Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Discussion on the three big Chinese internals, Yiquan, Bajiquan, Piguazhang and other similar styles.

Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby marvin8 on Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:21 pm

Excerpts from "Sanda: When Kung Fu created a solution to its problems - then threw it away:"

Mason Zhong on Aug 5, 2020 wrote:This article was generously contributed by Mason Zhong of the Chinese Martial Arts Reformation Society.

Abstract:
• In the 1980s, China modernized Chinese Martial Arts (CMA) to create Sanda (translation: "free fighting").
• CMA practitioners have long dismissed Sanda as not being CMA.
• Almost every Sanda technique can be found in CMA.
• While Sanda has foreign influence, saying Sanda isn't CMA is like saying Sambo isn't Russian.
• More work needs to be done to educate ignorant CMA practitioners.

So... what is Sanda?

For a long time, the Chinese government banned the combative practice of CMA among the civilian population, instead only allowing the practice of Wushu Taolu (武术套路), i.e. forms.

While some degree of combative training was maintained in the military and police, it was not until 1979 that the General Administration of Sport of China (国家体育总局) initiated a project to greatly expand and further develop such practices into a modern combat sport for the civilian populace.

After much research and experimentation, this project ultimately culminated in the creation of Sanshou (散手), later renamed Sanda (散打): a full-contact combat sport primarily characterized by punches, kicks, and throws.


After learning Shuai Jiao (Chinese Wrestling) (摔跤) as a child, Chinese National Sanda Team head coach Zhang Genxue (张根学) received his martial arts training in the military while Sanda was still in its early experimental stages.

Given its adoption of the same modern, scientific training methods used by martial arts such as Boxing and Judo, Sanda really should have solved the issues of unscientific mysticism and dogma plaguing CMA by now. ...

Yeah, but Sanda IS just kickboxing, right?

Dismissing Sanda as ‘merely kickboxing’ and therefore not CMA is both ignorant and counterproductive. ...

What most CMA practitioners, including so-called ‘masters’, don't even realize is that almost every single technique in Sanda can be found in various CMA styles. Let’s have a look at some examples.

Punches

Jabs and crosses can be found in both Lian Bu Quan (连步拳) and Gong Li Quan (功力拳) (1:09:41, 1:10:02), as well as Eagle Claw (鹰爪派) (0:15, 0:27, 0:30).

Furthermore, throat punches, eye pokes, and countless other straight strikes to the head/neck can easily be adapted into jabs and crosses.

Hooks (including check hooks), overhands, uppercuts, spinning back fists, and superman punches are the bread and butter of Cai Li Fo (Choy Li Fut) (蔡李佛).

As permitted by Sanda rules, various parts of the fist are used as the striking surface. This is different from boxing, where only the knuckles may be used.

Tighter, close-range hooks can be found in Zhou Jia (Jow Ga) (周家) and Eagle Claw.

Tan Tui's (弹腿) hooks can also be used as casting punches.

The uppercut is also found in both Lian Bu Quan and Gong Li Quan (1:09:15, 1:10:36).

The last example above involves using the free hand to control the opponent's head. Further examples of dirty boxing can be found in Tan Tui, Yang Style Taiji (杨式太极), and Xingyi (形意).

Hong Jia (Hung Gar) (洪家) has shovel hooks to the ribs, while body hooks with a more horizontal trajectory can be easily adapted from Pi Gua's (劈掛) open hand strikes.

Kicks

Round kicks, including leg kicks, are found in Choy Li Fut, Chuo Jiao (戳脚), and Northern Praying Mantis (北螳螂) (0:22, 0:36, 0:47). Although less powerful than Thai-style 'sweeping' kicks, the snappier motion of these kicks makes them harder to catch, making them more suitable for Sanda.

The (spinning) back kick is known in Hung Gar as a Tiger Tail Kick (虎尾腿), while the spinning hook kick is a signature of Shaolin Tiger style (少林虎拳).

Full Plum + Knee is found in Gong Li Quan.

Grappling

The wrestling obviously comes from Shuai Jiao, although other styles have wrestling techniques too.

People also tend to overlook the importance of pushing and counter-pushing: a critical skill when fighting on a Lei Tai (擂台), which for real-life application acts as a proxy for all sorts of ledges and tripping/slipping hazards.

Defense

Covering up with the forearms is found in Da Tong Bei Quan (大通背拳) and Da Hong Quan (大洪拳), which also uses shoulder rolling. Meanwhile, the cross arm guard is found in Xiao Hong Quan (小洪拳).

