Is older really better

[zuti car]

No legends but there are historical facts; You have an interesting discussion here, but your history is a bit off in some cases. And most Chinese arts are labeled Traditional based on Lineage

- Baguazhang comes form Dong Haichuan who lived from Dong Haichuan (13 October 1797 or 1813 to 25 October 1882
- Xingyiquan historically tied to Ji Jike (1588–1662) as first verified practitinoer
- Taijiquan origin is Chen Wangting (1580–1660)
- More Taijiquan: Yang Taijiquan origin is Yang Luchan (1799-1872) however much of the Yang stlye you see today comes from Yang Chengfu (1883–1936)
Wu style is historically interesting interesting because it split into Southern and Northern Wu and it is possible that Nortern Wu has an origin that has not changed much since its Wu Jianquan (1870–1942) who is the son of the first Wu style practioner Wu Quanyou (1834–1902)

There are many reasons why Martial arts changed in China and most of those were based on money not guns, you may want to check out Kung Fu tea and read some of the research papers he has done there, they are rather good. There is a lot there on Wing Chun as well since he is a Wing Chun guy

I can recomend books written by Tang Hao , martial artist and reseracher from republican period . He proved Tai Chi was a modification of some older art made by Chen people in their village in the second half of 19 century. There was an art under name Hsing ji in Ming Dynasty period but that art was lost . Today's Hsing yi is a product of Li Laonong who mixed several other arts but he took the name from the older style . Pretty much all styles have similar histoy . Either they are formed druing second half oh 19th century or competely redifined , Like Baji or Pigua whch were primapry weapon arts but now they are almost completely empty hans artand most of the knowledge about weapon usage is lost.

The most important part is :"There are many reasons why Martial arts changed in China and most of those were based on money not guns" . Back then (endo Ching dynasty and republican period) , same things happened to CMA as later happened in the 1980"s and it still happening today . We all know McDojos , watering dwn the cintent of the art ect, but these aer not inventions of our time

 

[Xue Sheng]

name one thing taht ins.t better today that it was 100 or 1000 years ago ?

air quality, water quality, face to face human interaction..... you are stating "everything" other than martial arts and that is simply not the case

 

[dlcox]

My point is, old arts actually arn't that old , and they rarely faced life threating situations . What old arts looked like we will never know because they died out with invetion of fire arms . Really old art were weapon arts , empty hands training if there was any , usually served as a peraparation for weapon training , but in most cases there wasn't any empty hands training. "Traditional" arts we know today are invented since 1880 till 1930. Ba Gua, Tai Chi ,Hsing Yi , White Cranes , Wing Chun , Choy Lee Fut ... all of them are created in the second half of 19th century . Hung Gar , Bai Mei , Hakka Mantis , just to mention the most famous ones are invented in the first decades of 1900"s. Wudang styles actually were never practiced in Wudang before 1928 ( I am not sure about the year , I have to check it again , but I think it should be correct) . Any style who put emphasis on empty hands cannot be found prior to 1850's . About real fighting experience , founder of the arts didn.t have it . It was popular at the time to practice kung fu , just like on the west in 1980's . We all know what happened and what good and even more , bad things regarding unqualified instructors with a lack of fighting experience ,mistification , magic ,invetion of endless leves of drilss , techniques ect., happened . Same thing was going on in China during the last years of Ching rule and republican period .

Agree, most TCMA today is a product of 1800's. Old TCMA arts focused mainly on weapons. Emphasis on empty hand skills became vogue in Victorian age and rose in popularity alongside of Western Boxing, much of it was sport based, not battlefield. This was to compete financially with European Boxing events. Taolu also became codified within lines during this era, before Taolu was "Set in Stone" TCMA practiced Frame Training, which is a practice method of linked Sanshi. Weapons were still widely employed when trying to kill someone and during settlement of disputes, fist fighting was generally for entertainment. Many of the Red Junks also had cannon and other firearms on board to defend themselves. The knives were a hold over, and a popular weapon used on the river boats, especially by pirates when boarding other ships. Similar things happened in Japan with the disbandment of the Samurai, only then did empty hand skills become popular. Throughout history hand to hand skills became popular in times of peace.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I can recomend books written by Tang Hao , martial artist and reseracher from republican period . He proved Tai Chi was a modification of some older art made by Chen people in their village in the second half of 19 century. There was an art under name Hsing ji in Ming Dynasty period but that art was lost . Today's Hsing yi is a product of Li Laonong who mixed several other arts but he took the name from the older style . Pretty much all styles have similar histoy . Either they are formed druing second half oh 19th century or competely redifined , Like Baji or Pigua whch were primapry weapon arts but now they are almost completely empty hans artand most of the knowledge about weapon usage is lost.

