Training both Chen style and Yang style

[cloudz]

Agreed John, at some point you realise style is personal ultimately, every (western) boxer has his style. some may look more similar than others.
We all have the same bodies and fighting has shared goals and principles and so on, And yet we're all different and unique; different strengths perhaps etc.

Cross training is always something I have enjoyed as well, and gotten so much from over the years.

TCMA does suffer from style purism to various degrees amongst practitioners (maybe myself have gone through such phases - focusing on my tcc perhaps), so I totally get where you're coming from. If it's good it's good, if it works it works. If x is better than y, for what you want to develop why wouldn't you choose it, mix it or take it?

100%

[BruceP]

As usual I haven’t made my point clear enough for both of u

My barnyard understanding of metaphors is that they're most effective when they stand on the legs of strong analogies - kinda like fighting method supported by body-method.

We're talking about tai chi body-method and how different 'alloys' either enhance or diminish the way the body will organize itself under pressure, though, right?

Someone on EF back in the day used kinda the same 'forging' metaphor to describe the development of tai chi body and martial method. The problem with yours is that it's fraught with misuse of terms (as was dude's in his notion that iron is made into hardened steel by simply hammering on it) that don't make sense in their correlation to the topic of body-method being applied under pressure. It was your referencing damascus that skewed your asserting the incompatibility of two different body-methods into a contradiction.

Jing is like a Damascus blade folded beaten and forged until it is razor sharp

Suggests two different steels being welded through repeated folding/forge-welding. Razor sharpness is only attainable by removing edge material after the forging and shaping is completed.


In 'missing the point' I was trying to strengthen the analogy in order to give your metaphor some proper legs.

[BruceP]

There are as many styles of tjq as there are players

[Steve James]

It's hard for me to compare western boxing and tcma shenfa. But, let's say the human body has a trunk and four limbs that require coordination in order to achieve a goal. The big difference between "training" western boxing and most tcc is that, at a good gym, one learns something useful for boxing on day one. A tcc student won't learn how to make a fist or throw a punch for some time. Of course, the tcc person may be focusing on internal training that may be more beneficial in the long run, but that's a different goal.

When it comes to actually boxing (sparring), western boxing has several systems (as in different schools or styles). Tyson's style, for ex., used a square stance and coordinated his punches with shifting his footwork. A classical alternative is to keep one foot forward diagonally. Tyson's power came from the feet up, controlled by his waist torque. Plus, he did it extremely fast, accurately, and (as D'Amato would say) with "Bad intentions." The latter tying into his note that "everybody has a plan, until they get hit."

George mentioned something earlier about tcc developing along with the culture. I agree. I think people fought that way in the 1800s. But, there were also wrestlers in Europe, Asia, and the Americas at the same time. Those arts continued to develop to the point they are the basis for professional ma competitions. This doesn't apply for basic self defense, however. If tcc people are going to fight non-tcc people, they'll have to adjust to how people in the 21st century fight. Hey, guys in the 90s had to learn how to check leg kicks.

[johnwang]

every (western) boxer has his style. some may look more similar than others.

I prefer to say, "every (western) boxer has his flavor".

- Style is too serious.
- Flavor is less serious.

A: I'm a C programmer.
B: I'm a Java programmer.
C: I'm a programmer. I can write my program in all languages (FORTRAN, ALGOL, PASCAL, LISP, PL/1, SNOBOL, C, C++, SOM, JAVA, ...).

[cloudz]

As usual I haven’t made my point clear enough for both of u

My barnyard understanding of metaphors is that they're most effective when they stand on the legs of strong analogies - kinda like fighting method supported by body-method.

We're talking about tai chi body-method and how different 'alloys' either enhance or diminish the way the body will organize itself under pressure, though, right?

Someone on EF back in the day used kinda the same 'forging' metaphor to describe the development of tai chi body and martial method. The problem with yours is that it's fraught with misuse of terms (as was dude's in his notion that iron is made into hardened steel by simply hammering on it) that don't make sense in their correlation to the topic of body-method being applied under pressure. It was your referencing damascus that skewed your asserting the incompatibility of two different body-methods into a contradiction.

Jing is like a Damascus blade folded beaten and forged until it is razor sharp

Suggests two different steels being welded through repeated folding/forge-welding. Razor sharpness is only attainable by removing edge material after the forging and shaping is completed.


In 'missing the point' I was trying to strengthening the analogy in order to give your metaphor some proper legs.

Bruce, that's some high level thinking right there, I'm going to have to go back and re read that post.
Interestingly, now you mention past RSF'ers, I got to thinking about Chris Mckinley earlier today.. and some of his posts back in the day.

[cloudz]

every (western) boxer has his style. some may look more similar than others.

I prefer to say, "every (western) boxer has his flavor".

- Style is too serious.
- Flavor is less serious.

A: I'm a C programmer.
B: I'm a Java programmer.
C: I'm a programmer. I can write my program in all languages (FORTRAN, ALGOL, PASCAL, LISP, PL/1, SNOBOL, C, C++, SOM, JAVA, ...).

true, flavour is much more suitable *thumbs up*

[Steve James]

Imo, styles or schools is more appropriate. There's even a saying "Styles make fights." Ali had his style, Frazier had his, Ken Norton had his -and they all came from different gyms with different trainers. Watch Mayweather, and you can see the history of a specific style. (That, in fact, many people don't like). But, heck, don't take it from me. Here's an article that might be interesting to some.
https://www.ringtv.com/382449-styles-no ... die-roach/

https://ussporthistory.com/2015/06/04/f ... technique/

As Mendoza wrote in his 1792 boxing manual: “The first principle to be established in Boxing is, to be perfectly master of the equilibrium of the body, so as to be able to change from a right to left-handed position; to advance or retreat striking or parrying; and to throw the body either forward or backward without difficulty or embarrassment.”

