I think this here is way better than wing chun

[Gerry Seymour]

Because of the weight you put on the stories. There is no advantage to being truthful.

As usual, you've decided to lock onto a single aspect of a statement and claim it is the entire statement. I made it clear that anecdotal evidence is a part of the validation (along with sparring, randori, purposeful resistance, and examining what is working in arts/styles that compete), because to exclude it would be to exclude the only evidence we have that comes from the real world. You choose to see that as too much weight put on it. Then go ahead, ignore what actually happens on the street, if that works for you.

I'm now done with this discussion, too. You have the knowledge and ability to discuss reasonably. You simply choose not to, and to drive debates into useless loops. So now I'm done with you. I cannot help you with your mindset, and you clearly have no interest in helping me.

 

[drop bear]

As usual, you've decided to lock onto a single aspect of a statement and claim it is the entire statement. I made it clear that anecdotal evidence is a part of the validation (along with sparring, randori, purposeful resistance, and examining what is working in arts/styles that compete), because to exclude it would be to exclude the only evidence we have that comes from the real world. You choose to see that as too much weight put on it. Then go ahead, ignore what actually happens on the street, if that works for you.

I'm now done with this discussion, too. You have the knowledge and ability to discuss reasonably. You simply choose not to, and to drive debates into useless loops. So now I'm done with you. I cannot help you with your mindset, and you clearly have no interest in helping me.

Did the sparring randori and purposeful resistance ever present itself?

Because although it was mentioned anecdotaly i dont think an example ever came up.

Clearly you need these fairy tales to validate your your position. And that you are tied to the topic emotionally rather than logically.

This is why the anecdotal method is so effective it suspends rational thought. Leaving people lile yourself to explore other ideas that do not fit the dogma.

I get the same responses when talking to a flat earther. They feel fact and fiction are competing ideologies. When they are really not.

 

[Hanzou]

American kenpo.

Definitely a modern MA.

 

[Hanzou]

But that is largely due to Government interference with the Japanese Martial Arts. The following is an excerpt from "Modern Bujutsu and Budo" regarding the effects of the Meiji Restoration.



A similar dynamic occurred in China due to Mao, from "the Tao of Wing Chun" in a portion about the History of Martial Arts and why most of the "older" CMA came to the West via Hong Kong in the post WWII period. The below is also why, initially, the focus of Martial Arts on the Mainland was largely sport (Wushu) and fitness.



So what you really end up having are arts we call "traditional martial arts" which were purposefully changed by the central authority to meet political ends.

And a similar thing occurred after WW2 when scores of westerners began learning Japanese and Chinese MA.

None of that contradicts anything I stated above.

 

[Juany118]

And a similar thing occurred after WW2 when scores of westerners began learning Japanese and Chinese MA.

None of that contradicts anything I stated above.

Oh I wasn't trying to contradict you. I was simply trying to put why certain martial arts (forms of Karate, Wushu etc) are seen as "sissified" in the historical context. My first course of Study in College was history (at its still my academic passion) so I have a tendency to try and put everything into it's historical context.

Though the one thing I would argue is your latest point. The Karate learned in the post WWII period was the Meiji Restoration Karate, so it was already altered. As for Chinese MA it really depended on the teacher, in terms of those who escaped to Hong Kong or Taiwan. There wasn't a "global" alteration as we saw with the Meiji Restoration. So depending on the Lineage some CMA's still teach the "real" art.

The real trick there is how far is the student will to go? I doubt there are many Westerners walking into a school willing to go through the effort and pain necessary to make some of the animal style techniques actually work. As an example a tiger claw basically requires you to strike hard objects repeatedly with your fingertips in order to produce microfracturing that not only increases pain tolerance but when produces denser bone due to how the body heals such fracturing. The people who developed some of the animal styles I think had to be masochists. It works, if trained right, but there are more efficient, and less self destructive training methods imo. Same for traditional Muay Thai. The shin kicks can be brutal, I have seen bone broken by them, BUT the conditioning of the shins to pull that off? Jeebus.

