Eastern Martial Arts and Body Connection

[paitingman]

In my experience with Eastern martial arts, there seems to be a goal of a much deeper connection with your own body than more Western martial arts.

Shaolin styles are said to have originated as mind and body training and self defense.

The mind and body training rather than the techniques themselves are the road to self defense.
If you can master these movements (your own body) then you can use that to do what you must and defend yourself. You train yourself by training this animal form, but it should be more about you and how you can develop your own mind and body rather than the animal itself.

The way it was taught to me, if you are missing this connection to yourself, you will struggle to find success.

Western MA seem to just walk on the other side of the road, practicing specific movements and techniques for specific things.
Eastern, a more holistic approach. If you seek to move your body very skillfully, you train yourself to move better by doing this form, or that exercise. Or if you seek this or that type of power generation. Or mental state.

You are seeking to improve the baseline skills of your mind and body, and this can help you fight, rather than "this is how you fight."

To me, it just seems to be a different approach to fighting and training and many people in the West and Western MA don't tend to think this way.

What are your thoughts? A lot of us here have trained styles from east and west and all over the world. I'd like to hear other similarities and differences you've found in training.

 

[Flying Crane]

When I think of body connection, I think of engaging the greater strength of the entire body when throwing a punch, for example, than the strength of the arm and shoulder alone. I’m not sure that it involves the development of the mind on a spiritual level, although it could, if someone desires to use it that way. But I would argue against the idea of it being ingrained or somehow mandatory.

I believe that this concept is present in all martial arts that grew out of a need for genuine combative skills and had practitioners who were thoughtful and intelligent and worked to improve the methods over time and generations.

I also believe that this concept manifests in different ways, from one method to another. The goal is the same, the concepts are often the same, but the specific methods that are practiced to develop the skill and how the skill is then utilized can be different. In addition, the specific techniques that are practiced by the system should clearly utilize the concepts and training methods.

However, the techniques are not the final curriculum. Rather, the techniques help you train the underlying skill, which can then be applied to any technique, including those not found within the formal curriculum. Once you understand the principles, after arduous practice of the formal curriculum, you can use those principles to make any technique powerful, even movements that are not normally thought of as a proper technique. The formal curriculum is simply a tool used to help you develop this skill, which is then open-ended in its use.

As I said, I believe this concept exists within all martial systems that were designed well. However, some systems may have developed the concept to a greater extent than others. Some people may be unaware of these concepts, or at least unaware of how to go about developing them, because they were not taught them or they were unable to develop the skill in their practice. It is also possible that entire lineages have lost this concept because an ancestor failed to pass it along to the next generation, and that omission has perpetuated.

I don’t know if this is an East vs. West thing.

 

[paitingman]

I don’t know if this is an East vs. West thing.

I could concede to that and say I still think the concept of the "skill" and body connection is more at the forefront and emphasized in eastern martial arts.

 

[_Simon_]

In my experience with Eastern martial arts, there seems to be a goal of a much deeper connection with your own body than more Western martial arts.

Shaolin styles are said to have originated as mind and body training and self defense.

The mind and body training rather than the techniques themselves are the road to self defense.
If you can master these movements (your own body) then you can use that to do what you must and defend yourself. You train yourself by training this animal form, but it should be more about you and how you can develop your own mind and body rather than the animal itself.

The way it was taught to me, if you are missing this connection to yourself, you will struggle to find success.

Western MA seem to just walk on the other side of the road, practicing specific movements and techniques for specific things.
Eastern, a more holistic approach. If you seek to move your body very skillfully, you train yourself to move better by doing this form, or that exercise. Or if you seek this or that type of power generation. Or mental state.

You are seeking to improve the baseline skills of your mind and body, and this can help you fight, rather than "this is how you fight."

To me, it just seems to be a different approach to fighting and training and many people in the West and Western MA don't tend to think this way.

What are your thoughts? A lot of us here have trained styles from east and west and all over the world. I'd like to hear other similarities and differences you've found in training.

Great post, and yep I reckon that's 100%. As a generality for sure, but it seems to be the case. And probably why I'm more attracted to the eastern MA and not western MA

 

[Mitlov]

Western MA seem to just walk on the other side of the road, practicing specific movements and techniques for specific things.
Eastern, a more holistic approach. If you seek to move your body very skillfully, you train yourself to move better by doing this form, or that exercise. Or if you seek this or that type of power generation. Or mental state.

Disagree. About half my time in combat sports has been Olympic fencing, and honestly, I think it's more a difference in language than an actual difference in emphasis. Call it "the zone," call it "visualizing," but it's all the same darned thing. In a sport where 0.04 second dictates the difference between winning a point and a double point (a tie), you need complete focus, no hesitation, instinctive reaction. Nobody uses phrases like "empty your cup," but it's all the same mental process in the end.

As for the physical development, what are plyometrics and ladder drills if not "training yourself to move better by doing this form or that exercise, or of if you seek this or that type of power generation"? Honestly, we do a lot of the same ladder drills for foot speed in Chun Kuk Do that we did in fencing. The same is true of full-body connection while punching. No worthwhile boxing or savate coach is going to have people throwing power punches with just arm strength instead of powering with whole-body actions.

To illustrate...looks pretty similar to me:

 

[hoshin1600]

To me the east/ west thing is a cultural diffference. It's the way the brain functions growing up in a particular society. The end result is the same. (or should be) but being outside of that culture it gets romanticized and sometimes glorified.

 

[JowGaWolf]

No worthwhile boxing or savate coach is going to have people throwing power punches with just arm strength instead of powering with whole-body actions.

This is not the same with MA arts as we often see kicks and punches in the point sparring world done without power connection.

If the goal is to always have applicable power then your training will always try to involve that power connection. If your goal is to just tag someone and score a point, then you'll develop skill sets that don't require a power connection. If you only do MA for exercise and fitness then you can get away with not having a power connection. Tai Chi is probably the best example of this where the power connection isn't important to many.

 

[skribs]

My opinion is that if someone doesn't see the value in a type of training, it can make it a lot harder to train. Let's take myself as an example, and use forms. Forms are an integral part of many martial arts. But 9-year-old me didn't really see the point in them. I remember a rant I went on at that age about forms, that they're silly and they don't teach you real fighting. That they typically have a block and a punch here and a block and a punch there, and that most people don't go down in one punch. I thought forms were ridiculous, they were silly, and that by spending a lot of time on forms, we were getting a false idea of what would work.

I was worried that the forms were either teaching us bad tactics, or that the forms were luring us into a false sense of security that our moves could take someone out in one punch. That if we got into a real fight and tried to use our forms, that we would fail, because we'd throw one punch and then have our confidence shattered when that punch fails to end the fight.

Some of these words and phrases are probably added in by 30-year-old me, but all of those concepts were in my mind at 9 years old.

Well I quit TKD when I was 11 and came back at 25. 25-year-old me loved forms. I still had some trouble with understanding their purpose, and even to this day I question what a form should be and whether or not our forms live up to those expectations. I still have plenty of criticism for the forms I learn at my school. But I do enjoy doing forms now.

There are a few things that helped me see this:

• I'm better at forms than I am sparring, so there's that
• My master's curriculum includes one-punch drills (which my old school did not) which has allowed me to see how the style of the forms can translate to the combat style of the art
• I was able to look at higher level forms, which feature more than "a block and a punch".
• I was better able to connect what is going on with the form to what is going on with the techniques themselves, and see what the forms were teaching me

Now, this isn't 100%. There are some things in our forms that don't show up anywhere else, and there are things absent from our forms that are in our curriculum elsewhere. Plenty of motions still feel abstract to me, and even those that make sense to me are a little bit different than we would regularly do. For example, instead of picking up the heel and dropping the knee and hip on a reverse punch like we would do in a drill, in the form you switch from back stance to front stance, align the hips, and keep your heel on the ground. So I still have some criticism and issues with the form (many of which may be my issue, and not an issue with the form). But the point is, I now see their value and I now enjoy them.

And that's the key.

I see their value, and I enjoy them. If you're a Kung Fu fighter, and you see the value in the training style, and you enjoy those training methods, then Kung Fu training is going to work well for you. If you're not sure about them, but you trust them because you have faith in the Kung Fu master that is teaching them, then it will probably work as well. But if you're dismissive of those training methods as "outdated" "hokey" "silly" "impractical", or whatever other adjective you can throw at them, then those methods are not going to work.

It is here that I think that the Western way has an advantage, at least in the West. My very limited understanding of Eastern culture is that if I say I'm the Master, then my students will respect me as the master even if they don't understand my methods. They will trust and have faith in my methods, because they see my skill, and I've told them these methods led to my skill. This is because my understanding of Asian culture is that respect for your elders is a key component in their culture. They are fairly conservative in this regard, and there is a clear hierarchy of authority, where people of that culture show respect and deference to their parents and elders, to those in power, or to those with specialized skills.

In the West, which has a much more progressive mindset, the idea is generally to challenge authority (as in, question teachers and push for change), to break societal norms, to be creative, and to innovate. Everyone thinks they're the smartest person, and everyone has their own ideas about how things work and how they should work. As you can tell from my story above, and probably by most of the posts I make on this site, I'm definitely in this category.

The West also values efficiency. Our time is considered our most valuable resource. Instant gratification is key. We want things now. And because it can take several years for the system to be proven to work, we can't trust it.

So Westerners may not see the point in forms, which makes it harder to train. If you don't find them fun, and you don't think they're useful, why "waste time" by practicing them, when you could practice something else that will have a more direct impact on your martial skills?

There's also the mindset that if your system works, that means that other systems do not work. Someone who knows more about philosophy or logic can probably tell me which fallacy that is, but the idea is that if I can learn to fight with Taekwondo, then all other martial arts suck, because Taekwondo doesn't.

When you put all of this together, you see that the Western way works. It is a more efficient way to learn the foundational techniques, there's less time spent on not-fighting, and it takes a no-nonsense approach. So it's easier to buy in, and once you've bought into the Western style, it's easier to reject the Eastern style.

Last, I feel that it is hard for someone to prove that the Western style is inferior, because there are so many factors at play.

Before I write a psychology book here, let me sum up:

• It is easier to train a system you believe in than one you think is hokey
• Westerners tend to question things instead of trusting the expert, and believe themselves smarter than the expert
• It is hard to prove that the Western style DOESN'T work or even that it isn't as good as the Eastern style

 

[Flying Crane]

My opinion is that if someone doesn't see the value in a type of training, it can make it a lot harder to train. Let's take myself as an example, and use forms. Forms are an integral part of many martial arts. But 9-year-old me didn't really see the point in them. I remember a rant I went on at that age about forms, that they're silly and they don't teach you real fighting. That they typically have a block and a punch here and a block and a punch there, and that most people don't go down in one punch. I thought forms were ridiculous, they were silly, and that by spending a lot of time on forms, we were getting a false idea of what would work.

I was worried that the forms were either teaching us bad tactics, or that the forms were luring us into a false sense of security that our moves could take someone out in one punch. That if we got into a real fight and tried to use our forms, that we would fail, because we'd throw one punch and then have our confidence shattered when that punch fails to end the fight.

Some of these words and phrases are probably added in by 30-year-old me, but all of those concepts were in my mind at 9 years old.

Well I quit TKD when I was 11 and came back at 25. 25-year-old me loved forms. I still had some trouble with understanding their purpose, and even to this day I question what a form should be and whether or not our forms live up to those expectations. I still have plenty of criticism for the forms I learn at my school. But I do enjoy doing forms now.

There are a few things that helped me see this:

• I'm better at forms than I am sparring, so there's that
• My master's curriculum includes one-punch drills (which my old school did not) which has allowed me to see how the style of the forms can translate to the combat style of the art
• I was able to look at higher level forms, which feature more than "a block and a punch".
• I was better able to connect what is going on with the form to what is going on with the techniques themselves, and see what the forms were teaching me

Now, this isn't 100%. There are some things in our forms that don't show up anywhere else, and there are things absent from our forms that are in our curriculum elsewhere. Plenty of motions still feel abstract to me, and even those that make sense to me are a little bit different than we would regularly do. For example, instead of picking up the heel and dropping the knee and hip on a reverse punch like we would do in a drill, in the form you switch from back stance to front stance, align the hips, and keep your heel on the ground. So I still have some criticism and issues with the form (many of which may be my issue, and not an issue with the form). But the point is, I now see their value and I now enjoy them.

