Re: Weapon fight is the CMA goal
Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2020 6:12 pm
This is a great example of taking a valid starting point, like the connection between weapon and empty hand, and getting absolutely stupid about it-- like saying anything in the forms has anything to do with actually shooting a bow and arrow. You can find pictures of people shooting real Chinese war bows, and they don't do anything goofy like a reverse bow stance. A weird stance adds absolutely nothing to archery practice, nor does posing like you were drawing an invisible mime bow. Marceau Marbow. maybe?
Things like unbalancing, controlling the center, and firm, stable footwork make a ton of sense for weapons melee combat, where a moment of being off-balance can be fatal. Something like push hands makes a lot of sense as a training device in that context, as it allows you to focus on specific skills and body feeling without having to worry about/fixate on the big metal thing swinging at your head. Plus, you can do it in less space and with less risk, so you can start kids on it without having to worry about them murdering their siblings. It's also fun and not too dangerous for adults who actually have to do a job the next day (like farming or silk-merchanting). Practicing with live steel is dandy if you can afford to produce beater blades that can get knicked up, etc., but sharps would be too dangerous and maintenance intensive. So you might want to be able to develop sword (or other weapon) skills without needing to use actual weapons.
The (lack of) head cover is misleading as well. Covering up like a boxer works great for boxing, but not so much MMA. Why is that? Even boxers didn't always cover up their heads the way they do now. It's a reflection of a specific ruleset rather than some great learning about the nature of unarmed fighting in general. To wit: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php ... hotos-way/
Forms themselves are fairly fluid, so it doesn't make sense to focus too much on the specific details as a source of archaeological insight. Similar to what rojcewiczj said, one should be looking at principles, strategy, and the developed jins, instead.
It also depends on the art in question. Gunpowder was in military use well before the end of the Ming dynasty. Climate, geography, urbanization, social class, intended usage, etc. all have to be considered when looking at why any given system is the way it is.
Things like unbalancing, controlling the center, and firm, stable footwork make a ton of sense for weapons melee combat, where a moment of being off-balance can be fatal. Something like push hands makes a lot of sense as a training device in that context, as it allows you to focus on specific skills and body feeling without having to worry about/fixate on the big metal thing swinging at your head. Plus, you can do it in less space and with less risk, so you can start kids on it without having to worry about them murdering their siblings. It's also fun and not too dangerous for adults who actually have to do a job the next day (like farming or silk-merchanting). Practicing with live steel is dandy if you can afford to produce beater blades that can get knicked up, etc., but sharps would be too dangerous and maintenance intensive. So you might want to be able to develop sword (or other weapon) skills without needing to use actual weapons.
The (lack of) head cover is misleading as well. Covering up like a boxer works great for boxing, but not so much MMA. Why is that? Even boxers didn't always cover up their heads the way they do now. It's a reflection of a specific ruleset rather than some great learning about the nature of unarmed fighting in general. To wit: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php ... hotos-way/
Forms themselves are fairly fluid, so it doesn't make sense to focus too much on the specific details as a source of archaeological insight. Similar to what rojcewiczj said, one should be looking at principles, strategy, and the developed jins, instead.
It also depends on the art in question. Gunpowder was in military use well before the end of the Ming dynasty. Climate, geography, urbanization, social class, intended usage, etc. all have to be considered when looking at why any given system is the way it is.