Head movement isn't a concept alien to CMA either: this Hung Gar technique involves slipping a jab/cross and simultaneously counter-punching with a straight to the body. Xiao Hong Quan also has a similar technique. Bobbing and weaving is found in Da Hong Quan, while many northern styles use level changes that are usually used to set up takedowns but can obviously also be used to evade punches. Furthermore, pulling/swaying/fading is a hallmark of drunken styles.

Finally, Sanda’s signature kick catch throws are found in Northern Praying Mantis and Hung Gar.

Image
Sanda’s kick catch throws (接腿摔) epitomize the style’s integration of striking and stand-up grappling.

... So… Sanda is 100% Chinese then?

Not quite. Sanda has also been significantly influenced by foreign martial arts: its modern training and instructional methods; competition format that allows for efficient pressure-testing; adoption of modern sports science and medicine; and use of protective gear and modern training equipment were all influenced by foreign sources such as Boxing and Muay Thai.

Image
Despite his prior experience as a military combatives instructor and initial successes as a provincial Sanda coach, current Chinese National Team head coach Zhang Genxue still undertook five years of full-time study at the Xi’an Physical Education University in order to continue improving his knowledge and skills as a coach.

Stylistically, such influences also led to the convergent evolution of fighting methods, with the end result being something that more or less resembles a modern kickboxing-derivative. It is no surprise then that the early developers of Sanda partially referenced martial arts such as Boxing and Muay Thai for guidance in selecting certain techniques and directing the development of some of their own fighting methods and tactics.

However, coming from numerous CMA backgrounds themselves, these developers also knew that the vast majority of the techniques they ended up adopting already existed in various CMA styles (as illustrated previously), hence why they even utilized traditional CMA terminology in naming many of these techniques in their training manuals for a period of time.

... Ultimately, the biggest obstacle preventing Sanda from solving CMA's problems is CMA practitioners themselves: if even we don't own it as CMA, why should anyone else?


Excerpt from "Comments:"

Mason Zhong wrote:In hindsight, the omission of certain content (that I’ve left for future articles) has perhaps distorted my message, which I would articulate as: yes, sanda has been partially influenced by foreign disciplines such as boxing and Muay Thai, but that’s no reason for the CMA community to reject it as an acceptable evolution of CMA because:

1. Virtually every technique can still be found in CMA.
2. There are still plenty of distinctly Chinese influences, e.g. side kick, kick catches, sweeps, Shuai Jiao, lei tai, etc.
3. Most people have a blatant misconception of what CMA fighting should look like, due to misinterpretation of techniques, influence of kung fu films and wushu forms etc.
4. Martial arts (should) evolve and adapt, and CMA is no exception.
5. Martial arts have always influenced each other, and again CMA is no exception (e.g. even Shaolin arts partially had Indian origins)
6. The evolution of TCMA into sanda predates the 1979 sports convention.

Hopefully this message will come out more clearly when my other articles get published.
Last edited by marvin8 on Wed Aug 26, 2020 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby everything on Thu Aug 27, 2020 7:42 am

too much nationalistic crap. it's sad for some cool TMA stuff to die out, but in 1:1 combat sports, who really cares from a practical pov? the fantasy LARP crowd will try to keep it going so eh. they need to let their stupid prejudices and hubris die. of course, it will get killed by the mma v tma guys anyway.
amateur practices til gets right pro til can't get wrong
/ better approx answer to right q than exact answer to wrong q which can be made precise /
“most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. Source of all true art & science
User avatar
everything
Wuji
 
Posts: 5889
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 7:22 pm
Location: USA

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby Trick on Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:05 pm

So now if a Chinese say Sanda is CMA it’s nazism. The attacks on the PRC getting more ridiculous....
Trick
Wuji
 
Posts: 3782
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:30 am

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby everything on Thu Aug 27, 2020 8:07 pm

Sanda can be a good sport without all the crap about identity politics
amateur practices til gets right pro til can't get wrong
/ better approx answer to right q than exact answer to wrong q which can be made precise /
“most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. Source of all true art & science
User avatar
everything
Wuji
 
Posts: 5889
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 7:22 pm
Location: USA

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby dspyrido on Fri Aug 28, 2020 7:09 pm

... Ultimately, the biggest obstacle preventing Sanda from solving CMA's problems is CMA practitioners themselves: if even we don't own it as CMA, why should anyone else?


Where the bias coming from?