And that's the key.

I see their value, and I enjoy them. If you're a Kung Fu fighter, and you see the value in the training style, and you enjoy those training methods, then Kung Fu training is going to work well for you. If you're not sure about them, but you trust them because you have faith in the Kung Fu master that is teaching them, then it will probably work as well. But if you're dismissive of those training methods as "outdated" "hokey" "silly" "impractical", or whatever other adjective you can throw at them, then those methods are not going to work.

It is here that I think that the Western way has an advantage, at least in the West. My very limited understanding of Eastern culture is that if I say I'm the Master, then my students will respect me as the master even if they don't understand my methods. They will trust and have faith in my methods, because they see my skill, and I've told them these methods led to my skill. This is because my understanding of Asian culture is that respect for your elders is a key component in their culture. They are fairly conservative in this regard, and there is a clear hierarchy of authority, where people of that culture show respect and deference to their parents and elders, to those in power, or to those with specialized skills.

In the West, which has a much more progressive mindset, the idea is generally to challenge authority (as in, question teachers and push for change), to break societal norms, to be creative, and to innovate. Everyone thinks they're the smartest person, and everyone has their own ideas about how things work and how they should work. As you can tell from my story above, and probably by most of the posts I make on this site, I'm definitely in this category.

The West also values efficiency. Our time is considered our most valuable resource. Instant gratification is key. We want things now. And because it can take several years for the system to be proven to work, we can't trust it.

So Westerners may not see the point in forms, which makes it harder to train. If you don't find them fun, and you don't think they're useful, why "waste time" by practicing them, when you could practice something else that will have a more direct impact on your martial skills?

There's also the mindset that if your system works, that means that other systems do not work. Someone who knows more about philosophy or logic can probably tell me which fallacy that is, but the idea is that if I can learn to fight with Taekwondo, then all other martial arts suck, because Taekwondo doesn't.

When you put all of this together, you see that the Western way works. It is a more efficient way to learn the foundational techniques, there's less time spent on not-fighting, and it takes a no-nonsense approach. So it's easier to buy in, and once you've bought into the Western style, it's easier to reject the Eastern style.

Last, I feel that it is hard for someone to prove that the Western style is inferior, because there are so many factors at play.

Before I write a psychology book here, let me sum up:

• It is easier to train a system you believe in than one you think is hokey
• Westerners tend to question things instead of trusting the expert, and believe themselves smarter than the expert
• It is hard to prove that the Western style DOESN'T work or even that it isn't as good as the Eastern style

What this boils down to is that a good teacher needs to make sure his students understand the purpose and concepts behind the training methods, and how those methods fit into the learning process. This is called “communication” and it can be shocking how poorly some people communicate.

When a student understands why they train in a certain way, then he can make a better decision whether or not the method is a good fit for him personally. He may still decide to pursue a different training method, but at least he understands why and is not simply thrashing around in the dark and training on blind faith.

 

[skribs]

What this boils down to is that a good teacher needs to make sure his students understand the purpose and concepts behind the training methods, and how those methods fit into the learning process. This is called “communication” and it can be shocking how poorly some people communicate.

When a student understands why they train in a certain way, then he can make a better decision whether or not the method is a good fit for him personally. He may still decide to pursue a different training method, but at least he understands why and is not simply thrashing around in the dark and training on blind faith.

But the decision can be made before you even talk to the teacher. Most Westerners will take one look at the motions in a Kung Fu form and consider it hokey and decide the art uses outdated training techniques.

 

[Flying Crane]

But the decision can be made before you even talk to the teacher. Most Westerners will take one look at the motions in a Kung Fu form and consider it hokey and decide the art uses outdated training techniques.

This is true and there is probably nothing you can do about that. What you can control is what happens in your school, with your students. Communicate well and thoroughly and make sure they understand the purpose behind the training methods. Full understanding may take time, but at least they have a notion of the reasons.

I train a kung Fu system that definitely looks odd to people who have grown up on a diet of MMA and such. Our methods do not look like what many people assume a combative method should look like. So I understand that point well.

A lot of people take one look at our system on YouTube and immediately disregard it. Oh well. Personally I don’t care because I’m not on a mission to prove it’s value to anyone, nor to try and spread the growth of the system. That’s just not my gig. But I understand the purpose of our methods and they make a lot of sense to me, so for me it’s a good match. I love it, so I do it.

 

[skribs]

This is true and there is probably nothing you can do about that. What you can control is what happens in your school, with your students. Communicate well and thoroughly and make sure they understand the purpose behind the training methods. Full understanding may take time, but at least they have a notion of the reasons.

I train a kung Fu system that definitely looks odd to people who have grown up on a diet of MMA and such. Our methods do not look like what many people assume a combative method should look like. So I understand that point well.

A lot of people take one look at our system on YouTube and immediately disregard it. Oh well. Personally I don’t care because I’m not on a mission to prove it’s value to anyone, nor to try and spread the growth of the system. That’s just not my gig. But I understand the purpose of our methods and they make a lot of sense to me, so for me it’s a good match. I love it, so I do it.

First off, I hope you don't interpret my comments as disrespect, but more as a devil's advocate.

Second, speaking of devil's advocates...

As someone who trains a more traditional art with mind/body exercises in addition to fighting techniques, is it easy or hard to see the value in the MMA type of training? Would it be easy to convince people who do a TMA that the MMA training style works?

My theory is that the traits which make someone accepting of a TMA would also make them accepting of MMA - deference to the authority/expert. But those traits which make someone accepting of something like MMA or Krav Maga (the efficiency of the curriculum) are the traits that turn them off to TMA.

So in that regard, Western arts have a recruiting advantage (in my opinion).

 

[Flying Crane]

First off, I hope you don't interpret my comments as disrespect, but more as a devil's advocate.

Not at all

Second, speaking of devil's advocates...

As someone who trains a more traditional art with mind/body exercises in addition to fighting techniques, is it easy or hard to see the value in the MMA type of training? Would it be easy to convince people who do a TMA that the MMA training style works?

I think it is clear that the MMA approach does work. I think it would be foolish to claim that it does not.

But often the issue turns into a zero-sum game. It becomes something of an argument that because the one does work, the other does not. So that is where I come into disagreement with some members of the MMA community.

It boils down to what you are attracted to and what you like. If you like what MMA has to offer: combative skills and enthusiasm for competition, then go for it. If you like what TMA has to offer: combative skills but often without an emphasis on competition, or a competition format that can be quite different from MMA, then go for it.

It is my opinion that certain aspects of TMA offer greater potential and longevity than MMA, but it is still up to the individual to realize that potential and longevity for himself. Just because the potential is there does not mean everyone training TMA has it. MMA has a need to develop skills quickly because the competitive career can be short. So it does not make sense to say that someone must train for twenty years before they are ready to compete. But that can mean a reliance toward athleticism and physical strength and can miss some of the potential that exists in the Traditional methods. But either way, one does not need decades of training in a perfect system in order to be an effective fighter. Athleticism and strength and raw aggression alone can take you a long way. Add to that some technical training, and the right person can be fearsome.

My theory is that the traits which make someone accepting of a TMA would also make them accepting of MMA - deference to the authority/expert. But those traits which make someone accepting of something like MMA or Krav Maga (the efficiency of the curriculum) are the traits that turn them off to TMA.

I don’t know. Maybe. Or maybe it just boils down to what you like to like to do. And that can change at different times in your life.

When I was a teenager and new to martial training, I loved to spar. As I got older, I lost interest in it. I am more interested in the physical education that the training offers, and in application drills instead of free sparring.

So in that regard, Western arts have a recruiting advantage (in my opinion).

I guess I’ve never been interested in that. I don’t run a school and I don’t feel a need to prove the value of the method to anyone. Once recruitment comes into the discussion then you are probably dealing with those two issues.

I might have a handful of students in my lifetime, and I am content with that. If I need to do a lot of convincing about the methods, then that person I am trying to convince probably is not a good match with the system. The system ought to speak to someone naturally, and they will find a genuine interest in it.

