MaartenSFS wrote:You ignore the knowledge of those more experienced with CMA ... Like Windwalker said, China is huge and these fighters are locally known.
marvin8 wrote:dspyrido wrote:What is modernised?
Drills and training.dspyrido wrote:How do they differ and where do they not overlap?
In general, forms, push hands, partner drills with contact, etc. vs shadowboxing, bagwork, padwork, partner drills with no contact/distance, etc.
marvin8 wrote:Quigga wrote:You are right Marvin. I have presented weak arguments as to why IMA is not seen in MMA. Anecdotes are not enough. Will come back later.
According to the OP article, IMA is seen in MMA.
The OP article and Ramsey (who differ on the definition of sanda) say modern training is superior to TCMA and TCMAist should evolve their training. Whoever disagrees, what training, attributes, etc do you feel are superior to modern training and highest ranked sport fighters?
marvin8 wrote:MaartenSFS wrote:You ignore the knowledge of those more experienced with CMA ... Like Windwalker said, China is huge and these fighters are locally known.
No. Quite the opposite, I asked to elaborate on the statements made (e.g., names, etc).
Trick wrote:marvin8 wrote:Quigga wrote:You are right Marvin. I have presented weak arguments as to why IMA is not seen in MMA. Anecdotes are not enough. Will come back later.
According to the OP article, IMA is seen in MMA.
The OP article and Ramsey (who differ on the definition of sanda) say modern training is superior to TCMA and TCMAist should evolve their training. Whoever disagrees, what training, attributes, etc do you feel are superior to modern training and highest ranked sport fighters?
Why are “modern” fighters that are busy training for fights in the ring or on the mat against other “modern” fighters worried about TCMA practice methods ? Or maybe it’s not those fighters that are worried, maybe it’s an entirely different group that worries so?
Trick wrote:marvin8 wrote:MaartenSFS wrote:You ignore the knowledge of those more experienced with CMA ... Like Windwalker said, China is huge and these fighters are locally known.
No. Quite the opposite, I asked to elaborate on the statements made (e.g., names, etc).
Why would anyone want to post names of practitioners/teachers who choose to keep low profile?
marvin8 wrote:Trick wrote:marvin8 wrote:[
No. Quite the opposite, I asked to elaborate on the statements made (e.g., names, etc).
Why would anyone want to post names of practitioners/teachers who choose to keep low profile?
Windwalker and MaartenSFS wanted to post there were "locally known fighters." So, I asked their names.
ok, So it’s the “other(different) group then,,,kind of the rootless onesmarvin8 wrote:Trick wrote:marvin8 wrote:According to the OP article, IMA is seen in MMA.
The OP article and Ramsey (who differ on the definition of sanda) say modern training is superior to TCMA and TCMAist should evolve their training. Whoever disagrees, what training, attributes, etc do you feel are superior to modern training and highest ranked sport fighters?
Why are “modern” fighters that are busy training for fights in the ring or on the mat against other “modern” fighters worried about TCMA practice methods ? Or maybe it’s not those fighters that are worried, maybe it’s an entirely different group that worries so?
Mason Zhong author of the OP article and Hoi Wah Ho, being Chinese and TCMAists, have an interest in preserving and "making kung fu great again by evolving in the modern world." They proposed solutions in the OP article and video and welcome discussions on the topic.
Trick wrote:marvin8 wrote:No. Quite the opposite, I asked to elaborate on the statements made (e.g., names, etc).
Why would anyone want to post names of practitioners/teachers who choose to keep low profile?marvin8 wrote:Windwaler and MaartenSFS wanted to post there were "locally known fighters." So, I asked their names.
And you would then travel to meet them, or search the Internt for videos .......
dspyrido wrote:marvin8 wrote:dspyrido wrote:What is modernised?
Drills and training.dspyrido wrote:How do they differ and where do they not overlap?
In general, forms, push hands, partner drills with contact, etc. vs shadowboxing, bagwork, padwork, partner drills with no contact/distance, etc.
General or not those views are incorrect.
Modern? "shadowboxing, bagwork, padwork, partner drills/no contact range" this stuff has been around for millenia.
Traditional? "forms, push hands, contact partner drills" - many styles of CMA go beyond the form. Some even do away with it almost completely.
As a short list I have seen these styles do padwork, bagwork, sparring (not from contact) etc. - you can find examples of fighty schools doing xinyi, hsing-i, baji. ziramen, tang lang, WC, taichi, yi quan and many others putting on gloves and going for it.
2017-06-01 wrote:New Beginning: Taijiquan, dare to take on a supermatch with Sanda?
Chen Bing: Greetings New Beginning! Are you just curious, or do you have some particularly fascinating ideas? Sanda originated from traditional wushu but exceeds folk martial arts in many aspects including training methods, intensity, practical combat applications, body recovery, nutrition, as well as selection of athletes. Though related, there are many differences [between taijiquan and sanda]. Why not learn from each other and improve together? I think that would be more pragmatic and important than calling dares.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests