the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

My long fist teacher's teacher Han Ching-Tan always talked about:

- Long fist kick,
- XingYi punch,
- Taiji waist,
- Bagua footwork,

IMO, every MA style has it's strong point. Cross training was an ancient concept. One just can't get everything from one style.

Your thought?

Totally agree. That is exactly what my Master did.

Some bagua styles seem to have integrated xingyi, taiji, yingzhao (qinna), etc., not to mention many weapons methods/sets. Many Hebei xingyi styles also integrated bagua and xingyi; Che style xingyi in Shanxi also integrated chuojiao, etc. So it does seem that cross-training was popular back then, too - just maybe that they had to do it in a culturally accepted way (via "brother" connections, etc.).

Everyone is interested to learn different things in general! It's just fun.

It depends. A good martial art should be a system where everything works together based on the same mechanical and strategic principles. Different martial arts have different principles. Mixing and matching styles can be like mixing and matching operating systems for your computer, which generally doesn't work out that well. Even if you're operating within a more closed system, not everything works together in practice like it does in theory. Experienced programmers know that even in a system like .NET, there are some combinations of libraries and frameworks that go together better than others. If you're not careful which you choose, you may run into problems down the road that are difficult to work around, and you end up with expensive and buggy software.

Sometimes it's better to go with something simple that you know works, rather than trying to get a bunch of additional features that you don't really need and end up causing problems.

johnwang wrote:My long fist teacher's teacher Han Ching-Tan always talked about:

- Long fist kick,
- XingYi punch,
- Taiji waist,
- Bagua footwork,

IMO, every MA style" has it's strong point. Cross training was an ancient concept. One just can't get everything from one style.

Your thought?

Relying on one "style" of kick, punch, waist or footwork can be a disadvantage. Being able to control by changing with an opponent is an advantage. A goal of MMA is to apply training to fights while becoming a better martial artist with less emphasis on representing any one particular "style" or technique. Kick, punch, waist and footwork tend to look similar in actual fighting.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=0yCeduVJW9s

Disagree different methods have different approaches to the same problems. Even using the same tool sets they will look different depending on method used, ie inner and outer.

The idea formlessness, is to be unaware of the tool sets used that become natural extensions expressions of oneself. If one is aware of what they're doing they have not reached formlessness.

Every style was sometime a mix of other styles...

ors wrote:Every style was sometime a mix of other styles...

Every adult was once a baby. If you still shit yourself at 35, there's a problem.

Bhassler wrote:

ors wrote:Every style was sometime a mix of other styles...

Every adult was once a baby. If you still shit yourself at 35, there's a problem.

Well, I am 45, and ...

Bhassler wrote:It depends. A good martial art should be a system where everything works together based on the same mechanical and strategic principles. Different martial arts have different principles. Mixing and matching styles can be like mixing and matching operating systems for your computer, which generally doesn't work out that well. Even if you're operating within a more closed system, not everything works together in practice like it does in theory. Experienced programmers know that even in a system like .NET, there are some combinations of libraries and frameworks that go together better than others. If you're not careful which you choose, you may run into problems down the road that are difficult to work around, and you end up with expensive and buggy software.

Sometimes it's better to go with something simple that you know works, rather than trying to get a bunch of additional features that you don't really need and end up causing problems.

I understand where you are coming from but let us assume that these are competent fighters and not armchair warriors for a moment. Usually their style will be most heavily influenced by one of the systems or by components of these systems that complement each other. Literally all styles in China are the result of mixing. There is no such thing as a pure style.

windwalker wrote:Disagree different methods have different approaches to the same problems. Even using the same tool sets they will look different depending on method used, ie inner and outer.

The idea formlessness, is to be unaware of the tool sets used that become natural extensions expressions of oneself. If one is aware of what they're doing they have not reached formlessness.

Those different methods and approaches (e.g., demos, forms) look more similar after getting punched in the face. In MMA, some TMAists evolve to looking similar by necessity (e.g. efficiency, speed, etc).

ors wrote:Every style was sometime a mix of other styles...

johnwang's list implies certain styles have a better technique. Those styles may have variations depending on context and other "styles" may have similar mechanics in their variations. Having one best technique (arguable) for all contexts may be detrimental.

MaartenSFS wrote:

Bhassler wrote:It depends. A good martial art should be a system where everything works together based on the same mechanical and strategic principles. Different martial arts have different principles. Mixing and matching styles can be like mixing and matching operating systems for your computer, which generally doesn't work out that well. Even if you're operating within a more closed system, not everything works together in practice like it does in theory. Experienced programmers know that even in a system like .NET, there are some combinations of libraries and frameworks that go together better than others. If you're not careful which you choose, you may run into problems down the road that are difficult to work around, and you end up with expensive and buggy software.

Sometimes it's better to go with something simple that you know works, rather than trying to get a bunch of additional features that you don't really need and end up causing problems.

I understand where you are coming from but let us assume that these are competent fighters and not armchair warriors for a moment. Usually their style will be most heavily influenced by one of the systems or by components of these systems that complement each other. Literally all styles in China are the result of mixing. There is no such thing as a pure style.

It's not about "purity," it's about everything fitting together such that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Something as simple as weight placement on the foot in foundational stance work can profoundly change everything about the way a person moves. Just grabbing a part from another system that does things differently doesn't work-- someone may come up with something that looks similar or accomplishes the same goal, but it is different. At a superficial level, you can say "so what, if it works?", but when you get to playing at higher levels of force, or with better fighters, or in different environments (street vs sport, etc), then all of a sudden things that didn't make a difference previously can cause failure or get you hurt. I chose my programming example in part because I know John Wang understands computers, so it could be a detailed enough analogy to get the point across, but I also chose it because software works as a system, much like a martial art should. If a person doesn't understand systems thinking at a basic or at least intuitive level, then they don't have the cognitive framework to rationally think about what they're doing when they want to go outside of an existing system and create something new.