 

[pgsmith]

In my experience with Eastern martial arts, there seems to be a goal of a much deeper connection with your own body than more Western martial arts.

Your basic premise is incorrect in my opinion and based upon my experiences.

A deep and immediate connection with your body is necessary to correctly perform any martial art, whether it's MMA or Tai Chi. The differences are in the approach and the mindset behind the learning. All martial arts, whether they are internal, external, or weapons based, have the exact same goal of evaluating a situation and acting immediately in order to win an encounter. The definition of winning can vary tremendously, but the goal of winning is the same.

My experience has been that Eastern martial arts tend to take a more holistic approach to achieving that goal, while Western and more modern martial arts tend to take a more pragmatic approach. I believe that this is due to societal differences, and not a difference in the end goal.

 

[paitingman]

Your basic premise is incorrect in my opinion and based upon my experiences.

A deep and immediate connection with your body is necessary to correctly perform any martial art, whether it's MMA or Tai Chi. The differences are in the approach and the mindset behind the learning. All martial arts, whether they are internal, external, or weapons based, have the exact same goal of evaluating a situation and acting immediately in order to win an encounter. The definition of winning can vary tremendously, but the goal of winning is the same.

My experience has been that Eastern martial arts tend to take a more holistic approach to achieving that goal, while Western and more modern martial arts tend to take a more pragmatic approach. I believe that this is due to societal differences, and not a difference in the end goal.

I think some miscommunication has occurred. You've very concisely summed up what I was getting at.
The goal is the same, but it's a different mindset and approach to training in my experience

 

[paitingman]

Disagree. About half my time in combat sports has been Olympic fencing, and honestly, I think it's more a difference in language than an actual difference in emphasis. Call it "the zone," call it "visualizing," but it's all the same darned thing. In a sport where 0.04 second dictates the difference between winning a point and a double point (a tie), you need complete focus, no hesitation, instinctive reaction. Nobody uses phrases like "empty your cup," but it's all the same mental process in the end.

As for the physical development, what are plyometrics and ladder drills if not "training yourself to move better by doing this form or that exercise, or of if you seek this or that type of power generation"? Honestly, we do a lot of the same ladder drills for foot speed in Chun Kuk Do that we did in fencing. The same is true of full-body connection while punching. No worthwhile boxing or savate coach is going to have people throwing power punches with just arm strength instead of powering with whole-body actions.

To illustrate...looks pretty similar to me:

As a tkd man, I agree with what you're saying, but olympic tkd might be about as western as eastern martial arts can get lol

 

[Steve]

Double post.

 

[Steve]

I think it is far from given that the goals of styles are the same, whether eastern or western. I think it's leading to some very sketchy conclusions in this thread.

For example, I don't think you can assert with confidence that combative skill is the result of all training, as some suggest.

Second, I can think of many examples of eastern styles that are very compatible and consistent with mma . and many western styles more congruent with what are generally thought of as TMA.

 

[paitingman]

I think it is far from given that the goals of styles are the same, whether eastern or western. I think it's leading to some very sketchy conclusions in this thread.

For example, I don't think you can assert with confidence that combative skill is the result of all training, as some suggest.

Second, I can think of many examples of eastern styles that are very compatible and consistent with mma . and many western styles more congruent with what are generally thought of as TMA.

Agreed. I can only speak from the styles I've trained.

TKD, the way I was taught, seeks to train SUPREME skills in distance and timing. If you do not develop the awareness and clarity to perceive distance and timing as well as the footwork, you will struggle to use the techniques.
I've trained with a similar mentality in Boxing.

Even if you develop the skills with distance and timing, you do not automatically have combative skills.

Similarly, even if you're WC structure is brilliant and your control of center of gravity is highly skilled, that alone does not mean you possess the combative skills yet.

I've made many friends who have only ever trained focused on their combative skills and training to apply techniques.

These observations in my own development while training is what lead me to start this thread.

 

[pgsmith]

I think it is far from given that the goals of styles are the same, whether eastern or western. I think it's leading to some very sketchy conclusions in this thread.

If that is the case, please explain to me what martial arts that you are familiar with do not follow this same goal ...

... evaluating a situation and acting immediately in order to win an encounter.