Martial Talk's GMA Martial Arts Lineages

[clfsean]

The oral traditions of our system claim that it originated in Tibet in the 1400s, by a monk named Ordator. There are a number of unknown generations in there, but it passed thru a fellow named Dorawkitan, who developed it further. Then a lama named Sing Lung brought it into Southern China. His student, Wong Lum Hoi taught many people, including Ng Siu Chung, who established the White Crane lineage from the parent Tibetan lama system. He also had another teacher, Chu Chi-Yiu. From Ng Siu Chung, it passed to Tang Cha Meng and Luk Chi Fu, among many others. These two people were both teachers of my sifu, Quentin Fong. For a number of years I was a student of Bryant Fong, who was also a student of Quentin. Bryant took me to meet Sifu Quentin, and I was allowed to become his student.

So, Ordator - ??- Dorawkitan -??- Sing Lung - Wong Lum Hoi and Chu Chi-Yiu - Ng Siu Chung - Tang Cha Meng and Luk Chi Fu -Quentin Fong - me.

Going from Sing Lung ...
Sing Lung --> Wong Lum Hoi
Wong Lam Yan -->
Jyu Jik Chyuhn -->
--> Chan Tai San
--> Steve Ventura (Chan Chiu Mo)
--> Russel Feldman
--> Me

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I am not a Disciple with full transmission of the complete system, so I am not a lineage-holder. However, I do have a place within the lineage, as a student of someone.

And not all arts have any such thing as "full transmission", in any formal sense. There are instructors, and that's about where it stops.

 

[Hyoho]

And not all arts have any such thing as "full transmission", in any formal sense. There are instructors, and that's about where it stops.

Well I can say that my headmaster never taught me all he knew although I am fully licenced to hand on a tradition. A school is the intellectual property of its head and he will only licence those who are good enough. Thing is there is 'grey area' in whatever we do open for his interpretation. We can only hope to carry things on and if there are writings to go along with it all the better. The founder of one of the schools I teach always said, "Without adaptatation'. It's a pity they don't all say that as some people adapt because they can't do the original and then call it "their own". I practice and teach Koryu as well as Genbudo. Everyone is a student. And as long as you think that you will still advance.

 

[CB Jones]

Well I can say that my headmaster never taught me all he knew although I am fully licenced to hand on a tradition. A school is the intellectual property of its head and he will only licence those who are good enough. Thing is there is 'grey area' in whatever we do open for his interpretation. We can only hope to carry things on and if there are writings to go along with it all the better. The founder of one of the schools I teach always said, "Without adaptatation'. It's a pity they don't all say that as some people adapt because they can't do the original and then call it "their own". I practice and teach Koryu as well as Genbudo. Everyone is a student. And as long as you think that you will still advance.

What if their adaptation improves the art?

How many styles would not exist if there had been no adaptations throughout history?

 

[kuniggety]

I actually do like it... I have a friend that does bjj we spared but I was a bit bigger than him and since Im always reading I was able to keep my weight strickly on his chest ahaha but he wasnt a seasoned vet if not I probably woulda been in trouble

Sign up then! I'd probably be in way less shape than I am right now without it. I think it's the only time I've ever really had fun while working out, aside from the occasional ridiculously awful sports game with my coworkers.

 

[Hyoho]

What if their adaptation improves the art?

How many styles would not exist if there had been no adaptations throughout history?

Waza were for killing people. You have to kill somebody to try out your adaptation. The point is we trying to keep alive tradition. Nobody uses this stuff any more. The grey area alone and adding ones own character to fundamentals is enough to make things look very different. Teaching/learning these things is a very personal thing. One has disciples not students. We teach heart, spirit and above obligation to one's teacher. To me obligation is one of the most important parts. Any idiot can go off, do his own thing and give it a new name. Good teachers come in waves and then occasionally a born artist/fighter comes along to show us a new one.

The word style is English. In Japan they don't refer to a school as "a style". It can be a "Ha" (family offshoot) sanctioned by the headmaster. I was offered a Ha but turned it down. I saw little point. Might work for a few generations but then loses touch with the original concept.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well I can say that my headmaster never taught me all he knew although I am fully licenced to hand on a tradition. A school is the intellectual property of its head and he will only licence those who are good enough. Thing is there is 'grey area' in whatever we do open for his interpretation. We can only hope to carry things on and if there are writings to go along with it all the better. The founder of one of the schools I teach always said, "Without adaptatation'. It's a pity they don't all say that as some people adapt because they can't do the original and then call it "their own". I practice and teach Koryu as well as Genbudo. Everyone is a student. And as long as you think that you will still advance.

I'm not sure how that is related to your prior statement that lineage is only carried through "full transmission". My point was that the idea of "full transmission" doesn't exist in all arts. Some (like NGA) have a fairly short core curriculum, all of which is shared well before shodan, and the rest is adaptation to circumstances, based on the principles. Others (like BJJ) have a constantly evolving set of techniques beyond the basics, so nobody ever actually knows them all. In both of those situations (and likely some others), there is no point of "full transmission" to speak of as a delineation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Waza were for killing people. You have to kill somebody to try out your adaptation. The point is we trying to keep alive tradition. Nobody uses this stuff any more. The grey area alone and adding ones own character to fundamentals is enough to make things look very different. Teaching/learning these things is a very personal thing. One has disciples not students. We teach heart, spirit and above obligation to one's teacher. To me obligation is one of the most important parts. Any idiot can go off, do his own thing and give it a new name. Good teachers come in waves and then occasionally a born artist/fighter comes along to show us a new one.

