The problem with that approach is that until you really know the art, you're only guessing as to which components are missing.
Very true. I have no idea what is missing from the original application and understanding of Naihanchi Shodan (Naw-gee, 'round these parts, yikes!), especially as compared to the Okinawan ideal. I do, however, know, or can at least try to discover what is missing from my OWN understanding and, through exploration and understanding, attempt to acquire it. It's very unlikely that I will be able to access that pure strain from Okinawa, but I can certainly find someone who can "pollute" my understanding and make it more effective, albeit different.
When I was teaching Tai Chi, I had students who would come in from various arts and want to cherry-pick techniques to supplement their arts. Quite simply, this does not work. At least not in any way that even closely incorporates the principles of Tai Chi.
I agree. Trying to cherry pick techniques is a good way to end up confused and ineffective. Most of what I see of outside martial arts I never really consider. Most of what I do look at, I don't want. A lot of what I see, examine, and like, just doesn't mesh with anything else I do. But, every now and then, I say, "hey, that's something that has been a weakness, and these guys do it really well, and it fits really well, and I LOVE it!"
I'm not so much talking about trying on a new armbar, picking up a cool kicking technique, although that can be part of it. A lot of what I love about different schools and styles are there training methods. One school does hard-contact mixed grappling and striking. Cool. That's probably the best way to get used to a full on forceful attack. One school does Tappy-tappy tag-sparring. Fun, I bet they have great speed and timing, though their distance is likely a bit too long to be effective. One school does push-hands gentle-wrestling type stuff. Bet there balance and weight control is amazing. One school does slowed down, controlled free flow sparring. Bet they have great distancing and can really get used to utilizing clean technique on the fly. One school works mainly with a brief attacker/defender type of sparring. They probably have a great ability to really adapt themselves ideally to the other person's movement.
I think grabbing a whole bunch of cool techniques will just confuse your style and your self. Varying your training as much as possible, sparring in as many different ways as possible, I think is the BEST way to avoid the false assumptions that any one style of rules-incorporated sparring will inevitably instill.
Granted, if you try to do EVERYTHING, you will, as everyone likes to say, do nothing well. However, I see no harm in borrowing from others what I lack in myself.
I suspect that the real reason that many of these arts have degraded is that there were too many people who were not truly qualified to teach who ended up in teaching positions. Tai Chi seems to have been especially susceptible to this. It went from being a highly regarded martial art to something that old people do in the park; a type of moving meditation or yoga.
Agreed. I was just trying to point out, that even with someone Incredibly qualified to teach, a real master in the truest sense, they will likely not have learned EVERYTHING that THEIR teacher tried to teach them, at least not perfectly, or to as great a depth of understanding. That's where I pulled my 97% from. I find that percent almost unbelievable, I would guess that the average master student probably never really gains more than an 80-90% knowledge of their source material. But even with the unrealistically high 97%, you can't have perfect preservation of the purest understanding. Where than, can we look to maintain the art, to allow it to grow, even, if not outside material and inside innovation?
On the note of Taichi Chuan... My first experience with Taichi Chuan was an unforgettable one. The teacher was having us gently push each other's centerline and deflect smoothly, returning the push. At an exceptionally knowledgeable and wise 11 years old, wordly and full of deep understanding, I though it was a load of, well, nothing good! Tai Chi is that stuff the boring people in funny pants do down boat landing in the Summer, right? Really slow, definitely not martial arts!!! Anyway, my haughty dismissal was probably showing on my face, because I got picked out of the line up for the demonstration of the MANY ways a push to the chest can be redirected into something full of varying degrees on ouchy and embarrassing.
Since then, I am quite respectful of Tai Chi as practiced as a martial art!
(Just to clarify, the Sifu is really nice guy, and not mean spirited at all. I'm glad he picked me to toss around on the sand!)
I don't think our positions are far apart. I think that adding to your practice can be a good thing to do but in many cases it is restoring, rather than adding that will bring you style back to life.
