Intellectualising Martial Arts?

[JowGaWolf]

Of course some of them might still be useful and we'd have to try them to find out, but I can tell you right now that I'm not going to use look back and enjoy the moon into a duck step whilst sparring, because I'd run out of space and I don't want to hit my training partner in the groin.

I don't know what this is, so now you have to do it lol.

 

[Damien]

I don't know what this is, so now you have to do it lol.

Haha, well look back and enjoy the moon is essentially leaning backwards in gong bu, i.e. the bent leg is furthest from your opponent, and throwing out both arms- it's a large dodge and counter. Obviously this leaves you in a very vulnerable position so the follow up is to retreat. This is often done with duck steps which help you avoid obstacles and potentially kick a chasing opponent. I'm actually planning on a video on duck steps at some point soon, after I put it to very good use walking around the rainforest in Borneo last month, so watch out for that one!

 

[drop bear]

There are plenty of reasons things might not work in a modern context, and this is linked to the MMA practitioner idea; I'm not putting them on any pedestal.

Techniques- some techniques which are common now, weren't when certain styles were developed. As an example, roundhouse kicks were not a thing in northern China hundreds of years ago, so the kick defence approaches are very different.

Clothing- Certain techniques were indeed developed with certain clothing, armour or even hairstyles in mind. This could be your opponent wearing it or you. There are techniques which assume you are wearing heavy gauntlets to protect your hand, others that pull on helmet spikes etc.

Weapons- Certain techniques assume defence against a weapon e.g. a spear. Some systems built their hand techniques based on weapons fighting so that both could be taught at once.

Group Fighting- Some styles originate in the assumption that when fighting it would generally be in a group. This necessitates a slightly different approach than one on one

Sports- Not wanting to get into the whole sports applicability or groin shot arguments, but sports style fighting assumes 2 willing participants within a limited area and certain rules. Of course sports fighting is applicable outside of this context, but some techniques in traditional martial arts are based on the assumption that you are fighting outside, don't have space limits, are able to strike soft targets to gain an advantage, or aren't a willing participant. This means different footwork, different scales of movement etc.

So take all of that together and you have techniques which may not be particularly useful in some friendly indoor sparring against a guy that strikes like a kickboxer or muay thai fighter. Of course some of them might still be useful and we'd have to try them to find out, but I can tell you right now that I'm not going to use look back and enjoy the moon into a duck step whilst sparring, because I'd run out of space and I don't want to hit my training partner in the groin.

Martial arts has also just gotten better with more people collaborating. So the tricks that may have worked on everyone they fought. Are no longer as effective.

There was a time when people could block a leg kick with their hand for example.

 

[Flying Crane]

My understanding of TMA is that it originated from Village defense. So the village is like a family unit that has it's method of hand to hand combat. Back then there would be disputes between villages would lead to fights. Fights could be as small as teens from my village going to your village to beat up another rival teen group. No different to how gangs work, were some people in one neighborhood don't like people from another neighborhood. When I lived in Baltimore, being from a specific neighbor could equate to "being on the wrong side of town." If people knew you from the wrong neighborhood then that would be a butt kicking for you. In the Philippines the martial arts systems are identified by location / village.

From what I can tell by researching other cultures. Tribal warfare and village warfare are a real thing back in the past and as a result. You would want to keep some fighting methods secret to your village and not shared with other village. You would also develop fighting techniques that would work against another villages strength. There would be cross pollination eventually either through friendships or fighting, but for the most part the villages are trying to out do the other. In terms of Martial Arts, there's a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense in Jow Ga until you use it against another system.

A good example is a technique that we have that punches off center in a series of jabs. If I use this technique on you and you stayed still in one spot then I would miss you with every punch. But if you bob and weave then the shots are going to lay you out. Jow Ga doesn't bob and weave, so by function the technique wasn't designed for Jow Ga vs Jow Ga. We have another technique that seems to be directed towards linear fighting systems like Wing Chun. I say Wing Chun because the more linear a person is, the more likely I can pull it off. I don't know anything more linear than Wing Chun

If we take a look a Wing Chun we being to see how Wing Chun exploits weaknesses in circular systems. Is Wing Chun Circular? Can Wing Chun fight against Wing Chun and win. Sure of course. I would never suggest that this was impossible. But from what I've seen time and time again and from my own experience is that TMA practitioners who use the techniques against other systems often have a deeper and better understanding of that technique than they would if they only used it in the context of System A vs System A.

