# TCMA, practical, or art?



## The Master (Jun 22, 2007)

In another thread, the modern day effectiveness of TCMA is brought into question. I'm going to pull from that thread here, to discuss that, to avoid tangenting that topic further. Some of this will be a rehash to set a foundation.


There this was stated:


			
				MaartenSFS said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but Sanda and Gongfu are two completely different things. Sanda is a Chinese copy of kickboxing with some grappling thrown in. It has no relation to Gongfu whatsoever except that Gongfu is a generic term used for all martial arts. Learning Wushu forms or a copy of kickboxing are hardly the same.


and 


			
				MaartenSFS said:
			
		

> It's been proven that kickboxing/grappling can be applied to real combat. The same cannot be said of TCMA.


and


			
				MaartenSFS said:
			
		

> Definitely. I do believe that there is some useful Gongfu out there, but the percentage of good teachers is so low that there is little hope left. Personally, I don't like Sanda. To me it just conforms to the kickboxing mold. It is nothing special.
> 
> Chinese teachers will tell you that all the techniques are from TCMA, but that is complete ********. Whatever happened to the great age/s when people were actually creative. MMA makes it look like there is only one effectice way to fight. No matter what style the fighters trained in, the techniques all look almost identical. This is just boring. Sanda is just China's way of keeping up with the Jones' and hardly has anything to do with applying TCMA to real life combat.


 
Others have replied to these in that thread.

But let us look at them here.

On movements appearing the same:

Given: The human body can only move in a finite number of ways.
Given: Of those, only a smaller subset are effective for fighting.
Given: Older arts have had more time to find those effective movements
Given: Older arts have had more time to weed out the ineffective.
Given: Any art must be taught correctly to be effective.
Given: TCMA's are the formalized training of past generations of combat troops and individual skilled fighters.

Therefore: 
When one sees similarity between arts, it can then be a reasonable assumption that they have found one of those effective movements.

Therefore: 
When the art can be proven to be old, it can therefore be logical to accept that it has been found effective over time and repeated testing.

Conclusion:
Older TCMA that have stood the test of time have a high chance of teaching valid fighting skills, provided they are taught correctly. 



On the effectiveness of MMA / Ineffectiveness of TCMA:

Given: Most MMA taught today is sport oriented.
Given: Most MMA teaches for one on one encounters
Given: Most MMA styles do not teach weapon skills
Given: Most MMA styles are less than 20 years old.
Given: Most TCMA styles include multiple attacker drills
Given: Most legitimate TCMA are older than 100 years.
Given: Most TCMA styles include some weapon training.
Given: Any art must be taught correctly to be effective.
Given: TCMA's are the formalized training of past generations of combat troops and individual skilled fighters.

Therefore: One might find a greater focus towards competition fighting in the MMA school, with less street effectiveness due to the lack of multiple attacker or weapon awareness.

Therefore: One might find more street effective training in a TCMA over a MMA due to the formers greater focus on the skills needed for street encounters.

Conclusion:
TCMA is a more effective training idea if one is training for in-street encounters with multiple weapon weilding attackers, provided it is trained in an effective manner from a proficient instructor.





I have 2 questions for MaartenSFS.
- How old are you?
- How many years past the age of 16 have you trained?
You cite your experience, and your extensive training in some of your comments, but I would like to define that "time in".  There are members here who have been training in TCMA for 20, 30, 40+ years, and their experience seems to trump yours.  Would you care to enhance our understanding of the scope of your experience that has given you the idea that TCMA is not effective today?


----------



## MaartenSFS (Jun 23, 2007)

First of all, I would like to say that this is a well-thought-out post that you have written here.

But then I have to say that I never said that TCMA are useless. And I never said MMA are better. Infact, I prefer TCMA for the reasons I have stated above. I have done both, though, to make an objective opinion. I have been in many street encounters while traveling and when I lived in America (As a foreigner). I have also been studying Chinese, Chinese Martial history, and TCMAs since I have been in China (Not competition Wushu) and have visited more schools and watched their lessons than you can shake a stick at.

I practise every day (Except for the last month because we are getting ready to move to Hainan island, also in China). When I am not actively engaging in classes or tournaments I try to find training partners whenever I can and teach them enough to get started experimenting. I practise with weapons (Also empty handed) on heavy bags arranged on my roof and recently got into whips and flexible weapons to test their effectiveness. I don't believe in magic and approach everything scientifically. What works I use, what doesn't I discard.

That said TCMA foundation training is excellent. My problem with TCMA is the current teachers and practitioners that "flowerise" everything. To know more about me I would suggest using the search function and finding some of my articles. O, and I have been studying/practising almost every single day for the last 8 years (All of which were past 16 years olde) and hope to continue doing so. All of my opinions are objectively based on my personal experiences, though I tend to put an overexaggerated spin on everything I say. One could say that I'm an arsehole.  Though the number of years one trains has nothing to do with the quality thereof..

Now, addressing some of your notes above:

You have to keep in mind that many TCMA styles were intended to intimidate, rather than physically defeat, opponents. 

Out of the 18 (Sometimes 19) manly aspects of war that every warrior was to master, dead last on the list was Sanda, or un-armed combat. Sadly, the other 17 (18) have all but been lost. Most of those were weapons like the spear, sword, sabre, et cetera, but also included horsemanship and mounted archery.

I could also add that many "T"CMA styles are also "new", especially those centred around forms.

As for "MMA techniques" being similar that doesn't mean that they are the most effective, it just means that they are more fashionable. I cank think of many MA that focus on high kicking, but few of those (If any) are effective. MMA techniques are effective in UN-ARMED combat, but that doesn't mean that they are the most effective, or the most efficient. If anything they are over-simplified and don't take enough situations into consideration. Anytime you are attacked by a boxing-shorts-wearing in a boxing ring and you also happen to be wearing boxing shorts then it may be the most efficient... But if he has a weapon or friends I'm ****ed.

I really don't agree that TCMAs, at least the ones still in existance, are the formalised training of combat troops. In olde times VERY little time was spent on un-armed combat and then it was mostly Shuai Jiao, which is more useful in an army-to-army situation where most people have weapons (Usually spears, not swords - also bows). Most CMA today are ********. And very little of those techniques actually proved their worth in combat as they were more intended to intimidate, rather than risk getting killed.

Even today large sabre-like knives are used by the Mongolian, Uyghur, and Tibetan minorities and spears, swords and bows were still commonly used until well after the New China was forged in Mount Doom... Er... These were the real TCMA and they are extinct (AND I HAVE LOOKED ALL OVER FOR THEM). For most people MA have become a useless venture in a world where the pen (And money) have become more powerful, hence their inevitable stagnation (Though I try my best to make this not apply to me  ).

I'm sure there's more but I have to run to work now, as I am late. -&#20877;&#35265;


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2007)

Master, good post! I will be a happy person when MMA is recognised and taught as a sport not as a self defence style, in fact I don't even think it's a style.Then we wouldn't have the arguments about whether it's effective in the street. MMA is as you rightly said a one to one combat sport. We train to fight a named opponent of whom we get to look up their details, strengths, weaknesses etc beforehand then plan tactics for the fight. I wouldn't say that the styles used in MMA are less than 20 years old though as we use TKD, TSD, Muay Thai, Juijitsu ( Brazilian and Japanese) Judo, Boxing, Aikido, Karate, Chinese styles ( see my post on the thread you mentioned ref Sami Berik) and anything else that is useful.

I know many MMA fighters who also train TMA's including weapons but not for an MMA fight! I can think of very few MMA fighters who haven't come from a TMA background and I'm including boxing as a TMA.

Many of us also train self defence where we may do similiar moves to ones we do in MMA but they will be focused towards surviving an encounter rather than the rules of MMA. As the Master pointed out there is only finite ways the human body can move. I know a great many people who have also fought/do fight 'in the street', pubs, car parks etc for various reasons and they use what ever is necessary. *When someone says 'MMA techniques' what they really mean is techniques that can be used in MMA not that they come from MMA! That I think needs to be made clear and understood!*

I find it hard to believe that everyone who is teaching TCMA is useless! I think that is a huge exaggeration that is bordering on insulting!


PS Master, you know the BBC is bringing the Master back?


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Jun 23, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> ....PS Master, you know the BBC is bringing the Master back?


 
Say it isn't so!  Galifrey is gone, the Time Lords are dead.  Or are they?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2007)

Nebuchadnezzar said:


> Say it isn't so! Galifrey is gone, the Time Lords are dead. Or are they?


 

Watched the BBC this mornng and they are hinting broadly that the Doctor may not be the only surviving Timelord! Waiting to watch next episode in new series in half an hour.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 23, 2007)

back to the topic please


----------



## The Master (Jun 23, 2007)

A most excellent event should it be true. My namesake was The Doctors most challenging rival, and his reintroduction would be such a bitter sweet thing to one who thinks he is the last of his kind, only to find himself not alone any longer.

But, we digress here, and should discuss that subject in another thread I think. Let us keep this one focused on the practicality of the Chinese Arts, shall we?


Now, back to the subject at hand.

I believe that the old Chinese arts were falling into disfavor in the early parts of the 20th century due to the influence of Western nations in Chinese affairs. A resurgence in national pride led to a revival, but much was lost during the early days of the Communist Revolution.  Much of it's ancient heritage was lost in stupid cultural purges.  What was preserved, was often done outside the country, or in secret. I would expect that those secrets are even today being well hidden as we are not far removed from the days of tanks crushing students there.

