Take empty-hand fighting for example, TCMA places great emphasis on bridging, or creating arm-contact, as a starting point for most fighting applications. And once contact is made, a TCMA fighter will usually use some sort of style-specific hand-method (shou-fa手法) to execute a technique, or seek to create additional contact points before doing so.
All in all, I would contend that most TCMA systems were designed to be used on opponents and for purposes quite different from what we see and need in today's world.
As an aside, I've always wondered what Bagua, Taiji, and Xingyi would look like now if IMA greats like Dong Haichuan, Yang Luchan, and Guo Yunshen had encountered BJJ, MMA, boxing, and Muay Thai champs of our times.
C.J.W. wrote:Do you feel that certain aspects of TCMA fighting techniques are no longer effective --
johnwang wrote:C.J.W. wrote:Do you feel that certain aspects of TCMA fighting techniques are no longer effective --
It's not the technique. It's the students. If "internal" guys are all old, weak, and sick. How can they be able to fight against those external guys who are young, strong, and healthy?
C.J.W. wrote:Do you feel that certain aspects of TCMA fighting techniques are no longer effective -- or as effective as they once were in ancient China -- in the modern world?
Take empty-hand fighting for example, TCMA places great emphasis on bridging, or creating arm-contact, as a starting point for most fighting applications. And once contact is made, a TCMA fighter will usually use some sort of style-specific hand-method (shou-fa手法) to execute a technique, or seek to create additional contact points before doing so.
oragami_itto wrote:I'll just throw into the mix for consideration that self defense situations rarely look like combat sports fights.
oragami_itto wrote:I'll just throw into the mix for consideration that self defense situations rarely look like combat sports fights.
While this game plan may sound great in theory and look great in demos, successful execution of it is rarely seen in actual fighting, especially in the ring against trained modern fighters. IMO, it is because that successful bridging relies on one of two things: committed attacks from the opponent or "layman responses" to incoming attacks. That's why so many TCMAists have a hard time against modern fighters who usually retract their limbs quickly after each strike, and prefer to move around with agile footwork and dodge incoming attacks as opposed to keeping the upper body rigid and blocking.
C.J.W. wrote:: Do you feel that certain aspects of TCMA fighting techniques are no longer effective -- or as effective as they once were in ancient China -- in the modern world?
...
, TCMA places great emphasis on bridging, or creating arm-contact, as a starting point for most fighting applications. And once contact is made, a TCMA fighter will usually use some sort of style-specific hand-method (shou-fa手法) to execute a technique, or seek to create additional contact points before doing so.
While this game plan may sound great in theory and look great in demos, successful execution of it is rarely seen in actual fighting, especially in the ring against trained modern fighters. IMO, it is because that successful bridging relies on one of two things: committed attacks from the opponent or "layman responses" to incoming attacks.
...
All in all, I would contend that most TCMA systems were designed to be used on opponents and for purposes quite different from what we see and need in today's world.
Bao wrote:But people tend to have a modern boxning picture about how fighting or sparring should look like. . . .
Also, fighting practice usually looks a bit different than regular sparring.
C.J.W. wrote:Do you feel that certain aspects of TCMA fighting techniques are no longer effective -- or as effective as they once were in ancient China -- in the modern world?
Take empty-hand fighting for example, TCMA places great emphasis on bridging, or creating arm-contact, as a starting point for most fighting applications. And once contact is made, a TCMA fighter will usually use some sort of style-specific hand-method (shou-fa手法) to execute a technique, or seek to create additional contact points before doing so.
While this game plan may sound great in theory and look great in demos, successful execution of it is rarely seen in actual fighting, especially in the ring against trained modern fighters. IMO, it is because that successful bridging relies on one of two things: committed attacks from the opponent or "layman responses" to incoming attacks. That's why so many TCMAists have a hard time against modern fighters who usually retract their limbs quickly after each strike, and prefer to move around with agile footwork and dodge incoming attacks as opposed to keeping the upper body rigid and blocking. And on the occasion that bridging does occur, a modern fighter would quickly move in for a body tackle or some type of wrestling takedown and transition the fight to the ground, thus eliminating any further possible stand-up techniques from the TCMAist altogether.
I'll just throw into the mix for consideration that self defense situations rarely look like combat sports fights.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests