johnwang wrote:My long fist teacher's teacher Han Ching-Tan always talked about:
- Long fist kick,
- XingYi punch,
- Taiji waist,
- Bagua footwork,
IMO, every MA style" has it's strong point. Cross training was an ancient concept. One just can't get everything from one style.
Your thought?
ors wrote:Every style was sometime a mix of other styles...
Bhassler wrote:ors wrote:Every style was sometime a mix of other styles...
Every adult was once a baby. If you still shit yourself at 35, there's a problem.
Bhassler wrote:It depends. A good martial art should be a system where everything works together based on the same mechanical and strategic principles. Different martial arts have different principles. Mixing and matching styles can be like mixing and matching operating systems for your computer, which generally doesn't work out that well. Even if you're operating within a more closed system, not everything works together in practice like it does in theory. Experienced programmers know that even in a system like .NET, there are some combinations of libraries and frameworks that go together better than others. If you're not careful which you choose, you may run into problems down the road that are difficult to work around, and you end up with expensive and buggy software.
Sometimes it's better to go with something simple that you know works, rather than trying to get a bunch of additional features that you don't really need and end up causing problems.
windwalker wrote:Disagree different methods have different approaches to the same problems. Even using the same tool sets they will look different depending on method used, ie inner and outer.
The idea formlessness, is to be unaware of the tool sets used that become natural extensions expressions of oneself. If one is aware of what they're doing they have not reached formlessness.
ors wrote:Every style was sometime a mix of other styles...
MaartenSFS wrote:Bhassler wrote:It depends. A good martial art should be a system where everything works together based on the same mechanical and strategic principles. Different martial arts have different principles. Mixing and matching styles can be like mixing and matching operating systems for your computer, which generally doesn't work out that well. Even if you're operating within a more closed system, not everything works together in practice like it does in theory. Experienced programmers know that even in a system like .NET, there are some combinations of libraries and frameworks that go together better than others. If you're not careful which you choose, you may run into problems down the road that are difficult to work around, and you end up with expensive and buggy software.
Sometimes it's better to go with something simple that you know works, rather than trying to get a bunch of additional features that you don't really need and end up causing problems.
I understand where you are coming from but let us assume that these are competent fighters and not armchair warriors for a moment. Usually their style will be most heavily influenced by one of the systems or by components of these systems that complement each other. Literally all styles in China are the result of mixing. There is no such thing as a pure style.
It depends. A good martial art should be a system where everything works together based on the same mechanical and strategic principles. Different martial arts have different principles. Mixing and matching styles can be like mixing and matching operating systems for your computer, which generally doesn't work out that well.
...
It's not about "purity," it's about everything fitting together such that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.
marvin8 wrote:Those different methods and approaches (e.g., demos, forms) look more similar after getting punched in the face. In MMA, some TMAists evolve to looking similar by necessity (e.g. efficiency, speed, etc)..
Bhassler wrote:
It's not about "purity," it's about everything fitting together such that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Something as simple as weight placement on the foot in foundational stance work can profoundly change everything about the way a person moves. Just grabbing a part from another system that does things differently doesn't work-- someone may come up with something that looks similar or accomplishes the same goal, but it is different. At a superficial level, you can say "so what, if it works?", but when you get to playing at higher levels of force, or with better fighters, or in different environments (street vs sport, etc), then all of a sudden things that didn't make a difference previously can cause failure or get you hurt. I chose my programming example in part because I know John Wang understands computers, so it could be a detailed enough analogy to get the point across, but I also chose it because software works as a system, much like a martial art should. If a person doesn't understand systems thinking at a basic or at least intuitive level, then they don't have the cognitive framework to rationally think about what they're doing when they want to go outside of an existing system and create something new.
If someone just wants to fight, or function in a particular narrow set of circumstances, then it's much easier to mix and match and pick what they want. It takes a broader perspective and actual life experience to understand that success in one tiny area doesn't qualify someone to make generalizations and proclamations about the deeper, broader world.
“A “narrow” system is one that specifies a particular response for a particular attack. So for every possible attack, there is a specific response. And because there are a great many possible attacks, there are also a great may specific techniques to counter them. With “narrow” systems, you have A LOT of techniques — like the proverbial 108 hand techniques, for instance.
A “wide” system has much fewer techniques, but looks to the changes possible for each of them. So for instance, you might only have 5 or 6 basic punches… but many “changes” associated with those punches. See also Baqua, with it’s emphasis on changes.
The way to learn how to use a wide system (like White Crane) is then to gain experience with using the limited number of techniques you have available, in a wide assortment of attacks. In other words, you have to use the techniques in sparring… a lot of sparing… so you can learn how a single punch can be used against multiple attack patterns”
Mike Staples
The patterns of fist-fighting take their form according to matching the body, hands and steps. Forms may be different, yet their submission to [their] [N]ature is the same. The sameness, which within itself has some differences, still does not lose its sameness.
In this way the rule of the form is well understood.
CHAPTER 10 Functioning
Everything takes its own particular form before it can function. The function of a thing is intangible, but the effect produced is there. Function arises out of form; therefore, the intangible function is the servant of the form, which is concrete.
A wheel one foot in diameter can cover thousands of miles; this is form in function [i.e. the functioning of form]. Those who are skillful in making use of function do not find the effect in form (but in the function itself). .
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: wayne hansen and 38 guests