# Is something missing?



## Xue Sheng (Mar 14, 2007)

Believe it or not this is actually related to CMA, but I am not exactly how to put what I am thinking into words but here 
goes. 

I had a discussion with my wife about TCM training the other day we were discussing treatment methods in China as compared to 
TCM treatment methods used here. She use to train foreign students in acupuncture at Beijing hospital for the WHO (not the 
band the Heath org) and she said the hardest thing to train a westerner in TCM is the TCM way of diagnosis. In TCM in China 
you figure out what caused the problem and treat the then treat the problem and the result. And the biggest issue is that in 
the west we have all been brought up focusing on treating the result. I have a cold, make it go away ASAP, not what caused 
the cold in the first place and treat that so you don&#8217;t get it again kind of thing. 

In the west if you have a headache take a pill if you have a sore throat take a pill, you have a cold take a pill and so on. 
Every headache can have the virtually same cure, take some tylenol. In TCM you look for what caused the headache and not only 
treat the headache which is the result but what caused it as well, to much heat to much cold, etc. Because not all headaches 
are caused by the same thing. This is a big part of TCM but it is very difficult to teach this to us here in the west since 
we are so focused on treating the result. In China it is the cause and the result that tells you what acupuncture points to 
use and or what herbal to use. And it can be different and from case to case even though the result &#8220;Headache&#8221; is the same. 

This led me to a thought based in martial arts. Are we so focused on results in MA; becoming a master, getting a black belt, 
getting the next rank, being dangerous, etc. that we are missing something in our training. And if that is the case is it 
possible to figure it out without the years of cultural training you get in countries like China and Japan just by the fact 
someone is born there.

I am not asking are they better martial artists that all depends on the martial artist but are we missing something more 
important that we simply cannot get without the cultural background. But then again are they better martial artist based on a 
definition of martial arts that is not focused mostly on being a better fighter? 

I have 3 sifus, 2 are from China one is from America and all 3 are highly skilled and serious about their chosen style and I 
feel I am lucky to train with all 3 but there is a distinct difference in the approach to teaching between the 2 from China 
and the one from America. All 3 actually teach differently but I see similarities between the 2 from China more than my 
American Sifu. 

I may start sounding like a fortune cookie here and if I do let me apologize now&#8230; sorry about that. :asian:

But my American sifu is much more direct which in most cases is very good but he seems more focused on result, which is also 
good but both my Chinese sifus seem more focused on the process to get there first and the result second. This approach has 
led me to much frustration over the years with my Taiji sifu but after my talk with my wife I see that it was and is actually 
a good thing. Of course it could also be that neither of my Chinese sifus are teaching to support themselves or their family 
and my American Sifu is and I am making more out of this than I should, but I can&#8217;t help but wonder if it isn&#8217;t this focus on 
the result that we have in the west that may be causing us to miss something very important in our training. 

And if I knew what I thought that was I would tell you but right now it is just a feeling. 

Opinions, thoughts&#8230;&#8230;.


----------



## morph4me (Mar 14, 2007)

I think the difference is that we westerners are impatient and result driven,  "I want to see the results, and I want so see them now" Expediency first.  We are a young and immature culture when compared to the Orient, the Middle East, Europe, damn near everybody else in the world.

Over the years my training has followed a similar path. I started wanting to be more efficient and effective in my self defense, hit harder, do as much damage as possible in the shortest amount of time. As I matured in my art, I began to realize that if I practiced the principals, the results would take care of themselves, that it isn't a matter of doing something to my opponent, but a matter of doing something for myself, and the resulting effect on my oponent was a consequence of what I was doing. When I realized that I was more relaxed, confident and made significant progress. 

I hope that somewhere in that rambling mass I made some sense and that the response at least somewhat related to what the question was.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 14, 2007)

morph4me said:


> I think the difference is that we westerners are impatient and result driven, "I want to see the results, and I want so see them now" Expediency first. We are a young and immature culture when compared to the Orient, the middle east, europe, damn near everybody else in the world.


 
Yeah that pretty much sums it up...


----------



## Shuto (Mar 14, 2007)

I wouldn't agree that treating the result is the only western medical methodology.  If you have high cholesteral and/or high blood pressure, western medicine prescribes changes in diet and exercize as it's first line of treatment.  Similarly, western doctors will often try to find the cause of migraines and some alergic reactions.  Your characterization may be true in some cases, but western medicine is evolving towards finding the root cause of some common health problems.  Western patients, on the other hand, often are not disciplined enough to follow the doctors prescription for changing lifestyle choices.

edit.  I found your thoughts on MA training thought provoking.  I haven't trained with a non-American teacher myself but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a culturaly based difference.  Hmm...