 

[Hanzou]

Oh I wasn't trying to contradict you. I was simply trying to put why certain martial arts (forms of Karate, Wushu etc) are seen as "sissified" in the historical context. My first course of Study in College was history (at its still my academic passion) so I have a tendency to try and put everything into it's historical context.

Though the one thing I would argue is your latest point. The Karate learned in the post WWII period was the Meiji Restoration Karate, so it was already altered. As for Chinese MA it really depended on the teacher, in terms of those who escaped to Hong Kong or Taiwan. There wasn't a "global" alteration as we saw with the Meiji Restoration. So depending on the Lineage some CMA's still teach the "real" art.

It's important to note that the Meiji restoration predates the founders of most modern Karate styles, along with the founders of Aikido and Judo. The point I was making was that a softening of the various Japanese styles took place following the war. Before and during the war, those styles were quite a bit harder, partially because they were utilized by the military. By the time westerners began learning Japanese systems in larger numbers, they were learning a far softer version of what had been previously taught.

You also had Asian instructors purposely teaching westerners nonsense for a variety of purposes. A great deal of Chinese MA and a lot of Karate styles fell under that umbrella. Mas Oyama was trying to fix a lot of that with Kyokushin.

The real trick there is how far is the student will to go? I doubt there are many Westerners walking into a school willing to go through the effort and pain necessary to make some of the animal style techniques actually work. As an example a tiger claw basically requires you to strike hard objects repeatedly with your fingertips in order to produce microfracturing that not only increases pain tolerance but when produces denser bone due to how the body heals such fracturing. The people who developed some of the animal styles I think had to be masochists. It works, if trained right, but there are more efficient, and less self destructive training methods imo. Same for traditional Muay Thai. The shin kicks can be brutal, I have seen bone broken by them, BUT the conditioning of the shins to pull that off? Jeebus.

Well the issue now is that there's zero evidence of that kind of training giving you any real benefit over someone using more conventional methods. It should also be noted that if you need to mutilate yourself to make a fighting style "work" (when there's little evidence outside of Asian fairy tales that such styles ever "worked") then you're practicing an extremely flawed fighting method.

 

[Juany118]

It's important to note that the Meiji restoration predates the founders of most modern Karate styles, along with the founders of Aikido and Judo. The point I was making was that a softening of the various Japanese styles took place following the war. Before and during the war, those styles were quite a bit harder, partially because they were utilized by the military. By the time westerners began learning Japanese systems in larger numbers, they were learning a far softer version of what had been previously taught.

You also had Asian instructors purposely teaching westerners nonsense for a variety of purposes. A great deal of Chinese MA and a lot of Karate styles fell under that umbrella. Mas Oyama was trying to fix a lot of that with Kyokushin.



Well the issue now is that there's zero evidence of that kind of training giving you any real benefit over someone using more conventional methods. It should also be noted that if you need to mutilate yourself to make a fighting style "work" (when there's little evidence outside of Asian fairy tales that such styles ever "worked") then you're practicing an extremely flawed fighting method.

But the Legacy of the restoration remained, with the exception of some of the people we have noted here.

As for the second part, that is part and parcel with my "it depends on the teacher." As for the effectiveness, increasing the strength of the hand over all via that method, not some of the crazy finger based techniques al la animal styles, is still very useful for arts you intend on using on the streets. Though not to the extremes a finger would require. It is not at all uncommon for well trained boxers to have received "boxing fractures" because they were punching, especially to the face/head, without their hands taped and/or in gloves.

As for Asian Fairy tales might I invite you to look up historical Lei Tai and how the Chinese Government eventually had to outlaw the practice because of the deaths involved? The use of those arts in Lei Tai up into the 20th century and the deaths involved are actually documented.

Additionally there have been scientific studies that have proved that the "tiger claw" actually doesn't work. I won't speak to other techniques (like monkey style) but more straight forward styles like Hung Ga use it, as does Choi Li Fut and the later is seen holding its own in many videos showing them against Sanda and Muay Thai. They aren't cleaning house like the commonly brought up quote attributed to Bruce Lee would make you think but they certainly hold their own.

 

[Hanzou]

But the Legacy of the restoration remained, with the exception of some of the people we have noted here.