The word style is English. In Japan they don't refer to a school as "a style". It can be a "Ha" (family offshoot) sanctioned by the headmaster. I was offered a Ha but turned it down. I saw little point. Might work for a few generations but then loses touch with the original concept.

I don't share that viewpoint, at all. There's no reason anyone can't change, blend, or refine an art. Circumstances change. Students' goals change. Learners' needs change. Arts should change, too. And if the person teaching it changes it enough, it becomes a different something and sometimes needs a new name to differentiate it and reduce confusion. I can't speak to the Japanese tradition of how a new offshoot was or is handled, and I'm not sure that's material to how it is handled elsewhere. There's no reason a person needs the permission of their instructor to create an off-shoot, though it's nice if they have it.

I'm not really trying to keep alive tradition - that's not my purpose. I do some of that to maintain links to the larger art and because it's what I'm comfortable with, but that's about it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Any idiot can go off, do his own thing and give it a new name. Good teachers come in waves and then occasionally a born artist/fighter comes along to show us a new one.

If you just teach exactly what your teacher taught you. You are a good "copy machine" and you make no contribution to your MA system. No matter how many books that you have read, if you don't write your own book, you are only a "reader" and you are not a "writer".

In

- traditional hip throw, you use your hip to bounce your opponent's body off the ground.
- modified hip throw, you raise from a low horse stance into a high horse stance to lift your opponent's body off the ground.

Both methods work well on the mat.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you just teach exactly what your teacher taught you. You are a good "copy machine" and you make no contribution to your MA system. No matter how many books that you have read, if you don't write your own book, you are only a "reader" and you are not a "writer".

Moreover, assuming your instructor made the art "his", you are now trying to teach and perform his personal version of the art. Since you are not him, it is not optimized for you. You are doing a sub-optimal version of the art. And now you're trying to transmit that to the next generation of student. Over time, this rigidity degrades the art.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Moreover, assuming your instructor made the art "his", you are now trying to teach and perform his personal version of the art. Since you are not him, it is not optimized for you. You are doing a sub-optimal version of the art. And now you're trying to transmit that to the next generation of student. Over time, this rigidity degrades the art.

In your form, you may have a just a "right side kick". After your right side kick, you can add a "left spin back fist". After you have rotated your body to your left, if you add a "right roundhouse, right hook", you can make your form much more interested to train. So a "side kick" has been changed into "side kick. back fist, round house kick, hook punch".

Even your MA style doesn't have roundhouse kick and hook punch, now you have just added both into your system. 1000 years from today, someone will say, "1000 years ago, Mr ... introduced roundhouse kick and hook punch into our system."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In your form, you may have a just a "right side kick". After your right side kick, you can add a "left spin back fist". After you have rotated your body to your left, if you add a "right roundhouse, right hook", you can make your form much more interested to train. So a "side kick" has been changed into "side kick. back fist, round house kick, hook punch".

Even your MA style doesn't have roundhouse kick and hook punch, now you have just added both into your system. 1000 years from today, someone will say, "1000 years ago, Mr ... introduced roundhouse kick and hook punch into our system."

I'm pretty sure that 1,000 years from now, people will be saying something like, "A secretive monk, trained in Managedo (twisted over the years from "Management Consulting"), added secret techniques and buried them inside these forms. Only his private students ever learned them, and I can teach them to you."

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I'm pretty sure that 1,000 years from now, people will be saying something like, "A secretive monk, trained in Managedo (twisted over the years from "Management Consulting"), added secret techniques and buried them inside these forms. Only his private students ever learned them, and I can teach them to you."

The first time that I saw

- TKD spin hook kick, I changed my backward floor sweep into it.
- MT flying knee, I changed my jump front kick into it.

After my generation, nobody can say that CMA doesn't have "spin hook kick" and "flying knee".

 

[CB Jones]

I'm pretty sure that 1,000 years from now, people will be saying something like, "A secretive monk, trained in Managedo (twisted over the years from "Management Consulting"), added secret techniques and buried them inside these forms. Only his private students ever learned them, and I can teach them to you."

I can see it now.....ah, you have the bone structure of a Managedo Master for $? I can sale you this training manual for the Master gpseymore's Buddhist palm.

Lol

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If we respect the tradition, today we are still using this,

and not this.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well come on, there are reasons why the goal in a system would be to preserve. Particularly if it is a weapon system with an archaic weapon that no longer has relevance in modern society. That is a slice of history that is being preserved.

For other systems with a focus on practical use in the modern world, change and adaptation is more readily embraced.

And I am sure there are plenty of systems that are in between. And just because an old method is being preserved, does not automatically mean that it no longer has useful relevance, or does not give effective combat skills.