But back to the point.
This is Wing Chun when you train Wing Chun vs other systems takes this shape. This is true for any system that does System A vs System B.

This Wing Chun when you train System A vs System A. It tends to take this shape. Again this is true for any system that does System A vs System A

Yes of course. But that does not negate my point: TMA were methods means to give you skills to defend against whomever your assailant might be.

 

[Flying Crane]

What immediately comes to my mind is the techniques in my primary art that developed around swords (someone trying to stop you from drawing one, specifically). There are edge cases where they can still work, but they aren’t nearly as relevant today.

Would you say these are preserved for historical context, and not intended to be directly applicable today?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yes of course. But that does not negate my point: TMA were methods means to give you skills to defend against whomever your assailant might be.

Wasn't trying to negate your point just highlighting the focus of developing fighting in a specific context. If your family has beef with another family then you don't develop fighting to use against your own family. In a larger context the US doesn't build a military so it can fight it's own people even though there is a evidence of that happening. Countries that do this are often weakest against foreign armies. Similar to how people who spar System vs Sytem are weakest against other systems. Can I use Jow Ga to beat up my brother or neighbors sure. But that's not beneficial for the relationship with people who I want to have my back.

Another way to think of it is. The main focus for learning self defense is not to fight your loved ones or your family unit. with exceptions for people who want to harm their family . But those people probably don't need self defense to hurt loved ones.

 

[Flying Crane]

Wasn't trying to negate your point just highlighting the focus of developing fighting in a specific context. If your family has beef with another family then you don't develop fighting to use against your own family. In a larger context the US doesn't build a military so it can fight it's own people even though there is a evidence of that happening. Countries that do this are often weakest against foreign armies. Similar to how people who spar System vs Sytem are weakest against other systems. Can I use Jow Ga to beat up my brother or neighbors sure. But that's not beneficial for the relationship with people who I want to have my back.

Another way to think of it is. The main focus for learning self defense is not to fight your loved ones or your family unit. with exceptions for people who want to harm their family . But those people probably don't need self defense to hurt loved ones.

I am aware of the village origins of at least some TMA. I appreciate those origins and the context that goes along with it, but it is a historical cultural artifact that becomes irrelevant once removed from that context. We do not live in those villages and never have. These methods have spread far beyond those villages and the context that implied. Most of us today have no connection to the families and have no connection to practitioners of the same method, but from a different school. In the event that I might need to defend myself from some a-hole, while I might recognize that he has had some training, it will likely be unclear to me just what his training was in. So it’s just fighting against some a-hole who is trying to hurt me. If I found out or otherwise knew that this a-hole was also a crane guy, that wouldn’t encourage me to be more gentle with him because of some possible village connection in old Tibet long before I was born. This guy is nothing to me but an a-hole who must not be allowed to hurt me. I don’t feel any connection with him.

So this comes back to my point: TMA are meant for fighting/defense, regardless of the method that the other guy uses. I don’t think it helps to put restrictions on it, like “it is meant for fighting other methods but not people from the same method because of the village.”

No, it is meant for fighting, period. Just remove the restrictions because it is no longer relevant. Don’t put barriers on your mind, with this stuff.

 

[Flying Crane]

There are plenty of reasons things might not work in a modern context, and this is linked to the MMA practitioner idea; I'm not putting them on any pedestal.

Techniques- some techniques which are common now, weren't when certain styles were developed. As an example, roundhouse kicks were not a thing in northern China hundreds of years ago, so the kick defence approaches are very different.