----------



## East Winds (Mar 14, 2007)

Xue Sheng,

Good, interesting and thought provoking post!!! Now please don't take this the wrong way, but could part of ther problem be in having 3 sifu's? Can you really do justice to the teachings of three teachers of presumably three different arts? I was in a similar situation some years ago, studying Chen Taiji, Bagua, Liu Ho Pa Fa and Taijiquan. (Plus a smattering of weapons forms including Fan). I suddenly realised that I wasn't really focused on any one particular art. I was "reasonably good" at them all But I was in effect suffereing from "monkey brain". For the past 5 years I have worked with only one teacher focusing entirely on Traditonal Yang Family Taijiquan. My undertanding of the art has increased imeasurably. I knew and could recite Yang Chen Fu's 10 essences, but when I really looked closely I wasn't really applying them!!!! My teacher started me working on the essences (not postures and forms) and I discovered that everything else fell into place. I discovered that if I applied the essences to every posture, it didn't matter what the posture looked like externally, it would be correct and would work martially.

Keep us posted on how you progress.

Very best wishes


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 14, 2007)

I think you are right to some extent, but I don't know if I would call it neccessarily a difference of west vs east.

Partly, but not entirely.

Take weight loss.  There are a lot of people looking for a quick fix.  A magic pill or special diet that will turn them into a supermodel in a couple weeks.  

There are also those that flat out tell you that if you want to loose weight, and keep it gone, you got to change your lifestyle.  Eat right, excercise, get a good nights sleep, etc. 

Of course the second group don't sell as many books and DVD's.

My art of choice, right now anyways, is MMA.  And it has nothing to do with the end result, well, not directly.  I simply enjoy the process.  I enjoy the formulating strategy, looking for patterns and ways to exploit them, using patterns to set people up.  I like the game, I find it physically challenging, and mentally challenging.

Back in the karate days I was still, not really in it for a rank or any end goal, but what I enjoyed most was the deciphering, trying to work out application to movement, figuring out new training methods to achieve a goal, why certain things where the way they where, etc.  (I wasn't a very good "traditionalist", I kept wanting to change things based on other things  )

But there are definately people in both that come in looking at the goal, trying to get to the end without going through the work needed.  They are the majority, and they usually don't stick around for very long.  The ones that stay are there because they like the training, not because they are after a goal.

I think the capitalistic nature of running a business has led many instructors to try and deal with this by making the goals more obtainable, and at shorter intervals.  Meaning more belts, and less time in between.  Keeping a goal of some sort always just around the corner.  Perhaps thats why so many loose students right after they get there black belt?

I see this at my day job as well (I teach a college program) many of our students are here, not because they are genuinely wanting to learn the material, or because they enjoy the training.  But because it is a means to an end.  The program gets them the paper, the paper gets them the job, the job gets them money, etc.  But along the way nothing is really done simply for the enjoyment of doing it, and bettering oneself for no other purpose then to better oneself.

We drive wherever we go, trying to get to the destination as fast as possible.  People get angry when they are delayed.  Why not walk once and a while?  Enjoy the walk, or even enjoy the city when stuck in traffic?  

Training is a great experience, not for the belts, or for becoming a great fighter.  It just is a great experience on its own, with nothing else.

Which is perhaps why I think it's odd that styles need to fight over who is the best.  That's not important, which is the best experience is a better question.  And that will differ from person to person.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 14, 2007)

East Winds said:


> Xue Sheng,
> 
> Good, interesting and thought provoking post!!! Now please don't take this the wrong way, but could part of ther problem be in having 3 sifu's? Can you really do justice to the teachings of three teachers of presumably three different arts? I was in a similar situation some years ago, studying Chen Taiji, Bagua, Liu Ho Pa Fa and Taijiquan. (Plus a smattering of weapons forms including Fan). I suddenly realised that I wasn't really focused on any one particular art. I was "reasonably good" at them all But I was in effect suffereing from "monkey brain". For the past 5 years I have worked with only one teacher focusing entirely on Traditonal Yang Family Taijiquan. My undertanding of the art has increased imeasurably. I knew and could recite Yang Chen Fu's 10 essences, but when I really looked closely I wasn't really applying them!!!! My teacher started me working on the essences (not postures and forms) and I discovered that everything else fell into place. I discovered that if I applied the essences to every posture, it didn't matter what the posture looked like externally, it would be correct and would work martially.
> 
> ...