I've got to chuckle when people say that something must change or must adapt. Well, not it does not, not automatically. That old method that was figured out or that developed 300 years ago, might well be kick-*** today if people understand it properly. It might have lost none of its relevance. Perhaps those who think it needs to adapt really do not understand it, and maybe those people would be better off to do something else. Not every system is a good match for everyone. But that doesn't mean an old system is no longer effective, or no longer relevant.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well come on, there are reasons why the goal in a system would be to preserve. Particularly if it is a weapon system with an archaic weapon that no longer has relevance in modern society. That is a slice of history that is being preserved.

For other systems with a focus on practical use in the modern world, change and adaptation is more readily embraced.

And I am sure there are plenty of systems that are in between. And just because an old method is being preserved, does not automatically mean that it no longer has useful relevance, or does not give effective combat skills.

I've got to chuckle when people say that something must change or must adapt. Well, not it does not, not automatically. That old method that was figured out or that developed 300 years ago, might well be kick-*** today if people understand it properly. It might have lost none of its relevance. Perhaps those who think it needs to adapt really do not understand it, and maybe those people would be better off to do something else. Not every system is a good match for everyone. But that doesn't mean an old system is no longer effective, or no longer relevant.

The issue is that over-preserving (trying to do only exactly what you learned from someone) leads to loss of material in an art, since no teacher will ever actually transmit all they know. There's nothing wrong with preserving, so long as it's not an attempt to preserve without change. I'll allow that preservation without significant change may be workable for a very small set of material (a couple of fairly simple forms, for instance).

As for archaic weapons and other performance material not meant for practical use, even those can evolve over time. And even those can degrade to lose important principles.

 

[Flying Crane]

The issue is that over-preserving (trying to do only exactly what you learned from someone) leads to loss of material in an art, since no teacher will ever actually transmit all they know. There's nothing wrong with preserving, so long as it's not an attempt to preserve without change. I'll allow that preservation without significant change may be workable for a very small set of material (a couple of fairly simple forms, for instance).

As for archaic weapons and other performance material not meant for practical use, even those can evolve over time. And even those can degrade to lose important principles.

This may be true or may not be true, it depends on the circumstances. Likely you may be judging what others are doing without understanding it yourself. So how would you know what was held back By a teacher three generations ago?

What works for you is great for you. What works for others is great for them. And they may be irreconcilable, and that is fine.

It's just kind of weird to me that sometimes people see terms like "koryo" or "traditional" or someone says they are preserving a system or a heritage as it has been handed down, and there is this automatic assumption that, well, it just MUST be irrelevant in modern society.

Well no, that may well not be true, plain and simple.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This may be true or may not be true, it depends on the circumstances. Likely you may be judging what others are doing without understanding it yourself. So how would you know what was held back By a teacher three generations ago?

What works for you is great for you. What works for others is great for them. And they may be irreconcilable, and that is fine.

It's just kind of weird to me that sometimes people see terms like "koryo" or "traditional" or someone says they are preserving a system or a heritage as it has been handed down, and there is this automatic assumption that, well, it just MUST be irrelevant in modern society.

Well no, that may well not be true, plain and simple.

My understanding of the koryu approach (from what Chris Parker has said) is that they maintain the tradition and principles, but don't attempt to maintiain it entirely without change.

I never said something becomes irrelevant in the modern world because it is maintained. I said if it is maintained too rigidly, the human inability to pass it along exactly will cause it to degrade (incremental loss unaccompanied by incremental gain). Given enough degradation, it may become irrelevant for the original context.

The comment about what was held back (or even forgotten) 3 generations ago is actually my point. Something did not make it across that gap, guaranteed. If nobody seeks to tweak the system from one generation to the next, then nothing is replacing what is lost. In some cases, later generations are likely to "discover" material that once was part of the system, but was lost in transmission. It was found once because it fits within the principles of the art, so if it's effective, it will likely be discovered again for the same reasons.

 

[Flying Crane]

My understanding of the koryu approach (from what Chris Parker has said) is that they maintain the tradition and principles, but don't attempt to maintiain it entirely without change.

I never said something becomes irrelevant in the modern world because it is maintained. I said if it is maintained too rigidly, the human inability to pass it along exactly will cause it to degrade (incremental loss unaccompanied by incremental gain). Given enough degradation, it may become irrelevant for the original context.

The comment about what was held back (or even forgotten) 3 generations ago is actually my point. Something did not make it across that gap, guaranteed. If nobody seeks to tweak the system from one generation to the next, then nothing is replacing what is lost. In some cases, later generations are likely to "discover" material that once was part of the system, but was lost in transmission. It was found once because it fits within the principles of the art, so if it's effective, it will likely be discovered again for the same reasons.

Sure, I understand what you are saying and they may be valid points there. But what is to be done about it? It is a method that you may not approve of, depending on some factors, but If you don't train in the method, you cannot make the judgement, you don't have the experience to know if those factors are problematic.

It really does boil down to different strokes for different folks. I can't tell you how many things I see in the martial arts that I feel are pointless. But it's different strokes, i guess it works for them.