So, much of what the tourist may find will in fact be nothing more than the tourist arts, done for money and entertainment value.  I would guess that some families, still hold their arts close, and are rare to teach those they do not know well, and more rare, to teach them to non-Chinese.

Perhaps, those of this sites members who have professed extensive training in these arts would add to this discussion, and confirm or refute my theories?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2007)

From what I've read and hear I think the Master is right about 'tourist arts'. It certainly happens in Thailand with Muay Thai. I have to say I can undestand why too. Money is scare in many countries and if westerners come across with their often brash 'demands' for training I'd certainly take their money and teach them only a part of what I know. It would be interesting to hear from others who have trained in China though.


Master on the other subject I will only say Harold Saxon, Prime Minister of the UK!


----------



## oxy (Jun 23, 2007)

The only thing I'm good for these days is to spot logical fallacies...

Disclaimer: I practice LHBF (and prefer it over MMA), a TCMA that can be stretched to hundreds of years old depending on the Defendor's need for ego. LHBF's name can also be stretched to improve leetness if need be.

The premises:


The Master said:


> Given: The human body can only move in a finite number of ways.
> Given: Of those, only a smaller subset are effective for fighting.
> Given: Older arts have had more time to find those effective movements
> Given: Older arts have had more time to weed out the ineffective.
> ...



Corrections to false premises:

Older arts do not necessarily have more time to find effective movements. Conversely about "weeding out" of ineffective movements.

These corrections are necessary because the initial forms of the premises only hold if these "older arts" continually evolve. These corrections are necessary because it is demonstrable that older arts can be very opposed to evolution because of their unchanged existence and the decrying of "improvements" because the newer guys "can never match the genius of the style creators"...

It would be disastrous if TCMA was ever taught to past combat troops. The training time is too long when you have Huns, Mongols, Manchus and Japanese threatening the borders. Much more time was spent in training the troops in making and keeping formation and to change formations to adapt to situations. A good example of this (that everyone should read) is about Zhuge Liang during the Three Kingdoms period. All that is needed then is to have troops that are physically fit.

TCMA could only have come about through individual skilled fighters, because of the volatile nature of one on one or one on many (rather than many on many) combat. ie, it is much more easier to find flaws, to take advantage of them and to overcome them through one on x fight/testing.



> Therefore:
> When one sees similarity between arts, it can then be a reasonable assumption that they have found one of those effective movements.



Only after making sure that it's not because the arts share ancestry. Either way, it's the logical equivalent of saying that AIDS must be a good thing to be found in many people. Viruses aren't only rogue RNA strands: destructive, memetic viruses can also transfer horizontally.



> Therefore:
> When the art can be proven to be old, it can therefore be logical to accept that it has been found effective over time and repeated testing.



It's very illogical actually, because even repeated testing is not sufficient enough.

A lot of TCMA styles that are "old" gained their reputation through handing out punishment of street thugs. People have a tendency to romanticise the past, but the truth is most probable that a repeatable form of training could overcome untrained street thugs who probably used their size to intimidate rather than martial skill. People from the past also have a tendency to talk up their opponents so that they can imply they are better for defeating said opponent.

ie, "repeated testing" is not the same as "systematic testing". The Law of Testing is basically to try and break the thing. Many people only think of testing to see if something works and forget to test where and how something breaks.

The basic point is that you cannot use oldness as any criteria.



> Conclusion:
> Older TCMA that have stood the test of time have a high chance of teaching valid fighting skills, provided they are taught correctly.



It's a reasonable conclusion after taking into account the points I make above. It's also reasonable if this conclusion does not aim to imply that newer arts are of lower quality.

More premises: 


> Given: Most MMA taught today is sport oriented.
> Given: Most MMA teaches for one on one encounters
> Given: Most MMA styles do not teach weapon skills
> Given: Most MMA styles are less than 20 years old.
> ...



Corrections for false premises:

Like I said before, age is nothing. Let's take your previous premises as true: that similar movements across styles imply that they are found to be effective and that if they come from older arts that they have been tested thoroughly.

Does it not follow that if an MMA out there is composed entirely of these similar movements from older arts, then it is equally tested and thus equally effective? Like you said, the human body can only move in a finite way and that only a subset of these movements are combat-applicable.

Therefore, if you choose to imply that MMA is ineffective in part due to its young age, then you are basically saying that MMA does not have any similar movements to anything found in TCMA. If MMA has anything similar to stuff found in TCMA, then your premise is false. This is proof by contradiction.