 
No offense taken, you&#8217;re not the only one that thinks this, just look here

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=46684&highlight=sifus

Also 3 sifus is a fairly recent development within the past year (and just between you and me for a brief time it was 4), for the 12 years prior to this it has been just one sifu. I have pretty much been training with my Taiji Sifu exclusively for the last 12 years.

EDIT
And as I have said there has been much frustration in that last 12 years with my Taiji Sifu that I do believe comes from the same type of thing my wife and I were discussing. Even though I did not realize it and did feel I was focusing on learning the forms or the process, if you will, I realize it is likely at those times I was most frustrated with my Sifu I was focusing on the results and missing the point completely.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 14, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I think you are right to some extent, but I don't know if I would call it neccessarily a difference of west vs east.
> 
> Partly, but not entirely.
> 
> ...


 
Very well said, thanks



Andrew Green said:


> Which is perhaps why I think it's odd that styles need to fight over who is the best. That's not important, which is the best experience is a better question. And that will differ from person to person.


 
And wanted to separate this out because I felt is deserved it. 
I wish more in martial arts today felt this way :asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 14, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I think you are right to some extent...


 
Excellent post.  very well stated, and many of the same things I have been thinking for a long time.


----------



## Shuto (Mar 14, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Which is perhaps why I think it's odd that styles need to fight over who is the best.  That's not important, which is the best experience is a better question.  And that will differ from person to person.



Yep.  Wise words indeed.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 14, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> This led me to a thought based in martial arts. Are we so focused on results in MA; becoming a master, getting a black belt,
> getting the next rank, being dangerous, etc. that we are missing something in our training.


 
For many people, I would say yes.  For some, I would say no.  Welcome to the minority!

I would also like to respond to the "3 sifus" thing, and I think East Winds has made some valid points.  However, I believe that it is fairly common in the Chinese arts at least, to study several arts.  My sifu did it.  His sifu did it.  His other sifu did it.  His other other  sifu did it too... Ya see where I'm going here?

I think studying several arts under several teachers can be a good thing.  It gives you a broad background and a wide range of experience.  But I think that eventually you must chose the one or two that are best for you and then focus on them.  Your earlier experience allows you to do this.

Maybe the problem can be studying three arts with three teachers AT THE SAME TIME.  Studying several arts consecutively, when you can really focus on one at a time, is probably better than splitting your time between three.  But I am guilty of this as well.  I just enjoy it, I know I am undercutting my training to some degree, but I just apparently like too many things.  We share a curse, you and I.  Do what seems right for you, but understand that whatever choice you make will mean something else is sacrificed in some way...


----------



## dmax999 (Mar 14, 2007)

XS, I see your point as one of the major differences between "Kung-Fu" training and Tai Chi.  

Most Kung-Fu (Of course not all) is all about faster harder and get to the next belt.  You develop quickly at first getting stronger and faster in the beginning.  Looking for quick results this is the obvious way to go.  But you get to leveling off points where it starts getting very difficult to improve.

Tai Chi you are as they say "Investing in loss" to start with.  Poor results to begin for exceptional results in the long run by slowly building up with correct principles.  This lack of results for beginners, which I would say about 80% of people doing TC in America are beginners, is the reason so few believe it is even possible to fight with TC anymore.

Both methods get you to the ultimate goal, defending yourself, but they take different roads to get there.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 14, 2007)

dmax999 said:


> Both methods get you to the ultimate goal, defending yourself, but they take different roads to get there.




Get rid of the ultimate goal, just train for the training


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 14, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> This led me to a thought based in martial arts. Are we so focused on results in MA; becoming a master, getting a black belt,
> getting the next rank, being dangerous, etc. that we are missing something in our training. And if that is the case is it
> possible to figure it out without the years of cultural training you get in countries like China and Japan just by the fact
> someone is born there.
> ...


 
I think what you have cottoned on to is the essential difference in the philosophical approaches to the world between east and west.  In the east the approach is essentially holistic, looking at any problem in its entirety.  The western approach, which developed from Greek thinking, tends to dissect things, to look at the parts of a given problem.

So in the martial arts a Chinese teacher, for instance, will present techniques in terms of how you should have the proper attitude, spirit, energy.  The intricacies of the techniques are less important.  A western teacher will dissect the technique and look at the way x leads to y and then to z the result.  