Honestly, I don’t believe this. I find it unbelievable that the roundhouse kick was unknown in Old China. But even if that were true, it is merely a matter of learning to defend against that kick. It does not mean that all of your prior kicking defense skills are suddenly irrelevant when the roundhouse kick suddenly appeared on the scene.

At any rate, anyone training in a functional and relevant method ought to be able to adapt to techniques that were not previously familiar. It takes a bit of work but the nature of this stuff is that it should be adaptable. There is no rule that says your particular method needs to be frozen in time and practiced just as it was done 200 or 400 years ago. Ultimately this is a matter for the individual to develop his own skill. It isn’t a problem with the method.

Clothing- Certain techniques were indeed developed with certain clothing, armour or even hairstyles in mind. This could be your opponent wearing it or you. There are techniques which assume you are wearing heavy gauntlets to protect your hand, others that pull on helmet spikes etc.

Weapons- Certain techniques assume defence against a weapon e.g. a spear. Some systems built their hand techniques based on weapons fighting so that both could be taught at once.

Ok, so are you trying to preserve your method as a historical artifact? If so, you may be preserving techniques based on norms or customs that are no longer practiced by society at large. But if you are practicing a method with the intention of it being useful and practical and relevant, then some level of adjustments need to happen. A functional martial method needs to change over time. It cannot be done exactly as it was in the distant past.

Group Fighting- Some styles originate in the assumption that when fighting it would generally be in a group. This necessitates a slightly different approach than one on one

I dunno about this. Honestly, it strikes me as an example of over-intellectualizing things. Fighting in a group can mean several different things, and just what thing you are focused on matters. But we are then talking about positioning and stepping to function within that context. Otherwise, your fighting techniques and methods should not be terribly different. Otherwise, Fezzik is defeated by the Man In Black.

Sports- Not wanting to get into the whole sports applicability or groin shot arguments, but sports style fighting assumes 2 willing participants within a limited area and certain rules. Of course sports fighting is applicable outside of this context, but some techniques in traditional martial arts are based on the assumption that you are fighting outside, don't have space limits, are able to strike soft targets to gain an advantage, or aren't a willing participant. This means different footwork, different scales of movement etc.

So take all of that together and you have techniques which may not be particularly useful in some friendly indoor sparring against a guy that strikes like a kickboxer or muay thai fighter. Of course some of them might still be useful and we'd have to try them to find out, but I can tell you right now that I'm not going to use look back and enjoy the moon into a duck step whilst sparring, because I'd run out of space and I don't want to hit my training partner in the groin.

Competition is its own animal. If you want to be successful in a certain type of competition, at a high level, then you really need to train with the goal of functioning within that ruleset and environment. Not everything practiced within a TMA will be relevant within that environment. But it is an artificial environment that you must choose to enter, and outside of that environment, it holds no relevance to your methods.

 

[JowGaWolf]

We do not live in those villages and never have. These methods have spread far beyond those villages and the context that implied.

We don't live in those village but when we learn to fight it's not with the purpose of fighting the same family (literally and figuratively). We don't learn self defense so we can beat up people in the same school that we train in. The only time we do such things is in a sports setting. Often times sports settings will provide rules to reduce injury. But in terms of self- defense people are learning it so that they can fight against someone outside their "family". We may not live in villages but we carry and use that same logic.

Most of us today have no connection to the families and have no connection to practitioners of the same method, but from a different school. I

If you train in a school then that school and the relationships you have in that school take on a family structure. If you psychology on a sports team the most likely that team took on a family structure. If you have a family by blood or marriage then you have a family structure. if you have a best getting then you take on a family structure.

In the event that I might need to defend myself from some a-hole, while I might recognize that he has had some training, it will likely be unclear to me just what his training was in. So it’s just fighting against some a-hole who is trying to hurt me. I

In this example. You are fighting a stranger not family. If it was a family A - hole would you fight your family with the same brutality of a stranger A- hole.

When was the last time you had a street fight with someone who trained the same martial arts as you. Does anyone train in a self defense so that they can fight with the same skill set as the attacker or do you train so that you'll have an huge advantage over a possible future attacker. To know something or have something that your attacker doesn't have?