It certainly did, but you can't blame the restoration for the softening of styles. Turn of the century Judo for example was certainly not for the faint of heart. The restoration simply offered a more scientific method for a lot of Japanese martial arts. The softening of arts was more a result of the Japanese defeat and the American occupation.

As for the second part, that is part and parcel with my "it depends on the teacher." As for the effectiveness, increasing the strength of the hand over all via that method, not some of the crazy finger based techniques al la animal styles, is still very useful for arts you intend on using on the streets. Though not to the extremes a finger would require. It is not at all uncommon for well trained boxers to have received "boxing fractures" because they were punching, especially to the face/head, without their hands taped and/or in gloves.

No argument there. I was more talking about older methods not showing much if any significant advantage over newer (and safer) methods.

As for Asian Fairy tales might I invite you to look up historical Lei Tai and how the Chinese Government eventually had to outlaw the practice because of the deaths involved? The use of those arts in Lei Tai up into the 20th century and the deaths involved are actually documented.

I'm well aware of the Lei Tai bouts. Simply because people were killed doesn't prove the effectiveness of the styles on display. Children horse playing too roughly can kill each other. Further some of the practitioners were using weapons. Keep in mind that in latter Lei Tai bouts Xingyiquan tended to dominate. Where is Xingyiquan in modern fighting? Did all the Xingyi masters vanish off the face of the earth?

Also its pretty interesting to note that many famous masters refused to participate in Lei Tai because they believed their skills could only be proven in serious duels and not "sporting" contests.

History truly repeats itself.

Additionally there have been scientific studies that have proved that the "tiger claw" actually doesn't work. I won't speak to other techniques (like monkey style) but more straight forward styles like Hung Ga use it, as does Choi Li Fut and the later is seen holding its own in many videos showing them against Sanda and Muay Thai. They aren't cleaning house like the commonly brought up quote attributed to Bruce Lee would make you think but they certainly hold their own.

I've seen those vids and its pretty hard to tell the difference between those traditional styles and straight run-of-the-mill kickboxing. Clearly in order to be competitive those styles have had to adopt methods from modern kickboxing styles.

 

[Juany118]

It certainly did, but you can't blame the restoration for the softening of styles. Turn of the century Judo for example was certainly not for the faint of heart. The restoration simply offered a more scientific method for a lot of Japanese martial arts. The softening of arts was more a result of the Japanese defeat and the American occupation.



No argument there. I was more talking about older methods not showing much if any significant advantage over newer (and safer) methods.



I'm well aware of the Lei Tai bouts. Simply because people were killed doesn't prove the effectiveness of the styles on display. Children horse playing too roughly can kill each other. Further some of the practitioners were using weapons. Keep in mind that in latter Lei Tai bouts Xingyiquan tended to dominate. Where is Xingyiquan in modern fighting? Did all the Xingyi masters vanish off the face of the earth?

Also its pretty interesting to note that many famous masters refused to participate in Lei Tai because they believed their skills could only be proven in serious duels and not "sporting" contests.

History truly repeats itself.



I've seen those vids and its pretty hard to tell the difference between those traditional styles and straight run-of-the-mill kickboxing. Clearly in order to be competitive those styles have had to adopt methods from modern kickboxing styles.

Well some masters yes, then you have people like Huo Yuanjia among others who didn't have an issue with real fighting, even made their living in "escort" companies.

As to the last point. If I have learned one thing about Traditional Martial Arts is that the picture perfect stances exist in training to train the principles and proper techniques but real fighting is not choreographed pretty. As an example years ago, before I started studying Wing Chun a friend took me to some fights in Philly. Only "no go" target was the groin. Only protection, sparring gloves, mouth piece and cup. Every fight ended in knockouts. I said the same thing you did "looks like kick boxing." However now having studied WC I watch videos of those fights and say "that was a tan-sau, that was a bong, gum, lap" etc. When I see them punch I see them using the Sun Fist, keeping the elbow down proper overall structure etc (not leaning in at the waist like a boxer etc.)

Basically the perfect looking stuff is using the philosophy of "if you can't do it slow you can't do it fast."