If I do it this way it will work, as opposed to, if I do this then this will happen.  I think that is what we are looking at here.  Or something like that


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 14, 2007)

dmax999 said:


> XS, I see your point as one of the major differences between "Kung-Fu" training and Tai Chi.
> 
> Most Kung-Fu (Of course not all) is all about faster harder and get to the next belt. You develop quickly at first getting stronger and faster in the beginning. Looking for quick results this is the obvious way to go. But you get to leveling off points where it starts getting very difficult to improve.
> 
> ...


 
True and I do agree there are differences between Taiji and Kung fu training. But I should add that my sifus are as follows and teach as follows

Chinese - Yang Taiji
Chinese - Sanda/Sanshou (military/police version)
American - Hebei Xingyiquan

I did have an American Wing Chun sifu that I no longer train with and my first sifu, who I also no longer train with was Chinese and for all intensive purposes taught wushu, except for the Chen he taught and later abandon because there was no money in it. 

I did briefly go back to Chen a few months ago and trained with an American Sifu but I do not include him in this since it was only a month and he was very very new to teaching Chen (first class as a teacher actually) and trying to figure out how to teach properly, I will say he was doing a good job of it however.  

I see this difference I am talking about between my Sanda Sifu and my Xingyi Sifu. Both are very skilled and I do honestly feel very happy about my training with them both. But the more I think about this and it has been mentioned here by others, my Xingyi sifu is doing applications of every form every single class and I enjoy it and focusing on results. But my Sanda sifu is doing more at building me up to actually do applications. More of the just do it because it is necessary thing, sit-ups, push ups, pull ups, hit a tree, etc., applications and qinna training come later. This is a long process to get to where you need to be to be able to do the applications properly. Where my Xingyi sifu is requiring Santi Shi standing and making us do it at each and every class, which is also building the martial artist but he then does applications right away. As I said I enjoy it but it seems to me something is very different in the approaches and it may be that I have read way to much Chinese philosophy and hear the Chinese point of view every day but I feel that the focus on results now is missing something as apposed to the focus on process to get to the results later.

As for my Taiji sifu you are absolutely correct that is a very different type of training but I see the similarity between my Sanda sifu and my Taiji sifu in the focus on the process. My Taiji sifu will not even get into applications until you have finished the 103 or 108 depending on how you count (he just calls it the long form) and basic push hands (stationary 1 hand, 2 hand, 3 step and 4 corner) and that takes awhile.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 14, 2007)

Flying Crane said:


> For many people, I would say yes. For some, I would say no. Welcome to the minority!
> 
> I would also like to respond to the "3 sifus" thing, and I think East Winds has made some valid points. However, I believe that it is fairly common in the Chinese arts at least, to study several arts. My sifu did it. His sifu did it. His other sifu did it. His other other sifu did it too... Ya see where I'm going here?
> 
> ...


 
ahh yes the curse. :uhyeah:

Good point 

And my Xingyi sifu has studied at least 5 styles and my Sanda sifu has studied other styles as well. My Taiji sifu has studied taiji and only taiji his whole life, and he is the oldest of us all. 

And my Sanda sifu has said the same thing; I am studying too many styles. But it isn't so much the number of styles it is the fact that I am a beginner at 2, Xingyi and Sanda and he does not see how I can train both and do everything else (general life stuff) and do either style justice. As for Taiji he feels I have done that so long it is not that much of an issue. Hence the reason I spoke of in another post I need to make a choice soon. But this is stuff of another post.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 14, 2007)

morph4me said:


> I think the difference is that we westerners are impatient and result driven, "I want to see the results, and I want so see them now" Expediency first. We are a young and immature culture when compared to the Orient, the Middle East, Europe, damn near everybody else in the world.


 
good point.



morph4me said:


> I hope that somewhere in that rambling mass I made some sense and that the response at least somewhat related to what the question was.


 
Yes you did make sense.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 14, 2007)

Suppose your out in the woods, and you find a trail.  You decide to hike it.

SOme people will enjoy the trail, look around, enjoy the sites, smells, sounds and everything.  They get to the end and find out it went in a circle, they think, that was nice, I should do it again.

Others will try the trail, keep there eyes on the trail, walk fast, get to the end and find out it went in a circle and think, what a waste of time, it didn't go anywhere.

Martial arts is a trail that doesn't really lead anywhere.  Well, many trails that don't really lead anywhere.  We can pick one and stick to it, or fork off at anytime.