I don't know of any stand alone sanda school that is not either:

a) headed by a traditional cma (hung gar, choy lay fut etc) or
b) if it operates as a sanda gym also openly supports cma instructors to teach at their locations even going as far as enrolling their own athletes

I also can't think of any sanda athletes who have not trained in other CMAs.

I've also met several instructors who prefer to teach sanda over their original TMAs because it is more marketable and easier to grasp.

Who in the CMA community that is actually capable in martial arts is turning their nose up at sanda?
User avatar
dspyrido
Wuji
 
Posts: 2348
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:03 am

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby MaartenSFS on Sat Aug 29, 2020 11:54 am

I studied Sanda for several years and then traditional arts for a number of years, eleven years in China total, and Sanda, whilst an excellent martial art, in no way represents most traditional arts. The handwork is all Changquan and/or boxing. The kicks and wrestling may be from traditional arts, but it is the training methods and power generating methods, more than the actual techniques, that really make the traditional arts shine. That and trapping. Without trapping techniques it/'s not a traditional Chinese martial art. Those that disagree have clearly never learned a TCMA from a qualified master. It took me a long time to find traditional arts in China and so I started training Sanda, quite intensely. It's a very effective art. It wasn't what I was looking for, though, and lacked the depth of an intact, practical traditional art.

I learned the forms-based approach for the first two years, six hours, six days a week. This was terribly inefficient and I much preferred many other masters' approaches that emphasised solo and partner drills and sparring. Amongst the most practical arts I encountered and/or trained were, in no particular order, Baguazhang, Xinyiliuhequan, Xingyiquan, Tongbeiquan, Bajiquan, Piguaquan, and Tanglangquan. These arts all focus on line drills, rather than forms, and have interesting methods of power generation. My Master was also taught Taijiquan in this way. The components of any practical TCMA mirror the components of a modern MMA training regiment, with unique properties not found anywhere else. This alone makes them worth preserving, but only the ones that haven't been watered down.
User avatar
MaartenSFS
Wuji
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:22 pm
Location: Lansing, Michigan

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby marvin8 on Sat Aug 29, 2020 2:46 pm

MaartenSFS wrote:Sanda, whilst an excellent martial art, in no way represents most traditional arts. The handwork is all Changquan and/or boxing. The kicks and wrestling may be from traditional arts, but it is the training methods and power generating methods, more than the actual techniques, that really make the traditional arts shine. That and trapping. Without trapping techniques it/'s not a traditional Chinese martial art.

This opinion is shared with Ramsey Dewey and others. Regarding trapping, I have not seen wing chun or CMA fighters use trapping in a competition/fight. I have only seen western boxing and MMA fighters trap in competition. Trapping/throwing leg skill can be an extra step, time, stop opponent's momentum, require closer distance and countered. Generally, trapping is a lower level skill than no contact, control with no contact > 1 point contact > 2 point contact > 3 point contact.

At around 12:10 in the video below, Ramsey says some TMAists take his MMA classes in order to learn how to to use their traditional techniques in a fight (e.g., aikido, Linyi in bagua zhang, wing chun, etc.).

MaartenSFS wrote: the most practical arts I encountered and/or trained were, in no particular order, Baguazhang, Xinyiliuhequan, Xingyiquan, Tongbeiquan, Bajiquan, Piguaquan, and Tanglangquan. These arts all focus on line drills, rather than forms, and have interesting methods of power generation. My Master was also taught Taijiquan in this way.

Per the OP article, many CMA techniques can be found in Sanda (although they may be modified for efficiency).

MaartenSFS wrote:The components of any practical TCMA mirror the components of a modern MMA training regiment, with unique properties not found anywhere else. This alone makes them worth preserving, but only the ones that haven't been watered down.

Generally, TCMA drills and training do not mirror Sanda which are modernized. This may be a main reason TCMA practitioners lose matches to MMA fighters by a wide margin. Highest ranked sanda and MMA fighters (even in China) do not train "traditionally." Modern training methods have evolved from traditional methods to "preserve" training time.

Ramsey Dewey on Mar 20, 2020 wrote:The UFC went out of their way in recent promotional videos to sell the title fight between Chinese champion Zhang Weili, and former champ Joanna Jedrzejczyk, by emphasizing Zhang Weili’s traditional kungfu background and saying nothing of her actual combat sports training.

