Just a thought

[Xue Sheng]

There was something I recently read that was said by Dogen about Zen training and sitting in Zazen and it made me think about many discussions about TMA I have been in, read or heard.

We should pay attention to the fact that even the Buddha Sakyamuni had to practice zazen for six years. It is also said that Bodhidharma had to do zazen at Shaolin temple for nine years in order to transmit the Buddha-mind. Since the ancient sages were so diligent, how can present-day trainees do without the practice of zazen – Dogen

This made me think about some of the old MA people, admittedly I am thinking about CMA people since it is what I train, but it is the same for just about any Martial art from any country.

Chen Wangting, Dong Hai Chuan, Li Cunyi, Yang Luchan, Sun Lutang, Chen Fake, Yang Chengfu, Wang Xiangzhai, Zhao Kuangyin, Yin Fu, Chen Wangting, Yip Man, Tung Ying Jie and there are many others in China, Japan, Korea, etc that I am not listing. All were considered very effective martial artists and masters and some were founders of their own style and they all trained very hard in what is called by some today antiquated ways of training, or useless as it is compared to modern ideas about training. And yet they were effective and today with many modern styles of training and modern attitudes about training we are asking ourselves is TMA effective or just a dance.

Stance training for example is not done much today but just about all I mentioned did stance training of one type or another and today we say it is useless and antiquated and that there are hundreds of better ways to strengthen your legs. But then we wonder if we are effective after our modern training.

We believe we know more than the old masters because, well, this is the 21st century after all and we know more now than they did then. But we still are wondering if these arts are effective and back when the ones mentioned above trained there was no doubt it was effective.

Why is it we think we are smarter or better than they were? Why is it we feel the need to combine arts to be effective? Why is it we feel we can judge what was done before when we do not train the same way now? Why is it we feel that we should be a master after 2 years or 5 years or 10 years?

We don’t train TMA styles like the founders of the styles trained them. We don't train as long as they did. We don’t train the styles like those that came before us trained them and we don’t train the ways that they discovered to be effective because we feel we have a better way and yet we are asking if this style or that style is effective and if we deem it not effective we blame those that came before or say the times are different now or we say they made it all up and it was a myth and yet we are not training as they would have had us train were we lucky enough to train with them.

Just a thought.

 

[BudoTiger]

I agree 100%. The training methods can't be all bad if they survived 1000's of years and are still done to some extent. People are so afraid of things they don't understand or can't fathom for one reason or another, esp in the U.S. some1 doesn't understand something then immediatly it's not right. if people had this way of thinking 100's of years ago no one would be studying MA. it would still be banned. just my opinon

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The average person today trains for 30-60 minutes, 2-3 times a week.

The old masters trained for hours every day.

The average person today expects a black belt in 3-5 years.

The old masters used a belt to hold their robes shut.

Hard for an average person to ever understand the old masters.

 

[JBrainard]

Why is it we think we are smarter or better than they were? Why is it we feel the need to combine arts to be effective? Why is it we feel we can judge what was done before when we do not train the same way now? Why is it we feel that we should be a master after 2 years or 5 years or 10 years?

From the perspective a "modern" MA student:
To answer your questions in one sentence: Some of it may come from ignorance of the roots of modern arts and some of it is just for practicality.
Considering that most modern MA have roots in TMA, I really don't know why people think that we are smarter or better than what came before. I think people combine arts and take from them what is effective for the times we now live in. Because times have changed, you don't have to worry about defenses against sword attacks while walking down the street, for example. And then of course there is the combining of arts for sport, which is well, just for sport.
Lastly, I can't speak for all martial artist, but I don't think I'll be a master until I'm lying on my death bed and can say that I've learned all that I can possibly learn. That's as close to mastery that any human being can reach.

 

[Xue Sheng]

<p>

The average person today trains for 30-60 minutes, 2-3 times a week.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The old masters trained for hours every day.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The average person today expects a black belt in 3-5 years.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The old masters used a belt to hold their robes shut.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Hard for an average person to ever understand the old masters.

</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>

True there is a big issue with time to train today. I try and get in an hour a day and I am geneally succesful and yet my Yang Sifu trains at least 2 hours every day.

You are right it is very difficult to understand the old masters but still many judge the arts they trained as useless based on that 30 t0 60 minutes 2 to 3 times a week. And then deciding a stationary Bike is as good as stance training (sorry it is one of my pet peeves)

Nothing wrong with a stationary bike, I have one, but it is not the same as stance training, nor are squats or leg presses either

From the perspective a "modern" MA student:
To answer your questions in one sentence: Some of it may come from ignorance of the roots of modern arts and some of it is just for practicality.
Considering that most modern MA have roots in TMA, I really don't know why people think that we are smarter or better than what came before. I think people combine arts and take from them what is effective for the times we now live in. Because times have changed, you don't have to worry about defenses against sword attacks while walking down the street, for example. And then of course there is the combining of arts for sport, which is well, just for sport.
Lastly, I can't speak for all martial artist, but I don't think I'll be a master until I'm lying on my death bed and can say that I've learned all that I can possibly learn. That's as close to mastery that any human being can reach.