[cloudz]

"style" is certainly the term used in boxing circles.

in past forum discussions, whenever the topic of TCMA came up in terms of guys fighting in sanda, san shou - or whatever the format might have been. the general consensus regards such clips tended to be where's the style (insert TCMA).. and a bunch of reasons may have been trotted out why the format was no good for xyz, and discussing it from various angles - you most likely recall these types of discussion quite well too.

I would always say that what you would see, or should see is some 'flavour', that's the exact word I would use back then. I can certainly see why John would favour it, coming from a TCMA background - regardless of specific format.

[Steve James]

Hey George, imo, your point relates directly to tcc in that, in one sense, it is not a style, but a combination of styles united by a concept. Because tcc was once called shi san shi, there are only 13 "shi."

Going back to western boxing, "styles" are systems with schools of thought about how to use the basics (jab (1), cross (2), etc. It's similar for kali, no? But, this is why people can reduce tcc down to pengjin or neijin. There are way more than 13 shi, and many have names taken from animals; so, it can be argued that those animal names came from the animal systems. The snake and crane have different methods of attack and defense that are complete systems (styles) of tcma. Tcc incorporates them. For ex., Fair Lady at Shuttles is an entire system, with its own footwork. It could be isolated and practiced on its own. Otoh, it's not "necessary" to application of tcc.

[windwalker]

taiji is not a style.

The famed Wu Tunan (also known as the Northern Star of Taijiquan) was in charge. A discussion came up, with regards to categorization of styles,leading to a great deal of controversy as to where Chen Style Taijiquan belonged. Some suggested that it belonged to the External Division. At the time, the slow and gentle nature of Yang style Taijiquan was considered the standard of Taijiquan. What Chen Fake practiced certainly did not fall fall into this category.

Others countered that it is, after all, called Chen Style Taijiquan, so it should be included as part of the Internal Division. Master Wu Tunan did not concur. He felt that Chen Style should be treated as an external style, similar to Shaolin.

Someone turned to Chen Fake, Master Chen, you are the standard bearer of the Chen Family, is it external or internal?

https://practicalmethod.com/2012/02/fro ... in-a-name/

The OP

I was never able to really develop fajin with Yang style, and feel that with Chen style I am a lot closer and have developed more power. However, I can't seem to get the same "meditative" feeling when doing Chen style as I do with Yang.

I guess I am wondering what your experiences are in doing both. I'm not trying to start a war here, as I see the benefits of both, just wondering if they unite at some point down the path, or should be treated as separate.

Historically the differences between the methods were noted, with the Chen "style". being included under the umbrella of taiji styles despite obvious differences...
Which might help to answer your questions as to why it might not be a good idea to practice both at the same time before achieving an understanding of either one



CMA in General has had this problem....for a long time..

During this time 1970s Chinese Martial (CMA) arts was undergoing a coming out with Bruce Lee on the worlds stage.

At the same time being questioned by many observing that what was often demoed and trained was not used in full contact competitions of the day.

In the city it was said by many that CMA artist could not fight with what they trained in.
The term “kick boxing” came in vogue in trying to describe something that it was not, actually doing a disservice to those who were “kick boxers” and trained to do so.

Kinda strange...MMA fighters listed by name regardless of method, CMA fighters listed by style regardless of name....

[everything]

no longer sure what this thread is about, lol. in the capoeira fighter vid I posted in the video links section, that guy does "mma style" (boxing, wrestling, jiu-jitsu) but with some "capoeira flavor". he adds some dance moves, back flips, super man punch after bouncing off the fence, but more and more his style seems to have gone to more "efficiency" without losing the "flavor" altogether.

[origami_itto]

Kinda strange...MMA fighters listed by name regardless of method, CMA fighters listed by style regardless of name....

Not really, in the UFC they usually list the fighter's base style along with their other relevant stats and comment on the way the style is used in the fight.

[windwalker]

no longer sure what this thread is about, lol. in the capoeira fighter vid I posted in the video links section, that guy does "mma style" (boxing, wrestling, jiu-jitsu) but with some "capoeira flavor". he adds some dance moves, back flips, super man punch after bouncing off the fence, but more and more his style seems to have gone to more "efficiency" without losing the "flavor" altogether.

Why title as capoeira fighter?

Actually in looking at it was expecting to see the method used. Will leave it up to others who practice the style as to whether it reflected the method

The op asked for experiences of others In training what seem to be very dis similar methods
Asking those to share their experiences if they were able to use or reconcile the differences.

Don’t feel they can be others may find different.

.

[Steve James]

Strange to bring up mma and "style." Is it a style or a combination of systems? Are there different styles/systems within mma? Couture did Greco-Roman: Royce did bjj: Maurice Smith did muay thai; wrestlers developed the ground and pound style.

That's my argument for tcc. It's not a single "style," but incorporates several. Anyway, I have problem in calling tcc a style, but it makes it seem as if all the variations are the same. And, that can only be done by reducing them to the lowest possible denominator (pengjin, neijin, taijijin, etc).

Afa Wu Tunan comparing internal and external "styles," I'm almost certain he used the term "jia" or family. Though, there's the saying, All cmas are sons of the same mother.

Btw, an examples of a system, consider the various ways of dealing with a straight punch (heart level) in the (your) form. Or, does anyone think the entire repertoire of forms (shi) have to be used at any one time, or that someone can't be proficient without mastering all of them? That gets back to the op. He's (?) putting together his own toolbox. In the end, no matter what, he'll be doing his own style with his own flavour. What else?