One thing I disagree with (but not enough to say it's a logical fallacy) is the teaching of multiple attacker drills. If practicing forms is not adequate on its own for useful training due to unpredicability in real life, then practicing multiple attacker drills is much more ridiculous as multiple attackers are going to behave a lot less predictable than just having one guy. I've been experimenting with my own LHBF knowledge recently and identified multiple "single use" attacks that can be easily be adapted for multiple attackers. Interestingly, this ties in with my other thread about separating strategy from the art. I've got to reply in that thread one of these days.



> Therefore: One might find a greater focus towards competition fighting in the MMA school, with less street effectiveness due to the lack of multiple attacker or weapon awareness.



I see that claim made many times.

What is it about street effectiveness?

Do street thugs spend money and months of training, putting themselves under intense physical punishment... just so they can steal some guy's wallet? Or if it's revenge they want, surely they would not hedge any bets about their martial skill and go for weapons like guns. Are TCMAs effective against drive-by shootings?

Like I also said before, the majority of street thugs back in old-China days are "bigger is better" bullies rather than "I can kill you with my Qi over ten yards" masters. It didn't really take much by way of TCMA to escape harm and maybe hand out free lessons.



> Therefore: One might find more street effective training in a TCMA over a MMA due to the formers greater focus on the skills needed for street encounters.



Only if, as you've said above, that the TCMA training is correct and that the style has been tested.



> Conclusion:
> TCMA is a more effective training idea if one is training for in-street encounters with multiple weapon weilding attackers, provided it is trained in an effective manner from a proficient instructor.



Both of your conclusions have been qualified with a "proficient instructor" clause. Your conclusions imply exclusivity, but anyone can put MMA in there with the "proficient instructor" clause and it wouldn't really make a difference. I think that's called "distinction without difference". It's basically a claim worded in such a way as to allow the claim-maker to weasel out of the claim through semantics (not that I'm making that accusation, mind you). I say this with experience, after having been chewed out along with the rest of my team for writing a software requirements document full of the same "weasel out" language.



> I have 2 questions for MaartenSFS.
> - How old are you?
> - How many years past the age of 16 have you trained?
> You cite your experience, and your extensive training in some of your comments, but I would like to define that "time in".  There are members here who have been training in TCMA for 20, 30, 40+ years, and their experience seems to trump yours.  Would you care to enhance our understanding of the scope of your experience that has given you the idea that TCMA is not effective today?



The implications of this interrogation is like saying Mozart's a musical idiot because he was much younger than his contemporaries, predecessors or people later down the line because of less experience. A very big logical fallacy no-no. On an ethical level, I don't really like people using age or "years of experience" (rather than QUALITY of experience) to bully others. I developed this particular ethic from observing many youngsters (a few of which I had the great pleasure of teaching 7 star praying mantis to) who are much more intelligent than I am (or was, at their age) to know that age does not mean a thing.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 23, 2007)

TCMA, practical, or art? 

It depends on who your teacher is and how serious you are about learning TCMA.

My Sanda Sifu is impressed by Taiji and Xingyi

My Xingyi Sifu is impressed by Bagua, Taiji, Yiquan and Sanshou (Which is Sanda)

My Yang Taiji Sifu is impressed by Bagua, Chen style Taiji 

And to be honest after all my years in MA I would not want to have to fight any of them they are all rather effective.

My first sifu is now teaching art and it is not all that practical, but he use to be, but I doubt he ever had the skill of the other 3.


----------



## oxy (Jun 23, 2007)

The Master said:


> I would expect that those secrets are even today being well hidden as we are not far removed from the days of tanks crushing students there.
> 
> So, much of what the tourist may find will in fact be nothing more than the tourist arts, done for money and entertainment value.  I would guess that some families, still hold their arts close, and are rare to teach those they do not know well, and more rare, to teach them to non-Chinese.



The mere supposition that there are "secrets" more than implies "not tested".

There's this really good principle in cryptography which I think applies very well to martial arts.

To test the effectiveness of a cryptographic system (analogous to a style of martial arts), you have to assume that the algorithm (the principles and applications of the art itself) is known by anyone.

It is expected that a cryptographic system will be broken sooner or later, so it's better to get it out there for all to see (but not the password/keys of course) to spot weaknesses.


----------



## Nebuchadnezzar (Jun 23, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Watched the BBC this mornng and they are hinting broadly that the Doctor may not be the only surviving Timelord! Waiting to watch next episode in new series in half an hour.


 
You must keep me posted.  We don't get Doctor Who first run until after you've seen a season.  PM me please.

*Back to the topic*.

From what I've learned from other forums and read in articles it has indeed become a money making venture for the Chinese government.  "Shaolin Monks" giving demonstrations and a monk defecting to the US who now has his own workout video.


----------



## The Master (Jun 23, 2007)

This was what I'd hoped for.



oxy said:


> The only thing I'm good for these days is to spot logical fallacies...
> 
> Disclaimer: I practice LHBF (and prefer it over MMA), a TCMA that can be stretched to hundreds of years old depending on the Defendor's need for ego. LHBF's name can also be stretched to improve leetness if need be.
> 
> ...


 
True.



> It would be disastrous if TCMA was ever taught to past combat troops. The training time is too long when you have Huns, Mongols, Manchus and Japanese threatening the borders. Much more time was spent in training the troops in making and keeping formation and to change formations to adapt to situations. A good example of this (that everyone should read) is about Zhuge Liang during the Three Kingdoms period. All that is needed then is to have troops that are physically fit.


 
Again, true. I believe the story is that it took 25+ years to train a master. That is a long time to wait when an enemy army is burning your capital to the ground.



> TCMA could only have come about through individual skilled fighters, because of the volatile nature of one on one or one on many (rather than many on many) combat. ie, it is much more easier to find flaws, to take advantage of them and to overcome them through one on x fight/testing.


 
Again, true. I believe many of the arts are individual warriors personal techniques, later formalized.




> Only after making sure that it's not because the arts share ancestry. Either way, it's the logical equivalent of saying that AIDS must be a good thing to be found in many people. Viruses aren't only rogue RNA strands: destructive, memetic viruses can also transfer horizontally.


 
An interesting leap. I'm not sure what viral mutation has to do with art transmission, however I can see some merit in the statement.




> It's very illogical actually, because even repeated testing is not sufficient enough.


 
How so?  Repeated testing would serve to weed out the ineffective, and prove the effective.



> A lot of TCMA styles that are "old" gained their reputation through handing out punishment of street thugs. People have a tendency to romanticise the past, but the truth is most probable that a repeatable form of training could overcome untrained street thugs who probably used their size to intimidate rather than martial skill. People from the past also have a tendency to talk up their opponents so that they can imply they are better for defeating said opponent.


 
True. It does sound better to say you beat 5 when there were really only 2. Of course, the mental aspect of instilling self-doubt in ones opponent is a valid technique, and if the old skills pushed it more, it was with good reason I would expect.



> ie, "repeated testing" is not the same as "systematic testing". The Law of Testing is basically to try and break the thing. Many people only think of testing to see if something works and forget to test where and how something breaks.


 
Good point.



> The basic point is that you cannot use oldness as any criteria.


 
I disagree.  Many of the things we value are old. We lament the loss of 'old time morals', we complain that 'they dont make them like they used to' with a fair sense of truth to it. In fact, the steel industry has stated that older steel tends to be better as it hasn't been worked as much as modern, resulting in a stronger metal.  So, oldness can be a criteria, in some cases. I believe martial arts to be one of them.



> It's a reasonable conclusion after taking into account the points I make above. It's also reasonable if this conclusion does not aim to imply that newer arts are of lower quality.


 
Newer arts can be of quality, provided they are properly designed. Too often, they are merely "mixed" together random techniques, without much consideration to properly meshing the mechanics together.



> More premises:
> 
> 
> Corrections for false premises:
> ...


 
Similarity in movement is one thing. A complete understanding of the reasons for the movement is another. One can learn TaiChi at a senior center, or under a Yang master. The movements will be similar, but only one is training you to fight. If you do not understand why you are moving as you are, you are merely dancing.



> One thing I disagree with (but not enough to say it's a logical fallacy) is the teaching of multiple attacker drills. If practicing forms is not adequate on its own for useful training due to unpredictability in real life, then practicing multiple attacker drills is much more ridiculous as multiple attackers are going to behave a lot less predictable than just having one guy. I've been experimenting with my own LHBF knowledge recently and identified multiple "single use" attacks that can be easily be adapted for multiple attackers. Interestingly, this ties in with my other thread about separating strategy from the art. I've got to reply in that thread one of these days.


 
Drills are just that, drills. The adage "all plans fail upon contact with the enemy" is true.  A complete understanding will show you that what you are doing is merely a "what if", to train possible combinations. Solid understanding will aid you to take the pieces and apply them as needed. This is why mere memorization of forms is useless, and often correctly seen as a waste by the current MMA crowd. One needs to know how the pieces fit, and that the forms are but one possible combination out of many.




> I see that claim made many times.
> 
> What is it about street effectiveness?
> 
> ...


 
There is no art in existence that will protect against a drive by. Today, the street thug will have a gun to intimidate rather than flex muscles and brag. The existence of Qi is another topic altogether however.

Where TCMA can aid you is in the unarmed or non-firearm conflicts. Guns change everything.



> Only if, as you've said above, that the TCMA training is correct and that the style has been tested.