Well I didn't mean you :uhyeah:

Actually good point, but I am really not saying anything against modern MA such as MMA, hell if TMA trained as hard in the way they were suppose to there would be few people walking around saying it was useless.

It is however those that train a TMA and do not train it like it was meant to be trained and then go off saying it doesn't work. And there are people combining arts like taiji with things like Karate (nothing against karate but it is not taiji) and they continue to call it taiji when it in fact n longer is, it has forms like taiji but in application it is way to hard. And why do they do this? Because to learn real taiji applications and develop the feel for them takes years. They also combine things with Bagua and still call it Bagua and I have seen Schools that advertise Kung Fu when in fact it is Karate or TKD or something else decidedly not CMA. But the instructor learned a Long fist form once so he calls it Kung Fu. And if he did not combine is with what he previously learned it would not work so he is confident he has improved it when in reality he never took the time to learn it.

And I don't think I will ever be a master either

 

[CuongNhuka]

I'm going to add to what has already been said. The reason people mix various arts is simple. All but one master has. Well, if they created there own style. The only form of Martial Arts I am aware of that is completly based on only one style is Bak Mei (AKA White Eyebrow). Mixing arts, in of itself, is fine and is required for evolution. Adding some elements of various styles, but still calling it something else is also fine. There is a TKD school in my area that has added Bo and Knife Defense. But the head of school still calls it TKD. Only a few things were added really.
Nextly, I once met a master in Cuong Nhu who said that when it comes right down to it, he is still a white belt. Keep in mind, this guy is a 7th dan. And Cuong Nhu has 4 7th Dans, and no one higher, expect the heads of style.
If you are at a Cuong Nhu test the three things that are empasised the most are forms, proper technique, and self defense (against set grapps, in the same way as Aikido). In earlier tests their is also a focus on (you geussed it) stance training. Latter on, that focus becomes board breaking. And how do we train for boards with a lower body tech? You geussed it, stance training.
While I'm thinking of, the minum years it takes to even get a black belk is 4, the norm is 6. And it'll take normally 2 years to get that first dan. In Cuong Nhu, black belt is zero kyu, not first dan.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I am not being clear and I admit my own ranting is taking this in the wrong direction....sorry about that

Combining arts is fine that is how you get a new art that is not what I am talking about.

It is the labeling of something as ineffective when the person labeling it is not training it as it was originally meant to be trained or they have not trained it long enough to be effective at it or understand it. So they either stop training it all together and go off calling it useless or they believe they have had some sort of revelation as to how to make said art effective or better by combining it with another art, call themselves masters and go of teaching their IMPROVED version. And still calling it by the same name.

Combat Taiji comes to mind as a good example of this. Nothing wrong with Combat Taiji but it is not Taiji due to its use of way to much force in application. In the case of some, not all, people combining Kung fu (generic name) with something else they deem it all Wushu (western definition) and claim they have now made it effective. It is possible they learned from a person trained in Wushu (western def) and they did but applications back in. But if you to a Physical Education University in China and learn Shaolin Long Fist you are getting a good work out but not learning true Long fist, It is mainly for performance and if that is what you want that is great. But do not judge all Long Fist by that training. Go out and find a real Long fist teacher and you will get a completely different view of Long Fist. However if you only train with said Long fist teacher for 6 months to a year and don’t do the training he/she wants you to do and then go off and say it is ineffective or you trained it in a more modern way you yourself came up with then how can you truly judge it.

Again I am ranting, sorry, but this is at least to me a big issue when it comes to CMA in the USA today.

 

[CuongNhuka]

I am not being clear and I admit my own ranting is taking this in the wrong direction....sorry about that

Combining arts is fine that is how you get a new art that is not what I am talking about.

It is the labeling of something as ineffective when the person labeling it is not training it as it was originally meant to be trained or they have not trained it long enough to be effective at it or understand it. So they either stop training it all together and go off calling it useless or they believe they have had some sort of revelation as to how to make said art effective or better by combining it with another art, call themselves masters and go of teaching their IMPROVED version. And still calling it by the same name.