 

[Flying Crane]

But the Legacy of the restoration remained, with the exception of some of the people we have noted here.

As for the second part, that is part and parcel with my "it depends on the teacher." As for the effectiveness, increasing the strength of the hand over all via that method, not some of the crazy finger based techniques al la animal styles, is still very useful for arts you intend on using on the streets. Though not to the extremes a finger would require. It is not at all uncommon for well trained boxers to have received "boxing fractures" because they were punching, especially to the face/head, without their hands taped and/or in gloves.

As for Asian Fairy tales might I invite you to look up historical Lei Tai and how the Chinese Government eventually had to outlaw the practice because of the deaths involved? The use of those arts in Lei Tai up into the 20th century and the deaths involved are actually documented.

Additionally there have been scientific studies that have proved that the "tiger claw" actually doesn't work. I won't speak to other techniques (like monkey style) but more straight forward styles like Hung Ga use it, as does Choi Li Fut and the later is seen holding its own in many videos showing them against Sanda and Muay Thai. They aren't cleaning house like the commonly brought up quote attributed to Bruce Lee would make you think but they certainly hold their own.

I practice an animal style, we don't do any crazy finger techniques like you mentioned. My own experience with animal styles indicate the "animal" issue is more focused on some deeper principles of movement and application, and less about specific techniques. But this is anecdotal evidence, and so apparently not worth anything, according to some earlier posts.

However, yes there were some conditioning exercises that would be seen as extreme by today's standards and were probably injurious in the long run. Perhaps a peasant, or even a wealthy person in China in 1300 didn't have much prospect of living past age 45 or so, and didn't live long enough to realize those long term injuries. Less advanced medical technology and whatnot. But apparently some people at the time felt they were useful. Certainly in society today they are mostly unnecessary, but could be argued that a less extreme version might be appropriate.

I will also suggest that probably those who really carried those conditioning methods to the extreme were the rare exceptions. Not everyone who practiced were high level folks, or needed to use their skills every day. Much like today.

 

[Juany118]

I practice an animal style, we don't do any crazy finger techniques like you mentioned. My own experience with animal styles indicate the "animal" issue is more focused on some deeper principles of movement and application, and less about specific techniques. But this is anecdotal evidence, and so apparently not worth anything, according to some earlier posts.

However, yes there were some conditioning exercises that would be seen as extreme by today's standards and were probably injurious in the long run. Perhaps a peasant, or even a wealthy person in China in 1300 didn't have much prospect of living past age 45 or so, and didn't live long enough to realize those long term injuries. Less advanced medical technology and whatnot. But apparently some people at the time felt they were useful. Certainly in society today they are mostly unnecessary, but could be argued that a less extreme version might be appropriate.

I will also suggest that probably those who really carried those conditioning methods to the extreme were the rare exceptions. Not everyone who practiced were high level folks, or needed to use their skills every day. Much like today.

On the first part agreed. Thing is with many animal styles the "modern arts are the best crowd, especially mine" often point to the more specific and idiosyncratic strikes used in some animal styles that are usually intended for soft tissue (but just don't get that) or those that require crazy conditioning as proof animal styles DON'T work. My only point was to prove they do work.

I also think that your life expectancy thing has a lot to do with the crazy conditioning methods. If you die before 40 from Natural causes chances are the arthritis and other issues that can be crippling never kick in.

I would also say there are "moderate" conditioning methods that are still used in CMA (as well as JMA) that are useful in modern fighting. I have gone into MMA and Boxing gyms to see most everyone with hands taped up. If you are looking for self-defense this seems to not be a good idea. Conditioning fist, side palm/knife hand and palm are not simply good, but imo almost necessary if you are going to learn striking for real world self-defense.

 

[Flying Crane]

On the first part agreed. Thing is with many animal styles the "modern arts are the best crowd, especially mine" often point to the more specific and idiosyncratic strikes used in some animal styles that are usually intended for soft tissue (but just don't get that) or those that require crazy conditioning as proof animal styles DON'T work. My only point was to prove they do work.