This is not news to me I have studied this, but you are still not exactly right here either. There are a lot of arts with similar names in CMA history that are actually not at all related. And there was a lot of mixing of arts, Bagua after Dong Hai Chuan is mixed with whatever his students practiced before coming to him, but the basic concepts are all the same.

And my apologies Ji JIke was XInyiquan and Xingyiquan comes from Dai xinyiquan and then it splits into 3 different styles Shanxi, Hebei, Henan xingyiquan. Hebei and Henan come from Shanxi. Li Luoneng did not modify Xingyiquan, he modified Xinyiquan and Dai Xinyiquan still exists and is still practiced by the Dai family and Xinyiquan still exists as well and is practiced by other people. As far as anyone proving anything about Taijiquan pre Chen family, I am sorry but I seriously doubt that as I think many studying this in Chinese universities do as well. Chen Taijiquan did come from whatever art that the Chen family was doing but that art was modified by Chen Wangting and that is the origin of Chen Taijiquan. That art has been modified by the Chen family but it was likely a split of the form into Laojia yilu and logy erlu. It was then also modified by Chen Fake but that did not mean the end of Laojia, it just meant the addition of xinjia. And then there is the Zhaobao taiji folks who claim their art is older or as old as Chen but so far, historically, it seems to come from Chen style.

I would welcome read of the book written by Tang Hao, but when you are looking at Chinese marital arts history you cannot base that on only one book because there are a plethora of people considered reputable sources that are spouting what they believe to be true based on what thier teacher told them. And yes many martial arts were modified in the 19 century for various reasons but the main reason was money. However not "all" were modified or changed. You seem to like using "all" and "everything" and that encompasses a lot more in CMA than I think you know.

 

[Orange Lightning]

name one thing taht ins.t better today that it was 100 or 1000 years ago ?

Wootz! Damascus steel!
That's kind of cheating though.

 

[geezer]

I can recomend books written by Tang Hao , martial artist and reseracher from republican period . He proved Tai Chi was a modification of some older art made by Chen people in their village in the second half of 19 century. There was an art under name Hsing ji in Ming Dynasty period but that art was lost . Today's Hsing yi is a product of Li Laonong who mixed several other arts but he took the name from the older style . Pretty much all styles have similar histoy . Either they are formed druing second half oh 19th century or competely redifined , Like Baji or Pigua whch were primapry weapon arts but now they are almost completely empty hans artand most of the knowledge about weapon usage is lost.

OK. Perhaps in most cases the systems we think of as "traditional" did take on their present form in the late 19th Century (during Leung Jan's time in the case of Wing Chun). But they certainly weren't invented ex-nihilo. People were fighting with both weapons and empty hands since the dawn of time. And certainly, social and cultural factors shaped the methods of combat of different groups. Just look at the similarities between many southern Chinese systems. These speak of a tradition that stretches back quite a long way. To imagine that untrained individuals with raw fighting talent just concocted these sophisticated systems in the late 1800s is a far greater stretch.

Now as to whether things get better of deteriorate over time? I'd say that depends on the particular situation. If the art is being used and tested in combat by a large number of people, it will evolve accordingly and become a better combative system. On the other hand if it is practiced for sport, or for health, or for some purely historical interest in "preserving" a cultural artifact, it will evolve towards each of those ends respectively. I guess better is a relative term.

 

[Orange Lightning]

OK. Perhaps in most cases the systems we think of as "traditional" did take on their present form in the late 19th Century (during Leung Jan's time in the case of Wing Chun). But they certainly weren't invented ex-nihilo. People were fighting with both weapons and empty hands since the dawn of time. And certainly, social and cultural factors shaped the methods of combat of different groups. Just look at the similarities between many southern Chinese systems. These speak of a tradition that stretches back quite a long way. To imagine that untrained individuals with raw fighting talent just concocted these sophisticated systems in the late 1800s is a far greater stretch.

Now as to whether things get better of deteriorate over time? I'd say that depends on the particular situation. If the art is being used and tested in combat by a large number of people, it will evolve accordingly and become a better combative system. On the other hand if it is practiced for sport, or for health, or for some purely historical interest in "preserving" a cultural artifact, it will evolve towards each of those ends respectively. I guess better is a relative term.

I would like to add that context is also important to that. Different people are probably going to find different things more useful, even without taking personal preference into account, just because they need to fight against a different situation. To that end, I agree with modifying an art to fit your own needs so long as the modifications work within the system.

 

[zuti car]

This is not news to me I have studied this, but you are still not exactly right here either. There are a lot of arts with similar names in CMA history that are actually not at all related. And there was a lot of mixing of arts, Bagua after Dong Hai Chuan is mixed with whatever his students practiced before coming to him, but the basic concepts are all the same.