I don’t think it helps to put restrictions on it, like “it is meant for fighting other methods but not people from the same method because of the village.”

We put restrictions on fighting all the time. If it was a family A - hole would you fight your family with the same brutality of a stranger A- hole?

Don’t put barriers on your mind, with this stuff.

Relationships always have barriers. The stronger the relationship the more barriers there will be. That's normal. The lack of a relationship the fewer barriers there will be. But an attacking stranger in the face with a brick is easy compared to doing the same with a friend or family member. The are always barriers.

 

[Flying Crane]

We don't live in those village but when we learn to fight it's not with the purpose of fighting the same family (literally and figuratively). We don't learn self defense so we can beat up people in the same school that we train in. The only time we do such things is in a sports setting. Often times sports settings will provide rules to reduce injury. But in terms of self- defense people are learning it so that they can fight against someone outside their "family". We may not live in villages but we carry and use that same logic.



If you train in a school then that school and the relationships you have in that school take on a family structure. If you psychology on a sports team the most likely that team took on a family structure. If you have a family by blood or marriage then you have a family structure. if you have a best getting then you take on a family structure.



In this example. You are fighting a stranger not family. If it was a family A - hole would you fight your family with the same brutality of a stranger A- hole.

When was the last time you had a street fight with someone who trained the same martial arts as you. Does anyone train in a self defense so that they can fight with the same skill set as the attacker or do you train so that you'll have an huge advantage over a possible future attacker. To know something or have something that your attacker doesn't have?



We put restrictions on fighting all the time. If it was a family A - hole would you fight your family with the same brutality of a stranger A- hole?


Relationships always have barriers. The stronger the relationship the more barriers there will be. That's normal. The lack of a relationship the fewer barriers there will be. But an attacking stranger in the face with a brick is easy compared to doing the same with a friend or family member. The are always barriers.

The only such relationships that I have are those from the school in which I trained, or friendships I developed otherwise. Of course I don’t train with the intention of needing to defend myself from those people. But outside of those specific relationships, I don’t know what, if anything, someone might have trained. So my training is for defending myself against potentially anyone. I don’t see a need to analyze it beyond that.

Given the obscure nature of the method that I train, it is highly unlikely that I would ever need to defend against another person who just happened to train the same method. But I won’t ever rule out the possibility. I don’t get hung up on it. My position is, TMA was meant to defend against whomever it may be.

You can look for opportunities to spar against people from other systems; that can be valuable experience. I do not deny it. But I am not convinced it has as much value outside of a competition context, as most people believe it does. The value in the exercise for a situation outside of competition lies in becoming comfortable with the physical interactions that are part of a combative situation. Getting comfortable with being attacked and with physically dealing with someone who is aggressively up in your space. That is valuable, no doubt. But in competition, you know that your opponent has trained extensively, you know specifically what he has trained, and you have probably studied videos of his fights to understand his strategy and approach to fighting as well as his strengths and weaknesses (if you are trying to compete at a higher level on an official circuit; if it is just for fun with someone from another school then probably not, as far as studying videos). Furthermore, you can assume he has likewise studied you. Finally, you both agree to enter that competition arena. All of that backstory creates a need for a more complex strategy that may play out over several rounds in the ring.

This is largely absent from a non-competition self-defense situation. Neither of you know what training background the other may have, neither of you have studied the other’s fight history, and only one of you is there willingly. It won’t last several rounds and there isn’t time for a complex strategy to play out. It is quick and over and you simply need to have the will to act decisively and end it asap. To think that a street confrontation will play out like a competition is another example of over-intellectualizing it. People make it more complicated than it needs to be. By all means, follow whatever training you are interested in. I have no intention of suggesting otherwise. But I do believe that people make direct translations that sometimes don’t actually hold water.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Really? From my understanding most of those that actually created systems/styles were scholars in some sort. What systems were known to be created by someone illiterate?

South African blade work? 52 blocks?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

South African blade work? 52 blocks?

