressor attacked my co-worker (probably because he's a smaller guy and appears non-threatening) for protesting. He said he remembered corner-pocket and applied it just like I showed him. He made the guy cry, and while he was holding him in it, let off enough pressure that he could apologize for pouring beer on his wife. He ramped the pressure until the guy screamed and then pushed him on his ass before security came and ejected them. A 10 y/o could break a grown man's jaw or crush his facial bones with corner-pocket - no training required.

There are lots of simple, devastating and effective things a person can do to protect or defend themselves in a real fight. When I'm training with folks, I always ask myself what I can show them that they could apply now, today, if they had to. I've yet to see you offer anything that would show me you know how to train people to actually fight. You've argued semantics with me in the past, preferring to throw your dictionary at me, instead of having an interest in what was being talked about. Sorry, man, but you talk about being able to discern weakness in your opps and shit with a second's glance, which isn't realistic, and then you dismiss something that's totally realistic.


Mckinley wrote:

Realistic shorter-term results are possible with correct training methods, thankfully

Yeah, thankfully

[D_Glenn]

Gary wrote:

Commercial martial art schools often use a bogus sales pitch which promises students the ability to effectively apply self-defense and fighting techniques learned at today's class in the bar later tonight. This illusion is likely to prove disastrous if put to the test against an angry and uninhibited opponent who wants to hurt you, and who isn't afraid to really fight.

Unfortunately, real fighting skills just don't manifest quite that fast or that easy

...I started a new job a month or so ago and get lots of questons from a couple of my co-workers about fighting. I tell them how easy it is to learn and show them lots of shit they can do with no training at all.

Last Friday I showed one of them corner-pocket. He went to a concert the following Saturday and ...

I don't want to put words in Gary's mouth but his reply was in response to my post and I think You mis-read it, the answer is that your student went home and slept that same night, the learning process completed while he was dreaming, and then was able to apply it.


.

[BruceP]

I misread this when I said; "that just isn't true"?

Unfortunately, real fighting skills just don't manifest quite that fast or that easy

I let the guy try it on me a few times while I 'attacked' him in different ways (no horse-play at work so it was strictly encroachments). He could mess me up 2 minutes after learning it. It requires no set-up and is easy to apply if the opp doesn't know it's coming. He forgot all about it the next day. Pressure made him remember.

[Chris McKinley]

D_Glenn,

A little perspective check might be in order on that example. Let's say, as you're putting it, it did take the guy a full 24 hours to be able to actually use that new skill in context. Does that really change Shooter's point in any detectable way? Let's compare that 24 hours, which is admittedly a remarkably short learning curve, with modern Taijiquan's colloquial belief that it takes 10 years before one is able to fight with it. Or even with the general belief that it takes a significantly shorter 3 to 5 years to be able to fight effectively with Xingyiquan, or the more typical TKD or Karate-based styles.

Even if Shooter was not taking into account a single night of sleep as part of the learning process, that's still splitting hairs compared to the order of magnitude of time difference between a single night and the far more common multiple years that most arts require.

[D_Glenn]

D_Glenn,

Okay, so there are certain vague similarities in the examples you provided. However, there are important differences, the most crucial of which is that nothing in the push hands material is directly trained for combat use specifically, and none of it is ever contextualized, only practiced to varying degrees of proficiency. Further, the progression you discuss does not often occur within the parameters of a single given class, but rather represents a progression over a much larger span of time, sometimes even years, before regular free-form practice occurs. Even then, as already mentioned, there is still minimal contextualization of the skill, no matter how many years it is practiced.

Baguazhang, with the drills you mentioned as example, generally tends to provide exercises that are a little closer in approximation to the realities of movement in combat, IMO, but still rarely if ever spends any time contextualizing them as trained in a typical class. The most common notable exception is the practice of rou shou, which like free-form tui shou, is itself a contextualization exercise. However, and also like free-form tui shou, many if not most do not take rou shou far enough in intensity to complete the contextualization.

Xingyiquan practitioners generally have more of their material from the start as being closer to actual combat tactics, and they often begin contextualization of their material earlier in the training progression, as well as often getting a little closer to sufficient contextualization intensity than their sister art practitioners, but even they do not generally achieve the threshold for the average student. There still isn't much significant contextualization under any appreciable duress in the training environment.