I also think that your life expectancy thing has a lot to do with the crazy conditioning methods. If you die before 40 from Natural causes chances are the arthritis and other issues that can be crippling never kick in.

I would also say there are "moderate" conditioning methods that are still used in CMA (as well as JMA) that are useful in modern fighting. I have gone into MMA and Boxing gyms to see most everyone with hands taped up. If you are looking for self-defense this seems to not be a good idea. Conditioning fist, side palm/knife hand and palm are not simply good, but imo almost necessary if you are going to learn striking for real world self-defense.

Agreed on all parts.

I think my primary motivation in my previous comments was in clearing up a little bit what it means to practice an animal style. There seems to be a lot of misconception to what that means. People see crane style and think we stand on one foot and use our fingertips to poke at people, and maybe flap our arms a bit. It paints a rather less-than intimidating picture. That is absolutely not what we do. Our use of the crane beak and single leg stance is pretty minimal; instead the real issue in crane is a particular methodology of learning to connect the whole body behind our technique delivery. That is what crane is really about. I've never experienced another system that has a methodology for developing powerful punches like ours. In my experience, it is downright frightening.

My suspicion is that tiger probably similarly operates on principles of movement and power generation on a deeper level. Use of the tiger claw is just one technique that I'm guessing probably gets less use than the uninformed general public assumes, but gets put out to the public as the "signature" technique (however erroneously) of the style. Hence, my comments.

 

[Ironbear24]

Definitely a modern MA.

See you are the only one I know who says that. Blackbelt magazine for example calls both kyokyushin and kenpo a traditional art. This is why I don't pay much attention to these terms MMA and TMA because in the end what does it matter what the label is?


Neither is better or worse than another and it all depends on the person whether they will be proficient or not.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

See you are the only one I know who says that. Blackbelt magazine for example calls both kyokyushin and kenpo a traditional art. This is why I don't pay much attention to these terms MMA and TMA because in the end what does it matter what the label is?


Neither is better or worse than another and it all depends on the person whether they will be proficient or not.

Agreed. There are those who define "traditional" as meaning it still sticks closelyto the original traditions of the art (this would be more like the koryu). For others, it's an art of a certain age, with many different cut-offs used (this is the one that's least helpful IMO, as we start to argue about whether we count from a branching, or some unbroken lineage). Others (myself included) tend to use "traditional" to refer to arts that carry on somewhat traditional rituals (like formal bows in a JMA) and uniforms (like the dogi, dobak, etc.). Still others use it to refer to those that still use traditional training methods (kata, punching/kicking lines, etc.).

The distinction becomes un-useful in many discussions, as all of those definitions fail to produce any homogenous grouping of any real value. The only one that seems generally useful to me is the one I use (which is why I use it), since it at least paints a visual of the art in practice. That doesn't usually add much to the discussion, though, since there's so much variability even in that (what color of dogi, how much bowing, etc.).

 

[Ironbear24]

Agreed. There are those who define "traditional" as meaning it still sticks closelyto the original traditions of the art (this would be more like the koryu). For others, it's an art of a certain age, with many different cut-offs used (this is the one that's least helpful IMO, as we start to argue about whether we count from a branching, or some unbroken lineage). Others (myself included) tend to use "traditional" to refer to arts that carry on somewhat traditional rituals (like formal bows in a JMA) and uniforms (like the dogi, dobak, etc.). Still others use it to refer to those that still use traditional training methods (kata, punching/kicking lines, etc.).

The distinction becomes un-useful in many discussions, as all of those definitions fail to produce any homogenous grouping of any real value. The only one that seems generally useful to me is the one I use (which is why I use it), since it at least paints a visual of the art in practice. That doesn't usually add much to the discussion, though, since there's so much variability even in that (what color of dogi, how much bowing, etc.).

I think a lot of it has to so with a misconception of what many martial arts are. I have been told so many times my martial arts looks like " just kickboxing". I say to that well what do you expect it to look like? Some wax on wax off crane kicking mumbo jumbo?

We all have two arms and two legs so many martial arts are going to have similarities in appearance. There will be differences but in the end we are all hitting eachother in the head for fun or for survival.