That first one's a good point. Depending on how far back you go, if literacy weren't a thing in that culture, then yeah I guess the founders were illiterate. From what I understand/remember about 52 blocks, it actually was codified by what I'd consider scholarly people trying to turn the mesh of arts in jails into an actual art. And most likely they were literate considering the time period/location it was created.

 

[Flying Crane]

One thing to keep in mind: you do not need to be formally educated or even literate, to be intelligent and highly educated about a particular topic(s). Members of pre-literate societies certainly knew their business, whether it was farming or animal husbandry or hunting or making a home (just to make a few examples), or the practice of combative methods.

 

[isshinryuronin]

The only such relationships that I have are those from the school in which I trained, or friendships I developed otherwise. Of course I don’t train with the intention of needing to defend myself from those people. But outside of those specific relationships, I don’t know what, if anything, someone might have trained. So my training is for defending myself against potentially anyone. I don’t see a need to analyze it beyond that.

Given the obscure nature of the method that I train, it is highly unlikely that I would ever need to defend against another person who just happened to train the same method. But I won’t ever rule out the possibility. I don’t get hung up on it. My position is, TMA was meant to defend against whomever it may be.

You can look for opportunities to spar against people from other systems; that can be valuable experience. I do not deny it. But I am not convinced it has as much value outside of a competition context, as most people believe it does. The value in the exercise for a situation outside of competition lies in becoming comfortable with the physical interactions that are part of a combative situation. Getting comfortable with being attacked and with physically dealing with someone who is aggressively up in your space. That is valuable, no doubt. But in competition, you know that your opponent has trained extensively, you know specifically what he has trained, and you have probably studied videos of his fights to understand his strategy and approach to fighting as well as his strengths and weaknesses (if you are trying to compete at a higher level on an official circuit; if it is just for fun with someone from another school then probably not, as far as studying videos). Furthermore, you can assume he has likewise studied you. Finally, you both agree to enter that competition arena. All of that backstory creates a need for a more complex strategy that may play out over several rounds in the ring.

This is largely absent from a non-competition self-defense situation. Neither of you know what training background the other may have, neither of you have studied the other’s fight history, and only one of you is there willingly. It won’t last several rounds and there isn’t time for a complex strategy to play out. It is quick and over and you simply need to have the will to act decisively and end it asap. To think that a street confrontation will play out like a competition is another example of over-intellectualizing it. People make it more complicated than it needs to be. By all means, follow whatever training you are interested in. I have no intention of suggesting otherwise. But I do believe that people make direct translations that sometimes don’t actually hold water.

MA for self-defense vs MA for competition. This has been an on-and-off topic for a long time. I'm not sure why. They are two different things. Flying Crane mentioned some of the differences. To sum up: Competition has rules and structure, it usually lasts longer, the object is to score points, the fighters train accordingly, more or less similarly, both physically and tactically for the competition environment. Success in competition means scoring more points (KO/submission in some MA. Full contact MA is closer to real combat, but still affected by some rules and structure).

Most self-defense combat will not be against highly trained fighters of any particular system, much less the same as yours. It is this type of brawling combat that TMA was mostly designed for. Now, has brawling changed in the last few hundred years? Yes, thanks to widespread exposure and awareness to fighting methods due to media. So, some modification of TMA is called for. TMA needs to spend more time practicing against these "untrained" (though still potentially dangerous) fighters who do not adhere to rules or style.

Practicing only against others similarly trained as you is good for sport, not so much in the streets. There are a lot more unknowns requiring a different strategy - "Shock and awe" comes to mind, shutting down the opponent ASAP to minimize these X factors. TMA can still retain all its flavors but should add a couple more to stay effective.

 

[Flying Crane]

MA for self-defense vs MA for competition. This has been an on-and-off topic for a long time. I'm not sure why. They are two different things. Flying Crane mentioned some of the differences. To sum up: Competition has rules and structure, it usually lasts longer, the object is to score points, the fighters train accordingly, more or less similarly, both physically and tactically for the competition environment. Success in competition means scoring more points (KO/submission in some MA. Full contact MA is closer to real combat, but still affected by some rules and structure).