Unfortunately many people get distracted by little collectables (belts) that some of the guides have left on the trails and told them they need to collect a whole set of.  Or promised something fancy later along the trail for those that stick to it.  Too many people forget to enjoy the trail and get too focused on rushing along it to pick up the collectables.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 15, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> I think what you have cottoned on to is the essential difference in the philosophical approaches to the world between east and west. In the east the approach is essentially holistic, looking at any problem in its entirety. The western approach, which developed from Greek thinking, tends to dissect things, to look at the parts of a given problem.
> 
> So in the martial arts a Chinese teacher, for instance, will present techniques in terms of how you should have the proper attitude, spirit, energy. The intricacies of the techniques are less important. A western teacher will dissect the technique and look at the way x leads to y and then to z the result.
> 
> If I do it this way it will work, as opposed to, if I do this then this will happen. I think that is what we are looking at here. Or something like that


 
I think you are on to something here. 

MY Taiji Sifu for instance will show you a way to move in push hands and let you work at it and find your center and later move onto this is where you apply force. Where as my Xingyi Sifu moves right into application after showing a form. I am also beginning to realize I too am guilty of this when I teach to assist my Taiji Sifu and when I use to teach Taiji years ago. This is the posture and this is what it does, this is 2 hand stationary push hands and this is an application type of thing. 

I also was thinking this morning while doing Qigong that I am again looking to the result or the goal and not paying attention to the practice itself. I did not use to be that way back when I did more qigong but realize now that I am. So I stopped thinking of the result and just focused on what I was doing at that moment and it is a completely different thing. I think it is a western thing that if you are not careful you will do exactly that because that is what we are brought up to do. Where my Chinese sifus and my wife as well, seem to be less focused on the goal and more focused on what needs to be done now or worked on now and if you do that you will attain the goal. My first Sifu (also Chinese) said something that I remember that I feel is somewhat related. He said &#8220;Don&#8217;t worry about money just focus on now and what you like and money will come&#8221;. 

I am not saying my Chinese teachers are better than my American because that is certainly not the case they are all highly skilled at what they do. But the approach is definitely different and at least as far as CMA is concerned I do feel that, at least for me, I am missing something by focusing on the end result more than the current practice. 

And about 10 years ago I do not think I was focusing on the end result that much, that was when I was doing more Qigong. So when the heck did I start thinking more like a westerner?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 15, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Suppose your out in the woods, and you find a trail. You decide to hike it.
> 
> SOme people will enjoy the trail, look around, enjoy the sites, smells, sounds and everything. They get to the end and find out it went in a circle, they think, that was nice, I should do it again.
> 
> ...


 
Good analogy, thanks


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 15, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> I think you are on to something here.
> 
> MY Taiji Sifu for instance will show you a way to move in push hands and let you work at it and find your center and later move onto this is where you apply force. Where as my Xingyi Sifu moves right into application after showing a form. I am also beginning to realize I too am guilty of this when I teach to assist my Taiji Sifu and when I use to teach Taiji years ago. This is the posture and this is what it does, this is 2 hand stationary push hands and this is an application type of thing.
> 
> ...


 
Qigong as a practise has a somewhat intangible goal.  You may feel the benefit but it is not so obvious as practising martial techniques.  I think that lends itself to thinking in a different way.  From my own experience I always treated qigong in a different way to other training mainly because there was no obvious immediate result.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 15, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> Qigong as a practise has a somewhat intangible goal. You may feel the benefit but it is not so obvious as practising martial techniques. I think that lends itself to thinking in a different way. From my own experience I always treated qigong in a different way to other training mainly because there was no obvious immediate result.


 
Agreed and several years ago that is how I approached qigong but I realized this morning somewhere along the way I changed the approach. First fI was ocusing WAY to much on posture and then focusing WAY to much on small circle circulation and points. 

Basically since I posted this I have been looking at just about everything I do to see if I can change the focus to that of my Chinese sifus. Nothing wrong with my American Sifus approach, but apparently that has been mine for quite awhile when it comes to CMA and I think I want to try it form the other approach for awhile to see what happens. 

I do really feel like I am going to miss something if I don't try this and I have been at this for a long time so what the heck lets give another go with a different spin.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Mar 15, 2007)

Its interesting, my sifu is an Australian and he learnt from a native Chinese.  Chris, however, always presented the concept that the form must have its gross elements represented but must conform to the practitioner not the practitioner conforming to the form.