Clearly, there was no bagua zhang, or taijiquan used in any ostensible way in that fight, and in spite of the fact that the bulk of Zhang’s training is Muay Thai and BJJ, the kungfu nerds of the internet have found their new patron saint. ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvtu36Y32g
Last edited by marvin8 on Sat Aug 29, 2020 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby dspyrido on Sat Aug 29, 2020 4:01 pm

marvin8 wrote:Generally, TCMA drills and training do not mirror Sanda which are modernized. This may be a main reason TCMA practitioners lose matches to MMA fighters by a wide margin. Highest ranked sanda and MMA fighters (even in China) do not train "traditionally." Modern training methods have evolved from traditional methods to "preserve" training time.


What is a TCMA drill?

What does it mean to "not train "traditionally""?

What is modernised?

How do they differ and where do they not overlap?
User avatar
dspyrido
Wuji
 
Posts: 2348
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:03 am

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby MaartenSFS on Sat Aug 29, 2020 5:23 pm

marvin8 wrote:
MaartenSFS wrote:Sanda, whilst an excellent martial art, in no way represents most traditional arts. The handwork is all Changquan and/or boxing. The kicks and wrestling may be from traditional arts, but it is the training methods and power generating methods, more than the actual techniques, that really make the traditional arts shine. That and trapping. Without trapping techniques it/'s not a traditional Chinese martial art.

This opinion is shared with Ramsey Dewey and others. Regarding trapping, I have not seen wing chun or CMA fighters use trapping in a competition/fight. I have only seen western boxing and MMA fighters trap in competition. Trapping/throwing leg skill can be an extra step, time, stop opponent's momentum, require closer distance and countered. Generally, trapping is a lower level skill than no contact, control with no contact > 1 point contact > 2 point contact > 3 point contact.

At around 12:10 in the video below, Ramsey says some TMAists take his MMA classes in order to learn how to to use their traditional techniques in a fight (e.g., aikido, Linyi in bagua zhang, wing chun, etc.).

MaartenSFS wrote: the most practical arts I encountered and/or trained were, in no particular order, Baguazhang, Xinyiliuhequan, Xingyiquan, Tongbeiquan, Bajiquan, Piguaquan, and Tanglangquan. These arts all focus on line drills, rather than forms, and have interesting methods of power generation. My Master was also taught Taijiquan in this way.

Per the OP article, many CMA techniques can be found in Sanda (although they may be modified for efficiency).

MaartenSFS wrote:The components of any practical TCMA mirror the components of a modern MMA training regiment, with unique properties not found anywhere else. This alone makes them worth preserving, but only the ones that haven't been watered down.

Generally, TCMA drills and training do not mirror Sanda which are modernized. This may be a main reason TCMA practitioners lose matches to MMA fighters by a wide margin. Highest ranked sanda and MMA fighters (even in China) do not train "traditionally." Modern training methods have evolved from traditional methods to "preserve" training time.

Ramsey Dewey on Mar 20, 2020 wrote:The UFC went out of their way in recent promotional videos to sell the title fight between Chinese champion Zhang Weili, and former champ Joanna Jedrzejczyk, by emphasizing Zhang Weili’s traditional kungfu background and saying nothing of her actual combat sports training.

Clearly, there was no bagua zhang, or taijiquan used in any ostensible way in that fight, and in spite of the fact that the bulk of Zhang’s training is Muay Thai and BJJ, the kungfu nerds of the internet have found their new patron saint. ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUvtu36Y32g

Trapping is not a lower level skill because it allows you to control the opponent. An extra step is worth it if it allows you to strike them whilst controlling them without taking damage yourself. Trapping and striking can also be done simultaneously. Controlling your opponent also has the advantage of setting up the next attack. Forget what you've seen it the movies. ALL Chinese martial arts employ trapping. There are a myriad of different training methods and techniques and most require learning new methods of power generation. I know one master that also uses it extensively using combinations of strikes and kicks (and he also combined it with elements of Sanda). Since the cultural revolution most traditional practitioners have tried to fly under the radar and not entered competitions, especially skilled ones. I have heard a multitude of reasons. I'd suggest actually going to China and meeting some skilled practitioners, since you obviously have only seen watered-down bullshit. I'll even set up the meetings for you. I'd be a lot easier to just continue being an internet troll, though, so it's up to you.

Ramsay Dewey has no knowledge of traditional arts and chose to remain in ignorance when he did not take me up on the same offer. The CMA stylists that came to him either didn't learn CMA properly or had a bad teacher or both.

CMA drills do mirror Sanda drills, but choose to tackle the same problems using different methods. I can understand how you are confused, though, since you've never seen the real thing.