 
True



> Both of your conclusions have been qualified with a "proficient instructor" clause. Your conclusions imply exclusivity, but anyone can put MMA in there with the "proficient instructor" clause and it wouldn't really make a difference. I think that's called "distinction without difference". It's basically a claim worded in such a way as to allow the claim-maker to weasel out of the claim through semantics (not that I'm making that accusation, mind you). I say this with experience, after having been chewed out along with the rest of my team for writing a software requirements document full of the same "weasel out" language.


 
Weasel is s strong word. I prefer to differ to Dogbert on that. 

Seriously though, you are correct.  A proficient MMA instructor can be as effective as any TMA instructor. Both however are far and few between, as both MMA and TMA instructors often teach technique without a true understanding of exactly what it is they are teaching, and why.




> The implications of this interrogation is like saying Mozart's a musical idiot because he was much younger than his contemporaries, predecessors or people later down the line because of less experience. A very big logical fallacy no-no. On an ethical level, I don't really like people using age or "years of experience" (rather than QUALITY of experience) to bully others. I developed this particular ethic from observing many youngsters (a few of which I had the great pleasure of teaching 7 star praying mantis to) who are much more intelligent than I am (or was, at their age) to know that age does not mean a thing.


 
My experience has taught me that experience is valuable. Very few people who lack it, can really excel early on.  Mozart, like Bruce Lee, are exceptions to the rule. The rest of us must take many years to become great. So, my doubts on anyone at a young age being truly qualified to make determinations like this, are fair.  Which is why when people make proclamations, it is fair to ask for qualifications.


Good rebuttal's there. I look forward to more to come.
:asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2007)

There was a thread put up on another forum asking what the public perception of karate was, ie the general public thought what martial artists did was either 'karate' 'kung fu' or 'judo' regardless of what the style was. I admit that the only Chinese styles I have heard of are Kung Fu, Tai Chi and Wushu and there I think my ignorance is exposed but I have had plenty of experience in the politicking of karate styles which I'm tempted to say is what I see here? Basically I see Maartens saying his way is better than the others. I feel he has a butterfly approach as he is flitting from place to place Quote  _I have also been studying Chinese, Chinese Martial history, and TCMAs since I have been in China (Not competition Wushu) and *have visited more schools and watched their lessons than you can shake a stick at.*_Unquote. I can't help feeling that quantity isn't the same as quality.I think you may need to stick at one place and be trusted before you will learn anything of real worth. I think that's how I'd feel if someone from abroad came waltzing in wanting to be trained _especially if I lived in a closed society and the visitor came from a 'fast food' _society_ where everything has to be quick all the time._

Also he seems to take people who know nothing about the arts as training partners. Not necessarily a bad thing just odd to my mind.
Quote _When I am not actively engaging in classes or tournaments I try to find training partners whenever I can and teach them enough to get started experimenting_ Unquote


Quote _These were the real TCMA and they are extinct (AND I HAVE LOOKED ALL OVER FOR THEM). _Unquote
Now that really is an exaggeration!

Oxy, sorry I just can't get my head around your posts (my fault) but at the risk of repeating myself yet again, MMA is for basically for competitions and should be seen as such. The benefits from doing MMA are many of course and will go a long way to helping you defend yourself but it's not a style as is Shotokan, Aikido etc.


----------



## The Master (Jun 23, 2007)

oxy said:


> The mere supposition that there are "secrets" more than implies "not tested".


 
True, and, not true. It depends on if what is secret was ever tested, and if it has been preserved intact, or has it atrophied.



> There's this really good principle in cryptography which I think applies very well to martial arts.
> 
> To test the effectiveness of a cryptographic system (analogous to a style of martial arts), you have to assume that the algorithm (the principles and applications of the art itself) is known by anyone.
> 
> It is expected that a cryptographic system will be broken sooner or later, so it's better to get it out there for all to see (but not the password/keys of course) to spot weaknesses.


 
True.  But the average code breaker today doesn't have to worry about being shot on the spot if he is working his codes in a public park.


----------



## MaartenSFS (Jun 23, 2007)

Wouw, I don't have time to reply to all of this. But I'm on Oxy's side. Anything else that he says in this topic, I endorse (Don't **** it up! =P ).

I do have to make one statement, though. I did not come to China to study "tourist arts" and I completely resent that kind of blind insulting, though in reality most of what is left in China ARE "tourist arts".

Also, I agree with the secret thing. Unless they are an operating Yexingzhe (Ninja) cult then I hardly think that secrets are a good thing. If anything, they are to be avoided. If you don't teach anyone, you probably don't practise it (test it) in context either. This kind of thinking is what makes many TMA practitioners dillusional.


----------



## brianlkennedy (Jun 23, 2007)

Tim Cartmell, a well known and respected teacher of both traditional and modern martial arts has written on this a number of times and his discussions have corrected my (incorrect and confused) thinking on the topic.