Most self-defense combat will not be against highly trained fighters of any particular system, much less the same as yours. It is this type of brawling combat that TMA was mostly designed for. Now, has brawling changed in the last few hundred years? Yes, thanks to widespread exposure and awareness to fighting methods due to media. So, some modification of TMA is called for. TMA needs to spend more time practicing against these "untrained" (though still potentially dangerous) fighters who do not adhere to rules or style.

Practicing only against others similarly trained as you is good for sport, not so much in the streets. There are a lot more unknowns requiring a different strategy - "Shock and awe" comes to mind, shutting down the opponent ASAP to minimize these X factors. TMA can still retain all its flavors but should add a couple more to stay effective.

And I will also add that your assailant may certainly also be trained, but you aren’t in a position to know that ahead of time. It may or may not become apparent during the confrontation. So TMA is also meant to be useful against those who are trained. I want to point that out specifically because there is always someone who jumps in to say or imply, “oh well, then I guess you guys are only trained to fight those who are unskilled. Well if you would just do things OUR way, you will be better than that because we train to beat the really skilled people and clearly you do not.”

Utter Nonsense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Would you say these are preserved for historical context, and not intended to be directly applicable today?

In NGA, I suspect that is a small part of the reason for their inclusion, at best (since NGA was first codified in the early 1950’s). I find some of them are useful as drills for developing specific body movement principles (parts of what is “aiki). Some also develop grip-fighting principles, so may have been kept for that purpose.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

TMA needs to spend more time practicing against these "untrained" (though still potentially dangerous) fighters who do not adhere to rules or style.

The issue is some valuable training may be lost forever.

In another thread, JowGaWolf describes how he trains the "leg escape" skill. If "untrained" street fighters never use foot sweep, front cut, ... to attack you, you will never have to escape your leg out of his leg attack.

If a counter technique has no chance to be used, nobody will train it. Soon it may disappear from the face of the earth.

 

[JowGaWolf]

The only such relationships that I have are those from the school in which I trained, or friendships I developed otherwise. Of course I don’t train with the intention of needing to defend myself from those people. But outside of those specific relationships, I don’t know what, if anything, someone might have trained. So my training is for defending myself against potentially anyone. I don’t see a need to analyze it beyond that.

Given the obscure nature of the method that I train, it is highly unlikely that I would ever need to defend against another person who just happened to train the same method. But I won’t ever rule out the possibility. I don’t get hung up on it. My position is, TMA was meant to defend against whomever it may be.

You can look for opportunities to spar against people from other systems; that can be valuable experience. I do not deny it. But I am not convinced it has as much value outside of a competition context, as most people believe it does. The value in the exercise for a situation outside of competition lies in becoming comfortable with the physical interactions that are part of a combative situation. Getting comfortable with being attacked and with physically dealing with someone who is aggressively up in your space. That is valuable, no doubt. But in competition, you know that your opponent has trained extensively, you know specifically what he has trained, and you have probably studied videos of his fights to understand his strategy and approach to fighting as well as his strengths and weaknesses (if you are trying to compete at a higher level on an official circuit; if it is just for fun with someone from another school then probably not, as far as studying videos). Furthermore, you can assume he has likewise studied you. Finally, you both agree to enter that competition arena. All of that backstory creates a need for a more complex strategy that may play out over several rounds in the ring.

This is largely absent from a non-competition self-defense situation. Neither of you know what training background the other may have, neither of you have studied the other’s fight history, and only one of you is there willingly. It won’t last several rounds and there isn’t time for a complex strategy to play out. It is quick and over and you simply need to have the will to act decisively and end it asap. To think that a street confrontation will play out like a competition is another example of over-intellectualizing it. People make it more complicated than it needs to be. By all means, follow whatever training you are interested in. I have no intention of suggesting otherwise. But I do believe that people make direct translations that sometimes don’t actually hold water.