I agree, I think our positions are almost the same, really! I just make the distinction that restoring will bring your style back to life with little risk to it's integrity, but can be immensely difficult to do; while adding will give your style new life, is easy to do, but has to be applied very carefully, for fear of creating an incoherent mass of ineffective schtuff.
Really good thread. I agree with the poster that exploration is a good thing as is testing techniques should be encouraged. I've seen the isolationist speech at some dojos, too. Most recently I had a teacher tell me that exploration or cross-training "is disrespectful to the lineages of each art.". It was like he was trying to shame his students into not exploring. Found it weird too.
There's obviously a balance between the knowledge that one's style is beautiful and complete, and that tampering can ruin this, even when borrowing from other beautiful complete styles; and a style-supremacist who dismisses all else, while simultaneously fearing that someone will find out that there is something better out there.
On the note of the "last 15 years," I missed a zero. I meant to write, "last 150 years!"
I am not ITF but I do practice the Chang Hon Tuls and I say that the Nahanchi Shodan kata I saw on youtube do look simple and reminded me of Po Eun (a little) but if it is deep in meaning and hidden secrets ok. But that won't make it simple in SD. Looking at Choong Moo tul, you will see ( what I think are ) simple movement that can be altered as well. Example, the back kick or rear side kick in the form. If someone is coming up behind you with somthing in your hand a back kick is all that is needed to slow that person down. I don't see that in the N-kata. The twin C-grab. Many different usage. Throat grab or grabbing a full set of hair and following up with a knee strike just like the tul indicates. Or may I use it as a mean of grabbing someone and then just pushing them away. What about the back fist in the tul? Or the high block reverse punch at the end? Am sure that could be used as a self-defense.
I would say that Choong moo has more to offer than Nahanchi kata. It looks like that kata have to be studied way to long to understand and giving the fact that the world is moving faster and want more simple self-defense tech, I would think choong moo would be the way to go. JMHO.
If you want simple self-defense, then perhaps learning a couple elbows, a foot stomp, and some eye rakes and grab escapes for good measure might be the way to go. The thing is, many people want to take themselves beyond the level of self-defense, to the level of martial art. As I mentioned earlier, the distinction is fuzzy at best, but at some degree of nuance and comprehension, the style goes from teaching ways of getting out of scrapes, to being skilled at, even *artful* at getting out of scrapes. Yes, most grabs could probably be nullified by repeatedly bashing the other guy's face, but some of us want more than that.
If what you want is fast, easy, effective self-defense which can be learned without much effort to keep up with the fast pace of the world, than sure, go with a form that says, "here's a kick, here's a punch, here's where you grab their hair and bash their face off your knee." There's nothing wrong with that, (although *some* might claim that the more you try for fast, simple martial arts, the closer you get to the dreaded Mc Dojo. Not me, just some.)
I think though, that most of the people reading this thread, probably WANT the long study and practice required by something a little more obscure. I, for one, like kata that are difficult to interpret because they DO take a long time to get used to, and they DO require you to really inspect, consider, and experiment with each technique and sequence to see what works, what could work in certain situations, and what just doesn't work at all.
It's a balance, sure, there are probably techniques open to exploration in Choong Mu, (though I don't know the form), and there are certainly techniques in Naihanchi that can seem fairly simple and obvious, without much to study. In Naihanchi, what many of us love, is that it can be so many different things. It's like a mnemonic for personal growth.
----------------
I still think though, that given that nearly every style, no matter how traditional, was once something else, that every style has a background, has roots, and that to become the wonderful and complete style that is or has been, it had to have changed and evolved from those roots, it is hard to dismiss the value of change.
I realize no one has said that they dismiss the value of change, but only cautioned against careless advocacy. I agree. With tradition, you have a more or less guarantee that you are doing something that works and has survived. With change, you can very easily end up with a whole lot of things which together are a whole lot of nothing. We can all think of a mixed-style or two which might be more readily called a hodge-podge than a style, but I'm sure we can all think of a couple that have shown themselves to be noteworthy, and likely to take their place among the traditions and classics of future generations.
Remember folks, after 100,000 years, the Platypus is still going strong!
Chi is a whole complex question which can generate enormous diversity of ideas and understanding, best left alone here.