  Effectiveness is not a function of what techniques a system has as much as it is a function of how those techniques are trained. Let me kind of take the Alpha and the Omega of martial arts by way of example; Brazilian Jiujitsu and Taijiquan. 

  I can teach taijiquan in a way that would give most people useable combat skills in a month or two. This idea that taijiquan takes decades is a bunch of horseshit. No martial art used in combat takes decadesweeks or months is more like it.

  And I could take BJJ and teach it in a way that people would never get useable skills! For example if all your students do is walk through front and rear chokes without ever trying to sink them ini.e. not choking the training partner till they tapthey will never be able to choke people out. The problem is, there is a sweet spot on people necks that you gotta hit and if you just pretend then you will never find the sweet spot and your BJJ is useless. 

  It is all in how you teach and practice the art, not in the arts corpus of techniques. I give thanks and praise to Mr. Cartmell for setting me straight on that. 

  Effectiveness is a function of training methods; not techniques.

  Take care,
  Brian


----------



## Rabu (Jun 23, 2007)

Hmmm...

Good thread.  

I would suggest that the onus falls upon the student studying the art offered.

My personal experience tells me that when I simply worked on only the techniques offered in class, without working on them outside of class, that my ability to express my practice suffered or foundered.

Additionally, I am sure that plenty of people, at least in the US, feel that ONLY the class room time and basics are all that is needed to progress.

This is incorrect.

My opinion is based on my experience which tells me that my ability to fight improved dramatically when I did two things:

- I broke down and did push ups, sit ups, calisthetics and other cardio training along with wieght lifting rather than only the basics in class
- I spent alot of time fighting with people in open sparring, in parks, classes where friends went to school and within my own schools

Limited training offers you simply limited results.

The difference you are seeing from people who are training and competing from south American countries like Brasil can be put simply like this:

They work hard and compete alot.  They compete alot more than their counterparts in other countries.  The opportunities for competition may be higher or the desire (or perhaps boredom) is greater.

I keep saying it:  Set your goal, train towards your goal and be honest with yourself about your progress in your training. Test yourself rigorously.

I find that I am almost always a bit short of what I want to be.  (fully 6' tall, instead of 5'11+3/4"...really, its annoying..)

Regards,

Rob


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 23, 2007)

This is leading me to a seperate post (coming soon) that I feel might be part of the problem here and it is based in Chinese culture vs Western culture and sales.


----------



## Mr. E (Jun 24, 2007)

oxy said:


> One thing I disagree with (but not enough to say it's a logical fallacy) is the teaching of multiple attacker drills. If practicing forms is not adequate on its own for useful training due to unpredicability in real life, then practicing multiple attacker drills is much more ridiculous as multiple attackers are going to behave a lot less predictable than just having one guy.



I have to disagree with you on this- kind of.

It is not really much about "drills" as it is "outlook." I have learned a bit of stuff that can really tie someone up and leave them so that you can hold them for the police or whatever. Very effective stuff that can be done in a series of quick movements.

The problem is that once you get there, it takes a few seconds to disengage yourself before you can get to your feet. If the guys buddies show up and take issue with you holding their friend down, you will have to endure quiet a bit of them stomping on your head before you can react.

And it kind of ties in with what you were talking about testing and evolving. If you have a situation where you only test what you do against one guy without a weapon, then the technique I am talking about is just great. In fact, it may work a lot better than another type of hold that allows you to drop it and jump up and react to new attackers or keep you safe from hidden weapons.

This is the problem with much of what is called testing an art. Are you testing it for a real situation, or are you doing what the French did with they built the Magniot line?

And I must say that this a very well reasoned, logical and friendly discussion so far. I do not know if it will remain so for long since certain types seem attracted to these types of threads. I fear that we will not be long before we hear talk about ego and being too scared to do certain things and other swipes at the other side by some posters. I hope that I am wrong, but that just seems to be the way these threads seem to go.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 24, 2007)

brianlkennedy said:


> Tim Cartmell, a well known and respected teacher of both traditional and modern martial arts has written on this a number of times and his discussions have corrected my (incorrect and confused) thinking on the topic.
> 
> Effectiveness is not a function of what techniques a system has as much as it is a function of how those techniques are trained. Let me kind of take the Alpha and the Omega of martial arts by way of example; Brazilian Jiujitsu and Taijiquan.
> 
> ...


 
IMO this is the best post yet on this thread.


----------



## MaartenSFS (Jun 24, 2007)

brianlkennedy said:


> Effectiveness is a function of training methods; not techniques.


 
Exactly. And I would add that techniques are also less important than the principles behind them. If your body and mind are ready, techniques will flow from you.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jun 24, 2007)

MaartenSFS said:


> Exactly. And I would add that techniques are also less important than the principles behind them. If your body and mind are ready, techniques will flow from you.


