How will Tai Chi help me become a better martial artist?

[Hanzou]

Hanzou you may want to see some western boxing example that you won't be fond of.

Can it really represent what is western boxing today?

To be fair we have countless examples of modern boxing to showcase its evolution over the last 120 years since that video was taken.

We don't have that for the Internal Martial Arts.

Cool video btw. Always interesting to see old vids like that, especially from so long ago.

 

[ChenAn]

To be fair we have several examples of modern boxing to showcase its evolution over the last 120 years since that video was taken.

We don't have that for the Internal Martial Arts.

Cool video btw. Always interesting to see old vids like that, especially from so long ago.

You can say this, but for example BBJ employ 200 years old techniques that still efficient today without any evolution process of refinement . So generally speaking video cannot serve as benchmark of particular method (based on logical fallacy of hasty generalization) Perhaps there was someone as brutal and as efficient as today but never got a chance to captured by motion picture.

 

[Hanzou]

You can say this, but for example BBJ employ 200 years old techniques that still efficient today without any evolution process of refinement . So generally speaking video cannot serve as benchmark of particular method (based on logical fallacy of hasty generalization)

Eh, can't really agree with that. Bjj is under pretty constant refinement and evolution. Closed Guard and Half Guard for example are fairly recent additions (I think Half Guard didn't emerge until the late 80s/early 90s), but both are mainstays of the art today. The major engine of that is the dual push of MMA and competitive Bjj which causes pretty rapid changes in the art.

Perhaps there was someone as brutal and as efficient as today but never got a chance to captured by motion picture.

Perhaps, but in Bjj (like Boxing) we have modern examples of brutal and efficient practitioners who easily rival (or surpass) the masters of the past. It's bizarre that we don't see that with internal MAs.

 

[mograph]

Boy, those guys look silly in that video. Part of it looks like a different fight, but even when they cut back to the original angle they look pretty bad.

 

[Flying Crane]

That really depends on the individual right? Some people are naturally gifted, others have had previous training BEFORE entering the military. Regardless, the overall point is that fighting effectiveness is quicker to achieve in western boxing than it is in the internal styles, and there's no evidence that the more sophisticated internal styles ever exceed the effectiveness of western boxing.



Well they are filmed and are on YT for us to gawk at. The problem is that they're either shown in demonstration form, or in a not so flattering light.

Doh! You suckered me in again. Here I am speaking to a brick. You may as well have caught me monologueing.

 

[mograph]

Boy, those guys look silly in that video. Part of it looks like a different fight, but even when they cut back to the original angle they look pretty bad.

But then again, as we rush to use western boxing to discredit CMA, we may want to look at some assumptions:

1. Western boxing is a real fight? No it isn't. Boxers are not trying to inflict grievous harm on each other or trying to kill each other. Boxing is more like improvisation within a script: there are rules, and a specific way of holding oneself, moving, delivering blows, executing feints and defending oneself. There's a specific pacing to it in order to make it a specific contest. Think of how crowds react when someone deviates from the script and slows down the match by holding off and studying the opponent, for example. They can't deviate too much from the script.
   
2. These two men would be trained in western boxing? Not likely. In 1953, it's not likely they would have even seen many matches on television. According to Wikipedia, the first Hong Kong television station was launched in 1957 and I don't think that Macau was much farther ahead.
   
3. These men were fighting according to their art? Not entirely. They did not use joint locks, throws or kicks: limitations imposed by the organizers, according to the web's accounting of the event. Also, note the distance: it doesn't make sense for CMA to use punches from such a distance, so naturally, they look bad. IMO, these men were attempting to imitate a western boxing match. If they were to fight their own way, they would probably both stand there, stock-still, maybe twitching slightly, until one jumped in and landed a blow. That would not have been a western-style boxing match.
   
4. These men were trying to keep the other from losing face? This is quite likely, as any student of Chinese social culture could tell you. They were both respected martial artists, and face is a big deal over there. The web accounts also state that the match ended after two rounds, with a banquet being held afterward. Again, students of Chinese social culture would not be surprised.
   