Every street conflict and fight that I've had gave me enough time to analyze what I was fighting. Stances and movement gives a lot of information. I've had an attacker try to blind side me as a kid. But there was a verbal exchange prior to the attempt. I walk away but never

And I will also add that your assailant may certainly also be trained, but you aren’t in a position to know that ahead of time. It may or may not become apparent during the confrontation. So TMA is also meant to be useful against those who are trained. I want to point that out specifically because there is always someone who jumps in to say or imply, “oh well, then I guess you guys are only trained to fight those who are unskilled. Well if you would just do things OUR way, you will be better than that because we train to beat the really skilled people and clearly you do not.”

Utter Nonsense.

You can tell alot by stances and movement if you have sparred a variety of people. Like the MMA vs Kung Fu masters. There was nothing about the kung fu masters stance or movement that would make me think I would lose against some like that.

Body positioning and posturing works the same way. It gives away more than what people realize. You may not know what they train but you'll pick up valuable information that can aid you in a fight.

 

[Flying Crane]

Every street conflict and fight that I've had gave me enough time to analyze what I was fighting. Stances and movement gives a lot of information. I've had an attacker try to blind side me as a kid. But there was a verbal exchange prior to the attempt. I walk away but never

You can tell alot by stances and movement if you have sparred a variety of people. Like the MMA vs Kung Fu masters. There was nothing about the kung fu masters stance or movement that would make me think I would lose against some like that.

Body positioning and posturing works the same way. It gives away more than what people realize. You may not know what they train but you'll pick up valuable information that can aid you in a fight.

Sure, as I said, it may become evident in the encounter. I still hold to my point.

 

[Damien]

Honestly, I don’t believe this. I find it unbelievable that the roundhouse kick was unknown in Old China. But even if that were true, it is merely a matter of learning to defend against that kick. It does not mean that all of your prior kicking defense skills are suddenly irrelevant when the roundhouse kick suddenly appeared on the scene.

At any rate, anyone training in a functional and relevant method ought to be able to adapt to techniques that were not previously familiar. It takes a bit of work but the nature of this stuff is that it should be adaptable. There is no rule that says your particular method needs to be frozen in time and practiced just as it was done 200 or 400 years ago. Ultimately this is a matter for the individual to develop his own skill. It isn’t a problem with the method.



Ok, so are you trying to preserve your method as a historical artifact? If so, you may be preserving techniques based on norms or customs that are no longer practiced by society at large. But if you are practicing a method with the intention of it being useful and practical and relevant, then some level of adjustments need to happen. A functional martial method needs to change over time. It cannot be done exactly as it was in the distant past.


I dunno about this. Honestly, it strikes me as an example of over-intellectualizing things. Fighting in a group can mean several different things, and just what thing you are focused on matters. But we are then talking about positioning and stepping to function within that context. Otherwise, your fighting techniques and methods should not be terribly different. Otherwise, Fezzik is defeated by the Man In Black.

Competition is its own animal. If you want to be successful in a certain type of competition, at a high level, then you really need to train with the goal of functioning within that ruleset and environment. Not everything practiced within a TMA will be relevant within that environment. But it is an artificial environment that you must choose to enter, and outside of that environment, it holds no relevance to your methods.

I agree, all of these things were exactly my point; there are techniques within TMA which are no longer relevant/as relevant because we are in a modern context. That doesn't mean the entire style is useless, it means that certain things have to be adapted or discarded if your intent is to train purely for fighting, especially competition fighting.

If your intent is to train for the interest of it, then there's no problem learning these techniques.

If you want to do both, you need to know which techniques are which. The best way to do that is to take the techniques and try them out, see what happens. Make as few assumptions as you can, but bear in mind the context or you might end up doing something dumb like accidentally running into the ropes/cage/wall.

Lots of people don't believe the roundhouse thing, but it's true. Sure there may be some small styles somewhere that had it, but certainly most didn't. Take Northern Shaolin as an example, it is one of the broadest styles of king fu, but you wont find a roundhouse in any of its core drills or forms. Crescent kicks, axe kicks, push kicks, flick kicks, side kicks, various jumping kicks, but no roundhouse.