Combat Taiji comes to mind as a good example of this. Nothing wrong with Combat Taiji but it is not Taiji due to its use of way to much force in application. In the case of some, not all, people combining Kung fu (generic name) with something else they deem it all Wushu (western definition) and claim they have now made it effective. It is possible they learned from a person trained in Wushu (western def) and they did but applications back in. But if you to a Physical Education University in China and learn Shaolin Long Fist you are getting a good work out but not learning true Long fist, It is mainly for performance and if that is what you want that is great. But do not judge all Long Fist by that training. Go out and find a real Long fist teacher and you will get a completely different view of Long Fist. However if you only train with said Long fist teacher for 6 months to a year and don’t do the training he/she wants you to do and then go off and say it is ineffective or you trained it in a more modern way you yourself came up with then how can you truly judge it.

Again I am ranting, sorry, but this is at least to me a big issue when it comes to CMA in the USA today.

As for the comment on "improvement" I understand that is a massive no-no. I also figured that was what you were talking about. I just wanted to make sure.
You're next comment goes along way as well. I think that is some of the problem with most (MOST) schools of Tae Kwon Do. It's a great system, but teachers are slowly empasising compition more and more. Slowly making it little more then a way to create an overly complexe game of tag.
Now then, there is a Cuong Nhu video on Youtube that is on topic. I'm not sure if this will work (I'm not really allowed to post links), but lets see.

 

[jdinca]

Look at how modern society looks at it's old people. They can't possibly know what they're talking about because they're OLD. They just don't understand the modern world. Add on to that the immediate gratification factor that is prevalent in todays world and I think you go a long way towards finding your answer. Old styles of training can't possibly be as good because they're OLD and it takes too long.

Newer does not always mean better. Old ways of training can be very effective if done properly, and therein lays the caveat. The same goes for modern training methods. They can be very effective if done properly. One does not cancel out the other. The results are just different.

 

[Bigshadow]

Why is it we think we are smarter or better than they were? Why is it we feel the need to combine arts to be effective? Why is it we feel we can judge what was done before when we do not train the same way now? Why is it we feel that we should be a master after 2 years or 5 years or 10 years?

Once a shihan asked Hatsumi Soke (I will try to quote as best as I can) "How did you learn in 20 years what took 900 years to develop?", as I understood it from the one asking the question, Soke's reply was "Do as I tell you and I will teach you in 10 years." Now there is more meaning to this that what one reads or hears. However, I believe that with each generation, the instructors often see ways of teaching certain fundamental things better or more efficiently than those that taught them. I believe there are always improvements in training with each generation.

However, this doesn't mean that what they did 500 years ago is any less effective, just some things may be transmitted from teacher to student in more efficient ways.

To think that we must train like they did 500 years ago is to throw out the notion that we can become more efficient. Heck, look what the sinking of the Titantic did for ship building. I guess they could have said, well it floats, let's not change it, but there were ways to make it safer and better. Horses were transportation for a long time, now we are faster and more efficient.

In my opinion, it is only natural that things evolve.

 

[Steel Tiger]

There is an interesting contradiction in CMA. In the first place everyone wants their art to be old, because it seems that older is better, as far as style goes. In the second instance there a general disparaging attitude toward old methods of training. The training that made those scary old time professionals so dangerous. So people want an old art but don't think the training techniques were any good.

Of course, as Bigshadow said, we can make things more effecient. And in most cases we have to because we just can't devote as much time to training and practice as the old timers did. This doesn't mean the new is better, just, perhaps, less time consuming for the same result. Maybe, I don't know. I like many older training techniques.

Then there is this entire idea of 'improving' an art. It seems that eveerywhere you look in CMA these days there are Bruce Lees studying half a dozen different arts for three months each then developing their own 'principles' and, tada, a new style, or form of an old style is born. Why? I think it is because they cannot stick to it and train so they set themselves up as masters and teachers and thus don't have to learn or do what they are told anymore. You often find these guys are very critical of other most arts, but they don't really know anything about, well, anything.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Once a shihan asked Hatsumi Soke (I will try to quote as best as I can) "How did you learn in 20 years what took 900 years to develop?", as I understood it from the one asking the question, Soke's reply was "Do as I tell you and I will teach you in 10 years." Now there is more meaning to this that what one reads or hears. However, I believe that with each generation, the instructors often see ways of teaching certain fundamental things better or more efficiently than those that taught them. I believe there are always improvements in training with each generation.

However, this doesn't mean that what they did 500 years ago is any less effective, just some things may be transmitted from teacher to student in more efficient ways.

To think that we must train like they did 500 years ago is to throw out the notion that we can become more efficient. Heck, look what the sinking of the Titantic did for ship building. I guess they could have said, well it floats, let's not change it, but there were ways to make it safer and better. Horses were transportation for a long time, now we are faster and more efficient.

In my opinion, it is only natural that things evolve.

True and I have no problem with this. They are learning from someone that actually LEARNED the art in the first place and they are taking the time to learn it themselves.