This is a problem I see with a lot of people teaching taiji.  Their focus is on the minute details of the form, where a hand should be, whether a foot should be at 30 or 35 degrees of angle.  This sort of focus reduces the form to a formula to be recited over and over until YOU can do IT without error.  That is not the essence of the form.  Anyone who is not a complete mook can do that.  

My sifu always describes our forms as spirit fighting forms.  They require some imagination, imagining single and multiple attacks to be dealt with.  I think this helps to see the essence of the form rather than just the movements.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 16, 2007)

I agree the form needs to fit the practitioner, to a point.

If I show someone white crane spreads its wings I do not expect them to do it exactly like me however if they interpret that to fit them as flapping their arms and running around the room yelling "I'm a crane" I think they missed the point :uhyeah: Sorry couldn't resist

I found, also rather recently that if I do the form more like my Sifu it feels much better (from the Energy/power/force point of view) and I can make more sense of it. 

I have seen Yang style done in so many different ways that it makes my head spin and it was not until I saw a comparison between Yang Jun, Fu, and Tung Hu Ling that it all came together as what was better for me (even if it is not as comfortable), although it did make the form a bit harder because it got lower and rounder. My Sifu and Tung Hu Ling had the same teacher so you can pretty much guess what my style looks like. Prior to that I was trying to make the form fit me and it was a combination between what you see Yang Jun do and what you see Tung do and although it felt right to me (meaning comfortable) it did not make as much sense as it does now that I am doing the form closer to what my Sifu does. 

This to me is also part of the issue. We try and make this form fit us and in some cases that is fine but in others it just isnt the way to go, once again focusing on the result instead of the process. I can finish the form and it looks pretty cool, but I missed something in the process that makes it actually work both internally and externally. 

My Sifu teaches the form first and then refines and after that he pretty much leave it to you as to where you want to take it, (as long as you dont start that flapping your arms and running around the room stuff that is  ). He is aware that not everyone will do this the exact same way but there is, at least to me, only so far you can go and then you are doing something completely different.

When I taught I use to tell my students there is a correct way to get from point A to point B. I can do repulse monkey the right way or I can just flop my hand out there and get the end result looking right but everything in between was wrong. This is not saying that you can only do this one way, my way, it is saying that there is a set pattern of movement that you need to be at least close to. But everyone has a different body type and different weight distributions and different skeletal issues so it is highly unlikely that everyone will or even can move exactly the same, but in Taiji they should be close. This also goes into why I call CMC style CMC style and not Yang style, the movements, although good, are very different. 

But I also agree that getting into the foot needs to be a such and such and angle to be correct is a bit much. 

My Xingyi Sifus Teacher was Chinese and my Sifu does not try and get us to all look the same either. But he does have a certain way he feels the form should be done. As I hear him say to the same guy over and over again, Dont stamp your back foot I have no problem with this at all, to be honest I rather appreciate it. But then he goes right to applications after that and the guy is still stomping his back foot. This is where I feel the focus is very different from that of my Chinese Sifus, especially my Sanda Sifu, get it right or do it again until you do kind of thing. Now this might put many off but I like it. Hell I was throwing a front kick wrong as far as he was concerned (I've been doing a front kick for 30 years) and it took me a while to get it to where he wanted and he WONT move on until it is right, and you know, he was right.  I joke about hitting trees, but there is a specific way to hit them and a specific sound I am looking for from that strike. No I do not move exactly like him but I do get the same sound and my movement is close. 

And I have no clue as to whether or not I am still on post or not. So I will stop here.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 16, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> If I show someone white crane spreads its wings I do not expect them to do it exactly like me however if they interpret that to fit them as flapping their arms and running around the room yelling "I'm a crane" I think they missed the point :uhyeah: Sorry couldn't resist




You got something to say about my Kung Fu? 

Well, take this... "Drunken monkey flying inverted spin fist of doom!"


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 16, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> You got something to say about my Kung Fu?
> 
> Well, take this... "Drunken monkey flying inverted spin fist of doom!"


 
:lfao: 

Now that I have regained my composure

Ahh then I must counter with the triple flippy flaming dragon spinning back kick of chaos and discomfort


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 17, 2007)

DAMN!!!

I picked up a book today that I have been meaning to start reading

The Making of a Butterfly
By Phillip (Pete) Starr

And it pretty much hit on a lot of what I am thinking and trying to say here and I am only up to page 57

Just wanted to add that

I will post more on the book once I am finished.

I am also guessing by the end of this book I will have made my decision about sifus as well.


----------