By and large, your examples represent the status quo of martial art training, at least with regard to the Chinese internal arts. As the original post made clear, this thread already begins from a point of assumption of having evaluated the status quo of martial arts as a whole, including the CIMA, and found it lacking to the point where the original problem presented by this thread becomes the topic of discussion, picking up from that point of beginning and moving forward. Merely providing example of that material and/or training which has already been judged insufficient does little to provide new insight into actually solving the problem.

What's needed, at least in the case of existing traditional arts, is not necessarily to throw the baby out with the bath water, but rather to find solutions in training that take that material and return it to the functional, fully-contextualized combat method it once was. Today's version of "traditional" training, if it even accurately is truly traditional, is failing miserably at that job.

Push-hands is practice of our 'yi'- sending it out and listening to the opponent's, they do the same. Intent out to attack, listen to defend appropriately. Push-hands doesn't really increase our 'yi' or listening it works the coordination between movement of yi with physical movement and ensure there are no gaps or stops. Increasing the capability of 'yi' and the listening must be done during zhan zhuang and putting the yi out to the tips of the fingers and tips of toes, this is why ZZ is not qigong. Qigong usually pulls it back to the dantian or moves it around in specific meridians. Skipping the traditional steps and going straight for the end practices doesn't develop skill. Standing is step 1 and the most important. 'Yi' is the most important concept. The duress should come from you, the teacher in the class. Your students should be like your sons, you hate to discipline them but it's your job to prepare them. There's a saying something like "spare the hand/strike in the classroom, and they'll experience the hand/strike in the outside world [where it could really hurt them]." The students should know and have felt the teachers capabilities, they should feel fear, awe, and respect. The teacher should only have to use his 'yi' to get the proper state of arousal out of his students. This is all traditional CMA. No need to reinvent the wheel.


***

Perspective? Shooter replied to something that Gary didn't even write. They are both correct though IMO.

.

[Chris McKinley]

D_Glenn,

Good description of the functional purpose of zhan zhuang as contrasted with more generic qigong. That's a practical bit of information that can easily get lost in the shuffle.

RE: "Skipping the traditional steps and going straight for the end practices doesn't develop skill.". It is impossible to make that statement categorically for all approaches to combat training. If you are referring specifically to Taijiquan, as seems to be the case, that statement might be valid depending on how you are defining "skill". If one uses a definition of skill as one of ability to apply it effectively in its native context of real combat, then your statement begins losing veracity, especially when applying it outside of Taijiquan specifically. For the scope of this thread, I haven't limited the relevance only to that which applies in Taijiquan, and in most cases, your comment here does not apply uncompromisingly.

RE: "Your students should be like your sons, you hate to discipline them but it's your job to prepare them. There's a saying something like "spare the hand/strike in the classroom, and they'll experience the hand/strike in the outside world [where it could really hurt them]."". Indeed, well put. That simple wisdom goes to the heart of the matter. How sad then that so few schools apply it with even minimal sincerity.

RE: "The students should know and have felt the teachers capabilities, they should feel fear, awe, and respect. The teacher should only have to use his 'yi' to get the proper state of arousal out of his students. This is all traditional CMA. No need to reinvent the wheel.". And yet, traditional or not, this is not at all what we see in typical CMA classes in any way. Perhaps then the solution, at least for Chinese style practitioners, is a return to the traditional....at least as you have characterized it here.

[BruceP]

Perspective? Shooter replied to something that Gary didn't even write

Stier's first name isn't Gary? My mistake then.

[Doc Stier]

I misread this when I said; "that just isn't true"?

Unfortunately, real fighting skills just don't manifest quite that fast or that easy

Shooter:

Yes, my first name is Gary, but I prefer to be called 'Doc', and would appreciate your doing so as well. Thanks.

And no, you didn't misread my earlier post. While there may be rare exceptions to my comment, such as the example you reported, it remains generally true. The example you described is the exception rather than the rule, and not something that beginners should expect to duplicate first time out.