They are not going to a few classes deeming it ineffective and going of to train it like they KNOW it should be trained. When in fact they have no real basis and no experience or understanding of the art they are saying is ineffective. Or better yet train Karate for a year, say it is no good, go train aikido for a year, say it is no good and then combine them and call them it either improved karate or improved jujitsu. This is what I am getting at.

New is fine, changing training is fine, if that training change is made by a teacher that is qualified to do so. Yip Man, form what I can tell. Never trained any student exactly the same. Why, because he put in the time, he knew the art and he knew people and he realized that certain things worked much better for certain people. This I have no problem with.
But never training an art and just watching it a couple of times or training only briefly or training for years but not exactly like your teacher wants and then going off and saying you have a better way... that I have a problem with.

 

[Bigshadow]

But never training an art and just watching it a couple of times or training only briefly or training for years but not exactly like your teacher wants and then going off and saying you have a better way... that I have a problem with.

Absolutely! I most certainly agree with you on this!

 

[Xue Sheng]

There is an interesting contradiction in CMA. In the first place everyone wants their art to be old, because it seems that older is better, as far as style goes. In the second instance there a general disparaging attitude toward old methods of training. The training that made those scary old time professionals so dangerous. So people want an old art but don't think the training techniques were any good.

Of course, as Bigshadow said, we can make things more effecient. And in most cases we have to because we just can't devote as much time to training and practice as the old timers did. This doesn't mean the new is better, just, perhaps, less time consuming for the same result. Maybe, I don't know. I like many older training techniques.

Then there is this entire idea of 'improving' an art. It seems that eveerywhere you look in CMA these days there are Bruce Lees studying half a dozen different arts for three months each then developing their own 'principles' and, tada, a new style, or form of an old style is born. Why? I think it is because they cannot stick to it and train so they set themselves up as masters and teachers and thus don't have to learn or do what they are told anymore. You often find these guys are very critical of other most arts, but they don't really know anything about, well, anything.

True, but I would like to add that Bruce Lee was incredibly talented and there are some others that are as well, not as many as they think, but some. And to be honest I would really like to have seen what JKD would be like today if Bruce Lee had lived. Also look at Wang Xiangzhai founder of Yiquan aka dachengquan he trained Xingyi for many years before developing Yiquan and I am rather impressed with Yiquan as well and I wonder where that would be today if it were not for the Cultural Revolution.

And I am rather impressed with the Combination of Muay Thai and BJJ that makes MMA but then many of those that did this trained both a long time. Also Sanda, which I train as well as TCMA, is a combination of multiple CMA styles and it too is very effective. But in both cases they are not calling it improved Muay Thai or BJJ Better or the "NEW AND IMPROVED Long fist". Although you do get people from both camps that are very vocal when it comes to their dislike for TMA of all types. But you get the same statements about Sanda and MMA form the TMA group so it balances out

So I do feel that you can change things and those changes may be better for your purpose but to say, for example, that Xingyquan is ineffective when one does not do the stance training (ond does leg presses instead - because they now better) and/or does not practice much and only train for a year. And then maybe goes out and combines it with TKD and says it is better now and skips off to go teach thier new and improved Xingyi.... I got a problem with this

 

[Steel Tiger]

True, but I would like to add that Bruce Lee was incredibly talented and there are some others that are as well, not as many as they think, but some. And to be honest I would really like to have seen what JKD would be like today if Bruce Lee had lived. Also look at Wang Xiangzhai founder of Yiquan aka dachengquan he trained Xingyi for many years before developing Yiquan and I am rather impressed with Yiquan as well and I wonder where that would be today if it were not for the Cultural Revolution.

And I am rather impressed with the Combination of Muay Thai and BJJ that makes MMA but then many of those that did this trained both a long time. Also Sanda, which I train as well as TCMA, is a combination of multiple CMA styles and it too is very effective. But in both cases they are not calling it improved Muay Thai or BJJ Better or the "NEW AND IMPROVED Long fist". Although you do get people from both camps that are very vocal when it comes to their dislike for TMA of all types. But you get the same statements about Sanda and MMA form the TMA group so it balances out

I have to agree, arts founded by people who have a solid grounding in something are often impressive. Bruce Lee, Wang Xiangzhai, and those various guys who essentially created MMA developed something from something they understood. Understanding is the key to creation and innovation.

So I do feel that you can change things and those changes may be better for your purpose but to say, for example, that Xingyquan is ineffective when one does not do the stance training (ond does leg presses instead - because they now better) and/or does not practice much and only train for a year. And then maybe goes out and combines it with TKD and says it is better now and skips off to go teach thier new and improved Xingyi.... I got a problem with this

Once again I have to say I'm in complete agreement with you. These are the guys who create the new and improved ancient styles from nothing. That really bugs me.