5. Western boxing is the best way to tell if two men can fight? Really? We should be careful of our assumptions and check to see if what we think is the norm, the center, really is that, or simply one way of doing things.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I never said that. What I said was that the evidence appears to show that western boxing achieves effectiveness more quickly than internal arts, and that there is no evidence to show that the extended amount of training required to reach competency in internal arts ever exceeds the level of competency in western boxing.

Then you deny you wrote the things I quoted from your post then, because that is exactly what you said, they were direct quotes. Now it may not be what you meant, that I cannot argue, I do not know what you are thinking, but it is exactly what you said.

Which is what I was saying in the first place.

Actually it is not what you said at all.

Again, I never argued that western boxing was better than ICMAs. I was simply repeating Tim Cartmell's statements. He's the one who flat out said that the Chinese viewed western boxing as superior, not I.

No he did not say that, you are either misinterpreting what he said, don't understand what he said, or trying to hide behind him when you say it. Reread my above post. They said the training method was better for their purposes, not that it western boxing was better than Chinese martial arts. If they actually thought that them why is there so little Western Boxing in the Sanshou that came out of that realization. Like I said there is a lot of Qinna, Shuaijiao, kicking and striking, but no boxing stance, punching or any other similarity. It is the training methodology they saw a better, and quicker, for their purposes, which was to train men fast in hand to had combat. Which I might add was considered a last resort for the military at that time. Again, I think this is your prejudice talking and grasping for support from a CMA person us CMA guys know....... but it is not what Tim Cartmell "flat out said". Again, prejudice does not equal fact.

I cannot tell you how happy I am you used that video as an example. The thing is the guy you see in the very beginning doing a bit of Taijiquan is my Shigong (he was not one of the fighters). He was there as was my Shifu. Now these days the Wu family touts that as a great example of taijiquan, but they were not there, my shifu was. That was billed much like an Ali/Forman fight. But yet no one in the martial arts community at that time could figure out why the older Wu got into the ring. They all believed the younger Wu should have fought. Also no one in the martial arts community at that time, thought it was a good fight, they all thought it was rather pathetic. The crowd thought so as well; they paid big money for the tickets to see the fight, but by the end they were asking for their money back. What you have shown was seen as a bad example at the time the film was made.

 

[Hanzou]

But then again, as we rush to use western boxing to discredit CMA, we may want to look at some assumptions:

No one is using western boxing to discredit CMA.

Western boxing is a real fight? No it isn't. Boxers are not trying to inflict grievous harm on each other or trying to kill each other. Boxing is more like improvisation within a script: there are rules, and a specific way of holding oneself, moving, delivering blows, executing feints and defending oneself. There's a specific pacing to it in order to make it a specific contest. Think of how crowds react when someone deviates from the script and slows down the match by holding off and studying the opponent, for example. They can't deviate too much from the script.

I would argue that there are examples of street fights where people aren't trying to kill each other and are obeying rules (laws).

These two men would be trained in western boxing? Not likely. In 1953, it's not likely they would have even seen many matches on television. According to Wikipedia, the first Hong Kong television station was launched in 1957 and I don't think that Macau was much farther ahead.

Well no, and that's the point. Here you have two native practicioners utilizing traditional CMA against each other. It doesn't look good.

These men were fighting according to their art? Not entirely. They did not use joint locks, throws or kicks: limitations imposed by the organizers, according to the web's accounting of the event. Also, note the distance: it doesn't make sense for CMA to use punches from such a distance, so naturally, they look bad. IMO, these men were attempting to imitate a western boxing match. If they were to fight their own way, they would probably both stand there, stock-still, maybe twitching slightly, until one jumped in and landed a blow. That would not have been a western-style boxing match.

There were a few kicks thrown in that fight. I disagree with the notion that having rules automatically degrades your abilities. If I was in a fight where I couldn't grapple, I could still punch and kick with a solid level of technique from my background in Shotokan and boxing. I wouldn't automatically revert to an elementary level of striking ability.