And my apologies Ji JIke was XInyiquan and Xingyiquan comes from Dai xinyiquan and then it splits into 3 different styles Shanxi, Hebei, Henan xingyiquan. Hebei and Henan come from Shanxi. Li Luoneng did not modify Xingyiquan, he modified Xinyiquan and Dai Xinyiquan still exists and is still practiced by the Dai family and Xinyiquan still exists as well and is practiced by other people. As far as anyone proving anything about Taijiquan pre Chen family, I am sorry but I seriously doubt that as I think many studying this in Chinese universities do as well. Chen Taijiquan did come from whatever art that the Chen family was doing but that art was modified by Chen Wangting and that is the origin of Chen Taijiquan. That art has been modified by the Chen family but it was likely a split of the form into Laojia yilu and logy erlu. It was then also modified by Chen Fake but that did not mean the end of Laojia, it just meant the addition of xinjia. And then there is the Zhaobao taiji folks who claim their art is older or as old as Chen but so far, historically, it seems to come from Chen style.

I would welcome read of the book written by Tang Hao, but when you are looking at Chinese marital arts history you cannot base that on only one book because there are a plethora of people considered reputable sources that are spouting what they believe to be true based on what thier teacher told them. And yes many martial arts were modified in the 19 century for various reasons but the main reason was money. However not "all" were modified or changed. You seem to like using "all" and "everything" and that encompasses a lot more in CMA than I think you know.

Why do you think I base my opinion on only one book? I recommended Tang Hao because he is the only one who did real scientific research regarding tai chi history. About what people are learning in universities , you have to be aware of some facts. First , reseraching martial arts history in Chinese academic circles is considered a career dead end, somthing like talking against theory of evolution in the west. Second thing , writing suitable ,,histories" without any research in order to attract $$$ is nothing new, especially today , for example we have more than one south shaolin temples, and a lot of claims about ,,originality" and how old is any given art

 

[geezer]

Why do you think I base my opinion on only one book? I recommended Tang Hao because he is the only one who did real scientific research regarding tai chi history. About what people are learning in universities , you have to be aware of some facts. First , reseraching martial arts history in Chinese academic circles is considered a career dead end, somthing like talking against theory of evolution in the west. Second thing , writing suitable ,,histories" without any research in order to attract $$$ is nothing new, especially today , for example we have more than one south shaolin temples, and a lot of claims about ,,originality" and how old is any given art

Interesting. From my own experience talking to a few Chinese scholars at universities here in the US, I've found that to the Chinese intelligensia the martial arts are considered sort of lower class and cheesy, ...suitable for entertainment, but not really worthy of serious scholarship. Actually, this is not too different from prevailing attitudes in the West, at least as I have experienced them.

Now, that bit about evolutionary theory in the West confuses me. Understanding evolution is essential to understanding the physical world and our place in it. Is this not equally true in scientific disciplines in China?!

 

[Eric_H]

name one thing taht ins.t better today that it was 100 or 1000 years ago ?

Sword Making.

 

[zuti car]

Interesting. From my own experience talking to a few Chinese scholars at universities here in the US, I've found that to the Chinese intelligensia the martial arts are considered sort of lower class and cheesy, ...suitable for entertainment, but not really worthy of serious scholarship. Actually, this is not too different from prevailing attitudes in the West, at least as I have experienced them.

Now, that bit about evolutionary theory in the West confuses me. Understanding evolution is essential to understanding the physical world and our place in it. Is this not equally true in scientific disciplines in China?!

I have made a parallel , if you go against theory of evolution on the west your a ademic carer is over, I don't know if that is case on the east. If you research martial arts in China your academic career is pretty much over

 

[Dirty Dog]

name one thing taht ins.t better today that it was 100 or 1000 years ago ?

Air quality.
Water quality.
My aching back.


Oh. You only wanted one.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Wootz! Damascus steel!
That's kind of cheating though.

Not at all true. Both metallurgical and forging technology are much better than they were 100 years ago.
The metals used are of a more consistent quality and alloy.
Anyone who knows anything about bladesmithing will agree that one of the most vital factors in forging is consistency from stroke to stroke. Something drop hammers and presses are much better at than any human.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.

 

[zuti car]

air quality, water quality, face to face human interaction..... you are stating "everything" other than martial arts and that is simply not the case

Climate changes with or without human influence , we had severan big life extinctions in the past as a result of sudden climate changes. Would climate change so rapidly without human influence , probably not, would it change anyway , yes , how , we don't know. About human interaction became worse , I do not agree, maybe in some parts of the world , but not everywhere, and in some areas actually becoming better

 

[Orange Lightning]

Not at all true. Both metallurgical and forging technology are much better than they were 100 years ago.
The metals used are of a more consistent quality and alloy.
Anyone who knows anything about bladesmithing will agree that one of the most vital factors in forging is consistency from stroke to stroke. Something drop hammers and presses are much better at than any human.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.

I agree that we have superior ability to make metal and tools from that metal now. Way superior.