With all due respect for your expert instruction, even given a good technique, your guy was still lucky to have that situation turn out so well, IMO. Not to diminish his impressive victory in any way, I believe that successfully applying a good self-defense technique against a drunken, out of control assailant, who has thrown all caution to the wind, is considerably different than squaring off against a sober, skilled opponent for a serious fight.

And lastly, if you have issues with me personally, please address them to me via PM or e-mail rather than to talk about me as if I'm not even here. Thanks again.

Doc

[Chris Fleming]

Gary wrote:

Commercial martial art schools often use a bogus sales pitch which promises students the ability to effectively apply self-defense and fighting techniques learned at today's class in the bar later tonight. This illusion is likely to prove disastrous if put to the test against an angry and uninhibited opponent who wants to hurt you, and who isn't afraid to really fight.

Unfortunately, real fighting skills just don't manifest quite that fast or that easy

That just isn't true. If the tactics are simple and effective and don't require anything but gross motor function, they can be applied almost instantly.

How hard is it to dial 911? Even little kids can do it under real pressure.

I started a new job a month or so ago and get lots of questons from a couple of my co-workers about fighting. I tell them how easy it is to learn and show them lots of shit they can do with no training at all.

Last Friday I showed one of them corner-pocket. He went to an event the following Saturday and got in a scuffle with a guy who purposely poured his beer on my co-worker's wife. The aggressor attacked my co-worker (probably because he's a smaller guy and appears non-threatening) for protesting. He said he remembered corner-pocket and applied it just like I showed him. He made the guy cry, and while he was holding him in it, let off enough pressure that he could apologize for pouring beer on his wife. He ramped the pressure until the guy screamed and then pushed him on his ass before security came and ejected them. A 10 y/o could break a grown man's jaw or crush his facial bones with corner-pocket - no training required.

There are lots of simple, devastating and effective things a person can do to protect or defend themselves in a real fight. When I'm training with folks, I always ask myself what I can show them that they could apply now, today, if they had to. I've yet to see you offer anything that would show me you know how to train people to actually fight. You've argued semantics with me in the past, preferring to throw your dictionary at me, instead of having an interest in what was being talked about. Sorry, man, but you talk about being able to discern weakness in your opps and shit with a second's glance, which isn't realistic, and then you dismiss something that's totally realistic.


Mckinley wrote:

Realistic shorter-term results are possible with correct training methods, thankfully

Yeah, thankfully

There is a saying in Tongbei which says something like "Tongbei skills can be learned today and used to fight tomorrow". While this may be the case with some skills, training this martial art (which is all about fighting) proved to be not THAT simple. There was (and still is) lots to learn about relaxation, sensitivity, etc to be able to apply the skills which make up that style. And this is true for other styles as well. Granted, there are skills, like that which you described, that can be learned and applied very easily, but I believe the successful application of them lies more with the man than the movement. Your man won probably because he had more of a willingness, motivation, and internal preparedness to act, not just because he was taught a simple skill to apply. Most people tend to freeze under pressure or retreat backwards, if anything. There have been studies of this and it is a given. Some in their self defense courses attempt to capitalize on the natural defensive reactions (SPEAR, also a seminar from Tim Cartmell went over such things) of freezing and/or covering up to protect in hopes of making use of what happens naturally.

As for being able to look at someone and have an intuition about their apparent strengths and weaknesses, this is completely reasonable, and we do it naturally. It isn't like that's all there is to it, but it is like a man who works on cars. An experienced mechanic can sometimes know exactly what is wrong with a car just by hearing it run. You know what you know because of experience. That and in terms of physicality, we readily make value judgments on the physical fight potential of others, i.e., his he big and then perhaps slow, is he smaller and perhaps fast, etc. Beyond this there can be an intuition based on the situation and the automatic response of what the opponent presents to you should there be a sudden attack.

[johnwang]

How hard is it to dial 911? Even little kids can do it under real pressure.

Skill is not difficult to develop but ability is. We may be able to learn all 40 joint locking moves in 2 days but it may take our life time to mater it.

Kung Fu means time and effort. There is no Kung Fu involved in dailing 911.