Western boxing is the best way to tell if two men can fight? Really? We should be careful of our assumptions and check to see if what we think is the norm, the center, really is that, or simply one way of doing things.

No one is saying that. What I'm saying is that if we compare a boxing match from the same period, I think we would all agree that the technical level of the boxers would be much higher.

"Why" is a valid question that should be asked.

 

[ChenAn]

Perhaps, but in Bjj (like Boxing) we have modern examples of brutal and efficient practitioners who easily rival (or surpass) the masters of the past. It's bizarre that we don't see that with internal MAs.

I also thought of notion that modern is always superior until stumble upon European renaissance fencing manuals. Something that West lost and something you won't see in any movies.

Renaissance folks appear were very practical dudes. When stakes are high everything goes. Pretty much in par with Eastern fighting at the same era.

Despite its reputation It's not uncommon for MMA fighter gets beat down on the street

Most of modern systems tailored on one on one fight ; hence , all the enhancement . I have started with sambo at my 14s so I have some experience with modern system


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hanzou]

No he did not say that, you are either misinterpreting what he said, don't understand what he said, or trying to hide behind him when you say it. Reread my above post. They said the training method was better for their purposes, not that it western boxing was better than Chinese martial arts. If they actually thought that them why is there so little Western Boxing in the Sanshou that came out of that realization. Like I said there is a lot of Qinna, Shuaijiao, kicking and striking, but no boxing stance, punching or any other similarity. It is the training methodology they saw a better, and quicker, for their purposes, which was to train men fast in hand to had combat. Which I might add was considered a last resort for the military at that time. Again, I think this is your prejudice talking and grasping for support from a CMA person us CMA guys know....... but it is not what Tim Cartmell "flat out said". Again, prejudice does not equal fact.

This is what he said;

The conclusion was that Western boxing hand techniques, when it came to developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time, were superior to all others, including their own

"Superior in developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time".

Typically the word "superior" means better.

I cannot tell you how happy I am you used that video as an example. The thing is the guy you see in the very beginning doing a bit of Taijiquan is my Shigong (he was not one of the fighters). He was there as was my Shifu. Now these days the Wu family touts that as a great example of taijiquan, but they were not there, my shifu was. That was billed much like an Ali/Forman fight. But yet no one in the martial arts community at that time could figure out why the older Wu got into the ring. They all believed the younger Wu should have fought. Also no one in the martial arts community at that time, thought it was a good fight, they all thought it was rather pathetic. The crowd thought so as well; they paid big money for the tickets to see the fight, but by the end they were asking for their money back. What you have shown was seen as a bad example at the time the film was made.

Would there be any counter examples that can show an Internal CMA practitioner fighting in a better light?

 

[Hanzou]

I also thought of notion that modern is always superior until stumble upon European renaissance fencing manuals. Something that West lost and something you won't see in any movies.

Renaissance folks appear were very practical dudes. When stakes are high everything goes. Pretty much in par with Eastern fighting at the same era.

I'm sure they were, for their time. Nowadays walking down the street carrying a rapier isn't very practical which is why it fell into obscurity with the rise of personal firearms. The point is things should evolve and change over time. If it doesn't change it wanes and tends to die off.

Despite its reputation It's not uncommon for MMA fighter gets beat down on the street

Most of modern systems tailored on one on one fight ; hence , all the enhancement . I have started with sambo at my 14s so I have some experience with modern system

No one is saying that MMA or sport fighting makes you invincible. Regardless of training you're still a human, and can still catch a beating if you're not careful.

 

[Xue Sheng]

This is what he said;




"Superior in developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time".

Typically the word "superior" means better.



Would there be any counter examples that can show an Internal CMA practitioner fighting in a better light?

