Chow Gar SPM & combatives

[mikemantis]

Thanks for the comments folks. i like a good discussion.

Philb, no this isn't my teacher just one of Master Paul Whitrods's certified Sifu's. This is part of a series of interviews being filmed by Nish (the uke )

Those of you on facebook have a look here as there is loads of information on the various branches of SPM.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/souther ... =bookmarks

[Overlord]

These are just the types of compliant demos the many rail against, as well he is abusing his partner fairly well with hard strikes for which the demo could be shown just as well softly.
http://youtu.be/0iw4xFD-47Q
What's the difference, is the guy in the OP more credible ?

Agree with you WD, very observant! Safety should be first priority when training.
Particularly the wrist, forearm and shoulder this instance.
The emotional aspects of martial arts is seldom addressed, sometimes may cause problems down the track.

Over

[Wanderingdragon]

I can see the interviewer in each instance going over in his mind what he might do, but you can tell by the tone of the subject, a proper counter would cause a quick ramping up of the exchange. I am quite comfortable with hard contact in demos, but I notice the speed and intensity is of catching the UKE off guard. But my main question here is more to the forum, where are those tough guys that always rail against such self serving demos, as not properly pressure tested?

[aamc]

Sorry to de-rail the thread somewhat, but here goes.

I know Sifu Steven Hayes, and well I'm sure the comments I make will probably come back to haunt me. But oh well, such is martial arts.

I think its highly commendable and very important that Sifu Hayes has explorer his martial arts. This is the art side of it. To make these structures work and to make them your own. The bit that makes me uncomfortable is that his hand is not SPM. I hope I can express a more nuances notion then; "When you fight it should look like kung fu, or it should like the form". The issue is not that, the issue is that SPM encapsulates a specific skill set. Its skill set is short range hitting, but it does that with a specific tool set; the phoenix eye, the elbow in a forward position often with the engagement of the shoulder girdle. The training and two man sets are focused around this.

Now I can understand the issues with Chow Gar, because simply put, IMO the syllabus is completely useless at making the transition from form/two man usage too fighting application. You get a series of abstract sets and a series of abstract training sets and no guidance as to what and how to make these skills live.

So all credit to Sifu Hayes, he's approached it from the RBSD side and used that to interpret the shapes. Which is the crux of my issue. The body method mechanics as used on the bag is completely different from that used in the form. If that's the case, then don't bother with the forms, or interpret the form in the context of your method. Don't be like here's how I use it and in the form its like this, when clearly the spirit of the moments are widely different. If you've been bold enough to do your own thing, then don't show reverence for the form, make it as you use it. The whole secret movements thing, pfft, each application IMO is completely different, the lines are in a different plane, how can that be same?

Here's the other part of the question. Sarm Bo Jin, the first form in SPM. Is that form really about applications? CMA IMO is about putting a shape in a person's body. Sarm Bo Jin IMHO is about that. In its basic form its about entraining the key principles of SPM in the body. Much like circle walking, or stance training or all of that stuff. This to me is a feature of CMA. You put the shape in the body and then work the techniques out of it. You make it work by the two man sets, applications and free sparring.

[Wanderingdragon]

Well stated, I wholly agree. Too often nowadays people are claiming the art as their own
and proclaiming themselves masters, before they have ever mastered it and its true subtlties and nuances.

[gau chau]

+1

That form is one of the most stylised and impractical I have seen - 3 repetitions of double punch!? Yet in Chow Gar it is referred to as the most basic AND the most advanced. Why if you have to modify it so much to make it useable?

Much better to look at it as a tool for learning the body method, not how to fight.

[mikemantis]

Sorry to de-rail the thread somewhat, but here goes.

I know Sifu Steven Hayes, and well I'm sure the comments I make will probably come back to haunt me. But oh well, such is martial arts.

I think its highly commendable and very important that Sifu Hayes has explorer his martial arts. This is the art side of it. To make these structures work and to make them your own. The bit that makes me uncomfortable is that his hand is not SPM. I hope I can express a more nuances notion then; "When you fight it should look like kung fu, or it should like the form". The issue is not that, the issue is that SPM encapsulates a specific skill set. Its skill set is short range hitting, but it does that with a specific tool set; the phoenix eye, the elbow in a forward position often with the engagement of the shoulder girdle. The training and two man sets are focused around this.