Damascus steel was an odd occurrence that we have not yet figured out how to reproduce. There was an impurity in the ore that resulted in incredibly flexible, strong, and sharp swords. "Wootz" originally referred to the technique of flattening the metal that was used to make the blade, and so blades were said to have "wootz steel". That was supposedly brought to the table with the special ore, even though we still only speculate as to method used. The smiths learned specials ways of handling that ore, but the methods were lost, and the exact makeup of the ore is unknown.
Now, "damascus steel" is the generally accepted term for a technique that makes the blade look like damascus, even though it isn't.

Damascus steel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[zuti car]

Now, back to the original question, why people think older is better . Besides stories we have no proof of efficiency . On the other hand we have proof of Mike Tyson of Fedor Emeilanenko , we can see how they fought and how efficient they were\are . We also have proof that "old" arts " especially "soft , internal" ones have no place in full contact / MMA competitions . Now if there is something observable , something easy to comprehend by simply watching it , why we still have people who believe the opposite of what they see .

 

[Orange Lightning]

Sword Making.

Not really. But I get where you would pick up that idea.
The quality of metal and forging techniques is actually a pretty complicated subject. You could talk for a long time about just one country, continent, or time period.
Suffice to say, no, they didn't used to be better. It did used to be a lot more diverse to meet the challenges of the day for different tasks (different treatments of the metal and techniques used to make different things - crazy complicated), but it was actually of lesser quality than it possibly could be today because we have better science to analyze it all with now. We have more compiled knowledge on the subject too. Now the only discovery and debate is on what they actually did to survive. I.E. - Why did they make swords a certain way?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Why do you think I base my opinion on only one book? I recommended Tang Hao because he is the only one who did real scientific research regarding tai chi history. About what people are learning in universities , you have to be aware of some facts. First , reseraching martial arts history in Chinese academic circles is considered a career dead end, somthing like talking against theory of evolution in the west. Second thing , writing suitable ,,histories" without any research in order to attract $$$ is nothing new, especially today , for example we have more than one south shaolin temples, and a lot of claims about ,,originality" and how old is any given art

Tang Hou is the only one...really....interesting....incorrect.... but interesting.....

Most of what you posted has nothing to do with what I wrote by the way, you are currently defending Tang Hou not responding to any of what I wrote, especially the Li Luoneng bit where, if you are getting from Tang Hou that he changed Xingyiquan then both he and you are wrong since he changed Xinyiquan and developed Xingyiquan. There are other books that are older, there are people at universities who are studying this in China. You like to make gross generalizations, "all", "everything" and "nobody" but appear to base this only on Tang Hou. It is impossible to study, research or understand anything Chinese Martial Arts history from only one source and since I do not know Tang Hou sources at the moment, but I will, I cannot tell if what he says is actually historically verifiable.

But you want to believe you are now an expert based on one book by one guy who tells you everything so be it. I will not try and change your mind, you are not right, but that is your choice and I will quit posting corrected histories and leave you to your 1 book view

 

[Xue Sheng]

Climate changes with or without human influence , we had severan big life extinctions in the past as a result of sudden climate changes. Would climate change so rapidly without human influence , probably not, would it change anyway , yes , how , we don't know. About human interaction became worse , I do not agree, maybe in some parts of the world , but not everywhere, and in some areas actually becoming better

Listen, you said "everything" which means "all things; all the things of a group or class" I am not even talking about climate change, I said nothing about human interaction so why bring it in at all. You asked me to name 1 thing I gave you more than one and there are many more as well. And what does human interaction have to do with climate change by the way. They also has a slower pace of life 10, 100, 1000 years ago to is that climate change. Again your response has nothing to do with what I posted You said everything which means all things and you said everything except martial arts and that is just plain incorrect.

You don't want to be called on things like this do not use gross generalizations and apply them to "World" history

 

[Orange Lightning]

Now, back to the original question, why people think older is better . Besides stories we have no proof of efficiency . On the other hand we have proof of Mike Tyson of Fedor Emeilanenko , we can see how they fought and how efficient they were\are . We also have proof that "old" arts " especially "soft , internal" ones have no place in full contact / MMA competitions . Now if there is something observable , something easy to comprehend by simply watching it , why we still have people who believe the opposite of what they see .

Because there are still variables to those situations and people don't know how what the results will be in different contexts.
For example - Is your boxing going to work in self defense, or will it be push through by some rough aspect of fighting you haven't observed? Will I break my hands? Will the style I've trained in result in fail due to a bad training method? Will I freeze up because I don't believe in my ability or the methods aren't intuitive? Will it work against whatever my opponent brings to the table? It will probably work. Depends on the practitioner. Your hands could very well break in some way.

We don't have much proof that older arts won't work. I would love to see that. Probably the closest thing we have right now is this person that was a shaolin monk and went into IKF kickboxing.