Nope, not at all what he said, unless you take it out of context like you are by picking and choosing one word in the entire statement to focus on

The conclusion was that Western boxing hand techniques, when it came to developing practical striking and defensive abilities in a reasonable amount of time, were superior to all others, including their own

It is based on time, saying it is superior given the time allotted. It is not saying western boxing is superior to Chinese martial arts, sorry, it is just not saying that at all. And when you are talking military, they don't have years, they have weeks, so traditional training methods don't work for them and western methods do because they are quicker. If you choose to focus on only the one word in the statement "superior" you are misrepresenting what was said to support your prejudicial argument.

As for showing in a better light, you want video proof form a time with video was not prevalent, in a culture that tended towards secrecy....but you are the one that provided your "Video Proof"...feel free to find more to support your argument if you like... you can believe what you like...your wrong....but I doubt you care or even believe that is possible.... but misrepresenting what Tim Cartmell is saying is not helping your argument..it is just making you look like you do not comprehend what is being said...or simply picking and choosing words to support your flawed argument. in hopes that no one else notices and actually reads the entire statement.....but are free to have your own opinion...

 

[Zeny]

I find this discussion rather pointless.

I’m a CMA practitioner but I have respect for western arts, particularly boxing. If mike tyson can hit as hard as he did, obviously western boxing got something right.

I have also done some push hands with someone who has practised taichi for over 50 years. One light touch makes me feel like I was hit by a truck. It is seriously no joke.

Honestly I wouldn’t be able to tell who would win in a fight between this taichi master and mike tyson. My best guess is this taichi master probably has the edge, but he’s old, over 70.

What we need more in this forum is the sharing of personal anecdotes or experience. What is the use of discussing CMA vs western boxing from a theoretical perspective?

 

[Flying Crane]

No one is using western boxing to discredit CMA.

Oh of course you are, you silly little brick. That is what you do, that is your M.O.

 

[Flying Crane]

I find this discussion rather pointless.

I’m a CMA practitioner but I have respect for western arts, particularly boxing. If mike tyson can hit as hard as he did, obviously western boxing got something right.

I have also done some push hands with someone who has practised taichi for over 50 years. One light touch makes me feel like I was hit by a truck. It is seriously no joke.

Honestly I wouldn’t be able to tell who would win in a fight between this taichi master and mike tyson. My best guess is this taichi master probably has the edge, but he’s old, over 70.

What we need more in this forum is the sharing of personal anecdotes or experience. What is the use of discussing CMA vs western boxing from a theoretical perspective?

Many of us here agree with you. Unfortunately some people have an agenda, and they try to impose it everywhere.

 

[Flying Crane]

I cannot tell you how happy I am you used that video as an example. The thing is the guy you see in the very beginning doing a bit of Taijiquan is my Shigong (he was not one of the fighters). He was there as was my Shifu. Now these days the Wu family touts that as a great example of taijiquan, but they were not there, my shifu was. That was billed much like an Ali/Forman fight. But yet no one in the martial arts community at that time could figure out why the older Wu got into the ring. They all believed the younger Wu should have fought. Also no one in the martial arts community at that time, thought it was a good fight, they all thought it was rather pathetic. The crowd thought so as well; they paid big money for the tickets to see the fight, but by the end they were asking for their money back. What you have shown was seen as a bad example at the time the film was made.

One of those guys trained in the method that I train. Yes, it was pathetic. Does he "represent" my system, or myself or my sifu? Not in the least. Do I feel embarrassed by it? Not at all. Does it shake my faith in what I practice? Not at all.

But perhaps some people who have a simplistic view of the world might not be able to understand that.

 

[mograph]

Yes, much of this discussion is pointless and doesn't help the OP at all.

 

[Goku2]

The biggest problem I see with people coming from styles like TKD, Karate, and Kenpo is relaxation.

I agree if you mean there is a lack of it!

 

[mograph]

Yes, much of this discussion is pointless and doesn't help the OP at all.

And OP, that "much" is contributed by Hanzou, who does not study Chinese Martial Arts, yet feels compelled to comment on their efficacy. Please take Hanzou's comments with a grain of salt.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I agree if you mean there is a lack of it!

They tend to be to tense