Now I can understand the issues with Chow Gar, because simply put, IMO the syllabus is completely useless at making the transition from form/two man usage too fighting application. You get a series of abstract sets and a series of abstract training sets and no guidance as to what and how to make these skills live.

So all credit to Sifu Hayes, he's approached it from the RBSD side and used that to interpret the shapes. Which is the crux of my issue. The body method mechanics as used on the bag is completely different from that used in the form. If that's the case, then don't bother with the forms, or interpret the form in the context of your method. Don't be like here's how I use it and in the form its like this, when clearly the spirit of the moments are widely different. If you've been bold enough to do your own thing, then don't show reverence for the form, make it as you use it. The whole secret movements thing, pfft, each application IMO is completely different, the lines are in a different plane, how can that be same?

Here's the other part of the question. Sarm Bo Jin, the first form in SPM. Is that form really about applications? CMA IMO is about putting a shape in a person's body. Sarm Bo Jin IMHO is about that. In its basic form its about entraining the key principles of SPM in the body. Much like circle walking, or stance training or all of that stuff. This to me is a feature of CMA. You put the shape in the body and then work the techniques out of it. You make it work by the two man sets, applications and free sparring.

Interesting comments. How much access have you had to CG? Also what syllabus? as I have encountered several tbh.

[aamc]

FWIW I trained with Sifu Leung in his SPM, in which he trained extensively in Chow Gar under SiGung Ip Shui, but also trained with Chu Gung Wai. I myself had a little exposure to Pak Mei under Sifu Tang. I studied in Liverpool and trained Hung Gar under Sifu Ornellas, and whilst I don't claim any real knowledge have seen a little of the SPM hand from the north west.

As I've said all the opinions are my own.

Andrew

[mikemantis]

FWIW I trained with Sifu Leung in his SPM, in which he trained extensively in Chow Gar under SiGung Ip Shui, but also trained with Chu Gung Wai. I myself had a little exposure to Pak Mei under Sifu Tang. I studied in Liverpool and trained Hung Gar under Sifu Ornellas, and whilst I don't claim any real knowledge have seen a little of the SPM hand from the north west.

As I've said all the opinions are my own.

Andrew

That's some impressive training there. IIRC the Liverpool club was started by Sifu Jimmy Chan?
Tang Cho Tak in London?
North west? Newcastle i take it? Jook Lum iirc.

[aamc]

I guess so, I was always a lazy student...

Yup, the club as started by Sifu Jimmy Chan
Yup, Tang Cho Tak
Not so the school in newcastle. But I have meet and seen a little of Sifu Richards SPM one of Sifu Jimmy Chan's top students,
he has AFAIK knocked that on the head to concentrate on his Lion's Roar. FTR, I think his kung fu is simply top draw.

Andrew

[mikemantis]

I guess so, I was always a lazy student...

Yup, the club as started by Sifu Jimmy Chan
Yup, Tang Cho Tak
Not so the school in newcastle. But I have meet and seen a little of Sifu Richards SPM one of Sifu Jimmy Chan's top students,
he has AFAIK knocked that on the head to concentrate on his Lion's Roar. FTR, I think his kung fu is simply top draw.

Andrew

I am familiar with Sifu Richards. I subscribe to his youtube channel. Very good skills.

[mikemantis]

Well stated, I wholly agree. Too often nowadays people are claiming the art as their own
and proclaiming themselves masters, before they have ever mastered it and its true subtlties and nuances.

There's a Chow Gar school in Chicago if you fancy popping in for a looksee

[Wanderingdragon]

Speaks to my point, study one art to completion, that you KNOW how to use it, not many arts and forms until you can MaGuyver a way to use them. No doubt the school has a qualified teacher, we got those in Chgo, but today's student rarely has thepatience to learn what a true teacher has to offer.

[MyCupHasAHole]

I think it is fantastic that your are getting his out there. There seems to be growing interest in Chow Gar SPM but little access in some areas. I train the Whitrod lineage in the US and there is little to no Chow Gar. I got lucky with an awesome teacher but I love this material. Thanks for sharing.

[willie]

this thread is an inspiration to the arts, all taiji people should note this, but instead argue at every moment.
there is just a little mantis in our Chen set, but I dig it. mantis is cool. wish I had the whole set.