There's a lot of videos out there of people claiming to train CMA when they can't fight worth a damn and also those that claim it and then go on to fight using Sanda, such as in Chenjiagou, for some incomprehensible reason. Yet in China I have met a number of masters that were able to fight with traditional techniques and even those that had combined the boxing from Sanda with traditional techniques. These people are just ordinary citizens that have day jobs and train early every morning and don't care about the internet or what you think. Many are older. These charlatans getting their arses kicked and the popularity of anything non-Chinese (including TKD) ensure that no young people decide to learn from the remaining masters. In China most young people have zero interest in CMA, believe it or not.
User avatar
MaartenSFS
Wuji
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:22 pm
Location: Lansing, Michigan

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby klonk on Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:37 pm

The great problem with sanda is they are acting like there is no acting.
I define internal martial art as unusual muscle recruitment and leave it at that. If my definition is incomplete, at least it is correct so far as it goes.
User avatar
klonk
Great Old One
 
Posts: 6769
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:46 am

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby marvin8 on Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:02 pm

dspyrido wrote:
marvin8 wrote:Generally, TCMA drills and training do not mirror Sanda which are modernized. This may be a main reason TCMA practitioners lose matches to MMA fighters by a wide margin. Highest ranked sanda and MMA fighters (even in China) do not train "traditionally." Modern training methods have evolved from traditional methods to "preserve" training time.

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.

MaartenSFS wrote:Trapping is not a lower level skill because it allows you to control the opponent. An extra step is worth it if it allows you to strike them whilst controlling them without taking damage yourself.

No contact allows you to control an opponent at distance with less commitment. It's logic and CMA concepts (e.g., ling kong jing, control without grabbing, etc.)—control with no contact > 1 point contact > 2 point contact > 3 point contact.

Note that A's first contact is a punch on B's face, while B is chasing the lead arm trap.
marvin8 wrote:Problem: While B is doing three actions (chasing hands) to A's one action (e.g., lure w/jab), A can punch B's face (chase center):
Image


MaartenSFS wrote:CMA drills do mirror Sanda drills, but choose to tackle the same problems using different methods. I can understand how you are confused, though, since you've never seen the real thing.

I may have misunderstood. However, I described the different methods in training and drills above.
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby .Q. on Sat Aug 29, 2020 11:41 pm

While I personally train trapping and use it, at least based on what I've heard there are traditional CMA styles that avoid trapping. 不招不架,只有一下 specifically points that out. If you say most major traditional CMA styles all have trapping, then that's probably true.
Trapping is definitely not lower level skills. You can't even use it decently unless you're trained up to a certain point. I wouldn't say it's higher level than non-trapping though. What level something is at depends on the individual. Cooking rice is a basic skill but some Japanese guy was so good at it he was called the God of Rice Cooking.
Traditional training is not always better or worse. Some drills are better than most modern counterparts and many are worse. There's nothing special about whether something is traditional besides maybe having been tested more in traditional conditions. The founders developed those drills because they wanted to develop certain attributes and they came up with ways to drill them. If those founders were more knowledgeable than you, they would develop better drills than you. If you are more knowledgeable, you can develop better drills. When the founders first created the drills, they were "modern" at the time. Also, even if the original drills are overall better for the general public, it may not be as good as for you personally, as you may have different circumstance than the founder. If I weigh 300 pounds, I wouldn't train jump kicks much regardless how important they are to my system, for example.
.Q.
Wuji
 
Posts: 879
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:51 am

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby MaartenSFS on Sun Aug 30, 2020 7:14 am

marvin8 wrote:
dspyrido wrote:
marvin8 wrote:Generally, TCMA drills and training do not mirror Sanda which are modernized. This may be a main reason TCMA practitioners lose matches to MMA fighters by a wide margin. Highest ranked sanda and MMA fighters (even in China) do not train "traditionally." Modern training methods have evolved from traditional methods to "preserve" training time.

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.

MaartenSFS wrote:Trapping is not a lower level skill because it allows you to control the opponent. An extra step is worth it if it allows you to strike them whilst controlling them without taking damage yourself.

No contact allows you to control an opponent at distance with less commitment. It's logic and CMA concepts (e.g., ling kong jing, control without grabbing, etc.)—control with no contact > 1 point contact > 2 point contact > 3 point contact.

Note that A's first contact is a punch on B's face, while B is chasing the lead arm trap.
marvin8 wrote:Problem: While B is doing three actions (chasing hands) to A's one action (e.g., lure w/jab), A can punch B's face (chase center):
Image


MaartenSFS wrote:CMA drills do mirror Sanda drills, but choose to tackle the same problems using different methods. I can understand how you are confused, though, since you've never seen the real thing.