I am also confused why hanzou calls kenpo an MMA because American Kenpo has tons of punching and kicking lines, tons of bowing. Some teach weapons (mine didn't often). The only modern aspeft of it was the biggest focus was competition. Self defense was taught but we were concerned more about those medals and trophies.

 

[JR 137]

See you are the only one I know who says that. Blackbelt magazine for example calls both kyokyushin and kenpo a traditional art. This is why I don't pay much attention to these terms MMA and TMA because in the end what does it matter what the label is?


Neither is better or worse than another and it all depends on the person whether they will be proficient or not.

Just out of curiosity, do American Kenpo practicioners call it traditional or modern? Kyokushin practicioners call themselves traditional.

In one aspect, I see Kyokushin as traditional. It follows the respect, bowing, etc. protocol, and uses the old-school kata. I also see it as modern for the reasons Hanzou said.

I'd call American Kenpo modern before I'd call it traditional, but I don't know nearly enough about it to stand by that statement.

 

[Ironbear24]

Just out of curiosity, do American Kenpo practicioners call it traditional or modern?

To be honest we usually don't call it either.

Kenpo karate is a lot like kyokyushin karate in the sense that it prides itself on being a very "rough and tough" style.

It believes in many of the same principles and the only major differences is kyokyushin karateka like to land very big head kicks. Kenpo usually keeps its kicks lower suchs inner and outer legs, buttocks and stomach as well as the groin.

People also seem to call kenpo an MMA because of how common crosstraining is amongst its practitioners . It is not uncommon for a kenpoist to seek out and train in other styles to expand their knowledge of martial arts.

My fist Sifu for example had a Judo background as well as high Dan Ranking in the Ed parker system.

My current one is an off shoot style of Tracy Kenpo which is more or less the same thing but with a lot of chinese martial art influences. The founder Al Moore combined his knowledge of kung fu with the training he had with Ed Parker and Tracy, and they mentioned another guy, I don't remember the name but he went off on his own and made "Shoalin kenpo" or something like that.

Here feels a lot like my old Ed Parker dojo, aside from the many differences such as focus on center line and closeness to your opponent, the atmosphere is more traditional than the other place but we still focus heavily on winning competition.

When I asked my current Sifu if he considers what we do to be a modern martial art or traditional one he said he doesn't care about terms like that.

 

[Kickboxer101]

Just out of curiosity, do American Kenpo practicioners call it traditional or modern? Kyokushin practicioners call themselves traditional.

In one aspect, I see Kyokushin as traditional. It follows the respect, bowing, etc. protocol, and uses the old-school kata. I also see it as modern for the reasons Hanzou said.

I'd call American Kenpo modern before I'd call it traditional, but I don't know nearly enough about it to stand by that statement.

Honestly I don't think you can call kenpo modern these days I mean I know that was the original sales pitch a modern martial art and sure it's more modern than say kyoshikin or something like that but it's hardly modern. Ed Parker died in 1991 and I think the American kenpo system was developed around the 60s I may be wrong on that and really since Parker died no ones really done anything new to it just followed what he had. I know jeff speakman has his kenpo 5.0 that has grappling now but really I don't think it can be called modern

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Honestly I don't think you can call kenpo modern these days I mean I know that was the original sales pitch a modern martial art and sure it's more modern than say kyoshikin or something like that but it's hardly modern. Ed Parker died in 1991 and I think the American kenpo system was developed around the 60s I may be wrong on that and really since Parker died no ones really done anything new to it just followed what he had. I know jeff speakman has his kenpo 5.0 that has grappling now but really I don't think it can be called modern

So, what is your definition of "modern", then? Something that updates constantly?

 

[Kickboxer101]

So, what is your definition of "modern", then? Something that updates constantly?

Not constantly but there's really 0 difference in kenpo then there was back then. I just don't think a system developed in the 60s can be considered for example on gun techniques there's a move to jam the gun to stop it firing but that wouldn't work today because the guns are different and work differently. I mean Im not saying you have to completely overhaul the style but times are always changing. I mean there's techniques that block a rugby tackle but with people wrestling more these days those techiques wouldn't work now as well