 
I dont know, this seems like symantics, but without techniques your principles are useless. The truth is techniques through principles. I disagree completely with the idea that if your mind is ready technqiues will just flow out of you. Unless you have trained those techniques into your body, they will not. The answer is a balance between techniques, principles, and application of both.

just my few cents,
 7sm


----------



## MaartenSFS (Jun 24, 2007)

7starmantis said:


> I dont know, this seems like symantics, but without techniques your principles are useless. The truth is techniques through principles. I disagree completely with the idea that if your mind is ready technqiues will just flow out of you. Unless you have trained those techniques into your body, they will not. The answer is a balance between techniques, principles, and application of both.
> 
> just my few cents,
> 7sm


 
I digress...

If you understand the underlying theory/principles or a group of techniques, you are psychologically ready for an engagement, and your body is in the condition to carry out those techniques one of them will flow out of you instinctually (For example, you will randomly apply an unknown variation of a known technique). That is part of the reason that I said that MAists today lack creativity. I did not say that there would be no techniques, only that the principles behind them are much more important and can be applied to a broader amount of situations than the techniques themselves.


----------



## jdinca (Jun 24, 2007)

The Master said:


> A most excellent event should it be true. My namesake was The Doctors most challenging rival, and his reintroduction would be such a bitter sweet thing to one who thinks he is the last of his kind, only to find himself not alone any longer.
> 
> But, we digress here, and should discuss that subject in another thread I think. Let us keep this one focused on the practicality of the Chinese Arts, shall we?
> 
> ...


 
Modern wushu came about as a response by the Chinese governments discovery that traditional wushu was no longer strictly a Chinese thing. They had to stay on top of the martial arts world, so in the '50s, they developed a more modern, rigorous, more gymnastic version. Most effective modern wushu practictioners don't do well past their mid 20's, just because of the demands on the body. Unfortunately, it also almost effectively eliminated wushu as a valid form of self defense.


----------



## qi-tah (Jun 25, 2007)

MaartenSFS said:


> I digress...
> 
> If you understand the underlying theory/principles or a group of techniques, you are psychologically ready for an engagement, and your body is in the condition to carry out those techniques one of them will flow out of you instinctually (For example, you will randomly apply an unknown variation of a known technique). That is part of the reason that I said that MAists today lack creativity. I did not say that there would be no techniques, only that the principles behind them are much more important and can be applied to a broader amount of situations than the techniques themselves.


 
I imagine this would depend on how you "know" those principles - intellectual understanding is of limited use in translating principle to action, physical understanding would require the use of techniques to illustrate those principles... however you aquire them. Techniques come from all sources; luck, experience, training etc. Is this what you talk about when you mention creativity?


----------



## MaartenSFS (Jun 25, 2007)

qi-tah said:


> I imagine this would depend on how you "know" those principles - intellectual understanding is of limited use in translating principle to action, physical understanding would require the use of techniques to illustrate those principles... however you aquire them. Techniques come from all sources; luck, experience, training etc. Is this what you talk about when you mention creativity?


 
Yes.  It takes a creative martial mind to know when they've found a good new technique worth practising and using, not at all different from a pianist "knowing" that his latest piece is "gold". Because if a technique fails you when you most need it...


----------



## qi-tah (Jun 25, 2007)

MaartenSFS said:


> Yes.  It takes a creative martial mind to know when they've found a good new technique worth practising and using, not at all different from a pianist "knowing" that his latest piece is "gold". Because if a technique fails you when you most need it...


 
But on the flip side, a lot of creativity is trial and error... often a lot of error! Which isn't really practical. The results might be practical, but that isn't the art - that's just what us (the royal we) poor gumbys practice now. So perhaps the question should have been posited; "TCMA, neither practical nor art??" Oh dear... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Joke, ok?? (I have an odd sense of humour)


----------



## MaartenSFS (Jun 25, 2007)

qi-tah said:


> But on the flip side, a lot of creativity is trial and error... often a lot of error! Which isn't really practical. The results might be practical, but that isn't the art - that's just what us (the royal we) poor gumbys practice now. So perhaps the question should have been posited; "TCMA, neither practical nor art??" Oh dear...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
As long as the trial and error testing isn't occuring during an actual combat situation then it shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## 7starmantis (Jun 27, 2007)

MaartenSFS said:


> As long as the trial and error testing isn't occuring during an actual combat situation then it shouldn't be a problem.


Which is why we beat each other up all the time, right?


----------



## MaartenSFS (Jul 4, 2007)

7starmantis said:


> Which is why we beat each other up all the time, right?


 
That's our excuse, anyways.


----------