If someone just wants to fight, or function in a particular narrow set of circumstances, then it's much easier to mix and match and pick what they want. It takes a broader perspective and actual life experience to understand that success in one tiny area doesn't qualify someone to make generalizations and proclamations about the deeper, broader world.

It depends. A good martial art should be a system where everything works together based on the same mechanical and strategic principles. Different martial arts have different principles. Mixing and matching styles can be like mixing and matching operating systems for your computer, which generally doesn't work out that well.
...
It's not about "purity," it's about everything fitting together such that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

Agreed.

IMO, there’s nothing wrong about learning some things from different styles, or learning about styles. But you need a very strong focus. If you look at different Martial Artists, MMA fighters and even boxers, they have very clear styles. Some are dancers, bouncers, sluggers, etc. They don’t really change between different modes. They are what they are. The problem with different Chinese arts is that they have very different modes and mind-sets. Techniques are created for certain purposes. Long Fist kicks are designed for Long Fist strategies and tactics, Xingyi punches are designed for Xingyi tactics. The strategies of these arts are quite different.

So, IMO, it’s better to not just mix, but to first find out what kind of fighter you are and want to be. Then you can work from a core and build different methods and techniques around this core in a way that makes everything match together.

My first art I studied was Tai Chi and it has always been my main style though I have practiced some other things like Sanda, Thai Boxing and Shaolin. I don’t find arts with a very strong external focus compatible with the internal arts. Bagua and Xingyi is a more natural combination as they have similar focus and approach and they work from similar angles and distances. I have said this before, but I studied both Bagua and Xingyi for many years but decided to throw them away as I wanted to spend my practicing time on Tai Chi only. I am completely satisfied with Tai Chi Chuan and have total confidence in this art. I see no real benefit about combining this and that from different arts. It can be fun and in some ways rewarding to combine arts that are compatible though. But I also think some people miss what is the most important and hide themselves behind techniques. Again, you must find a way to approach fighting that suites yourself and that is true to your heart. Otherwise your whole approach to martial arts will be confused and unfocused.

marvin8 wrote:Those different methods and approaches (e.g., demos, forms) look more similar after getting punched in the face. In MMA, some TMAists evolve to looking similar by necessity (e.g. efficiency, speed, etc)..

Seems only to apply to those who label themselves as CMA artist.
which has been, and is questioned as to why what they trained is not reflected in use.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy0-Dt9mPiI

notice that the the spinning back kick is very clear, followed by boxing hands,
followed by a judo throw.

He developed his own method based on poven and practiced movements.

He did not evolve , he is his "method" based on his training ...
which is what formlessness means

IME there are people in CMA who've become fromless with their art, the problem being
for some, their assumptions are not tested to the level they feel they've achieved.

Even with top level players they stick with what they've trained



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNlQQ-SX3X4

Bhassler wrote:
It's not about "purity," it's about everything fitting together such that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Something as simple as weight placement on the foot in foundational stance work can profoundly change everything about the way a person moves. Just grabbing a part from another system that does things differently doesn't work-- someone may come up with something that looks similar or accomplishes the same goal, but it is different. At a superficial level, you can say "so what, if it works?", but when you get to playing at higher levels of force, or with better fighters, or in different environments (street vs sport, etc), then all of a sudden things that didn't make a difference previously can cause failure or get you hurt. I chose my programming example in part because I know John Wang understands computers, so it could be a detailed enough analogy to get the point across, but I also chose it because software works as a system, much like a martial art should. If a person doesn't understand systems thinking at a basic or at least intuitive level, then they don't have the cognitive framework to rationally think about what they're doing when they want to go outside of an existing system and create something new.

If someone just wants to fight, or function in a particular narrow set of circumstances, then it's much easier to mix and match and pick what they want. It takes a broader perspective and actual life experience to understand that success in one tiny area doesn't qualify someone to make generalizations and proclamations about the deeper, broader world.

agree

Mike Staples, a tibetan white crane shifu
http://focusingemptiness.com/index.php/ ... WhiteCrane

summed it up nicely.

“A “narrow” system is one that specifies a particular response for a particular attack. So for every possible attack, there is a specific response. And because there are a great many possible attacks, there are also a great may specific techniques to counter them. With “narrow” systems, you have A LOT of techniques — like the proverbial 108 hand techniques, for instance.

A “wide” system has much fewer techniques, but looks to the changes possible for each of them. So for instance, you might only have 5 or 6 basic punches… but many “changes” associated with those punches. See also Baqua, with it’s emphasis on changes.

The way to learn how to use a wide system (like White Crane) is then to gain experience with using the limited number of techniques you have available, in a wide assortment of attacks. In other words, you have to use the techniques in sparring… a lot of sparing… so you can learn how a single punch can be used against multiple attack patterns”

Mike Staples

The patterns of fist-fighting take their form according to matching the body, hands and steps. Forms may be different, yet their submission to [their] [N]ature is the same. The sameness, which within itself has some differences, still does not lose its sameness.
In this way the rule of the form is well understood.



CHAPTER 10 Functioning



Everything takes its own particular form before it can function. The function of a thing is intangible, but the effect produced is there. Function arises out of form; therefore, the intangible function is the servant of the form, which is concrete.

A wheel one foot in diameter can cover thousands of miles; this is form in function [i.e. the functioning of form]. Those who are skillful in making use of function do not find the effect in form (but in the function itself). .

https://www.baihepai.com/pak-hok-pai-li ... -siu-jong/