I may have misunderstood. However, I described the different methods in training and drills above.

I did extensive pad and bagwork with traditional pads in my traditional training, along with many things not found in Sanda.

Your bad example of trapping only confirms that you know nothing about it.

Lingkongjin?! GTFO! How dare you bring up that shit in a serious discussion??? Everything that I've ever seen you type suggests that you choose to be ignorant of traditional martial arts and that you are a troll. Have fun with that. My response to the OP was for those that don't have the experience that I have so that they are not misled by your hogwash.
Last edited by MaartenSFS on Sun Aug 30, 2020 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MaartenSFS
Wuji
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:22 pm
Location: Lansing, Michigan

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby MaartenSFS on Sun Aug 30, 2020 7:16 am

.Q. wrote:While I personally train trapping and use it, at least based on what I've heard there are traditional CMA styles that avoid trapping. 不招不架,只有一下 specifically points that out. If you say most major traditional CMA styles all have trapping, then that's probably true.
Trapping is definitely not lower level skills. You can't even use it decently unless you're trained up to a certain point. I wouldn't say it's higher level than non-trapping though. What level something is at depends on the individual. Cooking rice is a basic skill but some Japanese guy was so good at it he was called the God of Rice Cooking.
Traditional training is not always better or worse. Some drills are better than most modern counterparts and many are worse. There's nothing special about whether something is traditional besides maybe having been tested more in traditional conditions. The founders developed those drills because they wanted to develop certain attributes and they came up with ways to drill them. If those founders were more knowledgeable than you, they would develop better drills than you. If you are more knowledgeable, you can develop better drills. When the founders first created the drills, they were "modern" at the time. Also, even if the original drills are overall better for the general public, it may not be as good as for you personally, as you may have different circumstance than the founder. If I weigh 300 pounds, I wouldn't train jump kicks much regardless how important they are to my system, for example.

Well said. +1
User avatar
MaartenSFS
Wuji
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:22 pm
Location: Lansing, Michigan

Re: Sanda: Kung Fu created a solution, then threw it away

Postby marvin8 on Sun Aug 30, 2020 11:23 am

.Q. wrote:While I personally train trapping and use it, at least based on what I've heard there are traditional CMA styles that avoid trapping. 不招不架,只有一下 specifically points that out. If you say most major traditional CMA styles all have trapping, then that's probably true.

Trapping is definitely not lower level skills. You can't even use it decently unless you're trained up to a certain point. I wouldn't say it's higher level than non-trapping though. What level something is at depends on the individual. Cooking rice is a basic skill but some Japanese guy was so good at it he was called the God of Rice Cooking.

You may have misunderstood. Assuming you already have the skill, controlling someone outside of their reach will give you a greater advantage than controlling someone within the range where they can hit or counter you.

.Q. wrote:Traditional training is not always better or worse. Some drills are better than most modern counterparts and many are worse. There's nothing special about whether something is traditional besides maybe having been tested more in traditional conditions. The founders developed those drills because they wanted to develop certain attributes and they came up with ways to drill them. If those founders were more knowledgeable than you, they would develop better drills than you. If you are more knowledgeable, you can develop better drills. When the founders first created the drills, they were "modern" at the time. Also, even if the original drills are overall better for the general public, it may not be as good as for you personally, as you may have different circumstance than the founder. If I weigh 300 pounds, I wouldn't train jump kicks much regardless how important they are to my system, for example.

Most, if not all, of today's highest ranked combat fighters use modern training. So, modern training is better for them, as the OP article and Ramsey state. If Zhang Weili trained traditionally (not sanda and MMA), she would most likely not be a UFC champion today based on the data.

MaartenSFS wrote:I did extensive pad and bagwork with traditional pads in my traditional training, along with many things not found in Sanda.

The OP article and Ramsey are talking about the standard differences in traditional and modern combat training that most people understand.

MaartenSFS wrote:Lingkongjin?! GTFO!

It's an extreme CMA example to illustrate an advantage, regardless if it's real. There is a greater advantage (levels) in controlling one's center with no contact than controlling someone's lead arm with contact. Control with no contact > 1 point contact > 2 point contact > 3 point contact. Do you agree, disagree or not understand the concept?

Can you post a video of any CMA or wing chun fighter using trapping in a competition? If not, why do you think wing chun/CMA fighters choose not to use trapping in fights?
User avatar
marvin8
Wuji
 
Posts: 2170
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm

Next

Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests