Some MA teachers only teach form without application?

[windwalker099]

Should a MA instructor take the responsibility for his student who got into a fight and

1. hurt someone?
2. got hurt?

What's your opinion on this?

Depends on why someone is learning, and the teacher they choose to learn from.
For some, the expectation of the teacher, is that they fight and hurt people as part of their training.

For some it might take getting "beat up" "hurt" to understand the nature of the training.
A part of the process.

Historically, Chinese martial arts were never just about fighting. They were built on Wude (武德), or martial virtue — meaning that skill had to be matched with good character and responsibility.

When martial arts came to San Francisco, some teachers were brought over as enforcers, and would also train Tong members for street fighting and protection. In those cases, the training was practical and serious — not for show or competition.

Directly involved are two Chinatown youth gangs linked with the protection racket: the Wah Ching (Chinese Youth) and the Chung Ching Yee (Loyalty and Righteousness), also known as the Joe Fong Gang, after its former leader Joe Fong, now serving ten to life for attempted murder. Fong was born in Macao, a Portuguese enclave near Hong Kong.

 

[Cri70]

Many CMA teachers only teach form but don't teach application. One of CMC's students told me that CMC charged $4,000 to learn his Taiji form (no application). CMC then charged $4,000 to fix/correct that Taiji form (still no application).

...
What's your opinion on this?

It's one of the many examples where commercial interests are based on misleading people, at least a bit.

Not the last, not the biggest.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It's one of the many examples where commercial interests are based on misleading people, at least a bit.

Not the last, not the biggest.

But in grade school, high school, college, we don't see any teacher who tries to hide academic information. Why should MA teachers be any different?

If MA teachers teach 2 men drills, when you do 2 men drill without partner, you will get solo drill. If you want to link solo drills into a sequence, you will get solo form. This way, application first and form later will solve this issue completely.

This little girl's father taught her application when she was a baby.

 

[Same Trick]

Empty hand MA was generally not used on the battlefield - that's what weapons were for. The Chinese martial artists, Shaolin monks in particular, reached a high level of proficiency with spears and other pole arms. After the takeover in the 1600's by the Qing, military weapon-based MA gave way to empty hand civillian self-defense MA, especially in the south.

It was also in the 1500/1600's that Taoism became infused with CMA and led to the self-improvement aspects of CMA. There were firearms way before the Boxer Rebellion, and it was generally known you don't bring fists to a gunfight, although some fervent Boxers may have unfortunately put their faith in some Divine bullet-proofing (a real iron shirt would have been more effective). BTW, "real" empty hand combat still existed on the back roads and alleys and in challenge matches well into the 20th century.

Warfare in Okinawa ceased in the early 1600's with the Satsuma invasion, but empty hand MA was still well used by the king's bodyguards and for security agents protecting trade against pirates. With the annexation by Japan in 1879 the art was used primarily for civilian self-defense. Self-improvement as a main force did not much impact karate until Japan adopted it in the 1920's. While Okinawa's timeline was more recent than China's and the historical context was somewhat different, the evolution of TMA for largely personal use did follow some of the same pathways.

Most of those “boxers” were most probably not boxers at all, just poor commoners used for bulk up the movement, infused with spiritualism of some sort so they not so easily would back down when bullets came flying

But in grade school, high school, college, we don't see any teacher who tries to hide academic information. Why should MA teachers be any different?

Academics is just all talk anyway, cant hurt anyone.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Academics is just all talk anyway, cant hurt anyone.

- If medical professors hide information from the future medical doctors, when doctor give the wrong medicine, it can hurt more people than MA can.
- If civil engineer professors hide information from the future civil engineers, when bridge collapse, it can hurt more people than MA can.
- If MA teachers hide information from MA students, when those students get hurt in self-defense, the MA teacher will have to take the responsibility.

 

[Same Trick]

- If medical professors hide information from the future medical doctors, when doctor give the wrong medicine, it can hurt more people than MA can.
- If civil engineer professors hide information from the future civil engineers, when bridge collapse, it can hurt more people than MA can.
- If MA teachers hide information from MA students, when those students get hurt in self-defense, the MA teacher will take the responsibility.

Yes I must agree with you on this - the evil version of “pen is mightier than the sword” for sure can be the worst

 

[Buka]

- If medical professors hide information from the future medical doctors, when doctor give the wrong medicine, it can hurt more people than MA can.
- If civil engineer professors hide information from the future civil engineers, when bridge collapse, it can hurt more people than MA can.
- If MA teachers hide information from MA students, when those students get hurt in self-defense, the MA teacher will have to take the responsibility.

I’m kind of lost. Do some Kung Fu instructors do this?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I’m kind of lost. Do some Kung Fu instructors do this?

The answer is yes. I believe this is very common in CMA.

I'm reading a MA book that after a CMA master passed away, one of his students found all the letters that he wrote to his master in the past 15 years. He collected all those letters and published a book. In that book, he pointed out that his teacher taught forms without application.

I also know so many CMA teachers are doing the same. I came from CMA. But there are so many CMA tradition that I hate so much. Since I'm so strongly against this. I only teach application, and I don't teach form (I may have learned more forms than most people in this forum).

When MMA guys said that Kung Fu guys can't fight, those Kung Fu teachers should take that responsibility.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

they had even more applications that they reserved for insiders.

When a TMA teacher teaches a technique, most of the time he doesn't like to teach how to counter that technique. Most of the counters are easier to do than the techniques. This may make a student not willing to develop that technique.

My teacher told me that I should not teach how to counter "circular dragging". Many Judo guys also competed in SC tournament in Taiwan. When a SC guy grabs his Judo opponent and running in circle, those Judo guys either resisted or yielded. They didn't know how to counter it (I don't believe "circular dragging" is used in Judo at all).

Example of "circular dragging".

 

[Teapot]

When a TMA teacher teaches a technique, most of the time he doesn't like to teach how to counter that technique. Most of the counters are easier to do than the techniques. This may make a student not willing to develop that technique.

I've noticed that too in online demonstration videos where they largely assume the first application succeeds. They don't demonstrate counters for when it fails.

Additionally, I see two potential problems going on here. On one hand, pretty much anything has a counter. And when you drill the same application with a partner repeatedly, the partner (even unconsciously) will know what is going to happen and try to figure something out to defeat it.

On the other hand, maybe the application just sucks because the teacher does not know the technical details that can make or break the effectiveness. This, to me, is VERY common. Some will try to show an application, and they lack the technical knowledge to make it work such as foot placement, distance management, breaking structure, set-up/engagement, angles, etc...

Therefore, there can be a lot of counters to an application that shouldn't exist as counters if the application didn't suck. That doesn't mean there won't still be counters, but some shouldn't exist if the application was done right.

Between these two cases, I think the latter is a bigger problem because if an application is done poorly, then the training partner is under the delusion that some counters work when they actually wouldn't work if the application was done well. So it's bad for both sides.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Doesn’t many CMA teach “untrue” material - unnatural leg stretches and unnatural leg kicks, also teach unnatural amount of weapons….

What kind of

- unnatural leg stretches,
- unnatural leg kicks,
- unnatural amount of weapons,

that you are talking about?

This can be the most difficult stretching to do.

 

[Same Trick]

What kind of

- unnatural leg stretches,
- unnatural leg kicks,
- unnatural amount of weapons,

that you are talking about?

This can be the most difficult stretching to do.

View attachment 32837

I did all that kind of stretching in my younger years and I could flash some fairly good kicking …But…Ok, I only speak out of my experience in karate competitions(that is not full contact), and by far it’s the hand techniques(punching) that bring home the score

 

[isshinryuronin]

I've noticed that too in online demonstration videos where they largely assume the first application succeeds. They don't demonstrate counters for when it fails.

Additionally, I see two potential problems going on here. On one hand, pretty much anything has a counter. And when you drill the same application with a partner repeatedly, the partner (even unconsciously) will know what is going to happen and try to figure something out to defeat it.

On the other hand, maybe the application just sucks because the teacher does not know the technical details that can make or break the effectiveness. This, to me, is VERY common. Some will try to show an application, and they lack the technical knowledge to make it work such as foot placement, distance management, breaking structure, set-up/engagement, angles, etc...

Therefore, there can be a lot of counters to an application that shouldn't exist as counters if the application didn't suck. That doesn't mean there won't still be counters, but some shouldn't exist if the application was done right.

Between these two cases, I think the latter is a bigger problem because if an application is done poorly, then the training partner is under the delusion that some counters work when they actually wouldn't work if the application was done well. So it's bad for both sides.

Good points here. As karate was designed and evolved as a pure combat skill, one did not execute a technique carelessly, hoping it would land. Emphasis was placed on efficient moves that minimized risk. I underlined such things in Teapot's quote above. Attacks generally had "built-in" defense using these concepts of which there are many specific techniques based on them in some fashion.

Ikken kisatsu, the "one strike-one kill" kind on notion (and also a creed of the Satsuma jigen-ryu sword style in which some of karate's early founders were trained) was not just power based or an ideal, but an actual doctrine of not having to deal with counters. Choki Motobu said one's attack should render an opponent unable to counter.

To switch to a more philosophical and semantic discussion, the very word "counter" can be ambiguous IMO. If an opponent takes a swing at you and misses for whatever reason, his ending position renders him vulnerable to your right cross "counterpunch." But if you feint a left causing him to move his guard, his ending position renders him vulnerable to your right - yet this right is not considered a "counterpunch" - just a fake left jab followed by a right cross. Is it a "counter" just when the opponent initiates the attack? In both cases the opponent gets hit with a right cross from being out of position to defend.

To me, both the above cases are essentially the same - "The time to strike is when the opportunity presents itself." It doesn't matter the exact situation - you hit the guy however and whenever you can. This is what should be the mindset in a fight.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the very word "counter" can be ambiguous IMO.

The word "counter" can be paradoxical.

A: When you apply a head lock, you need to control your opponent's leading arm at the same time.

B: When your opponent gets a head lock on you, you need to use your leading arm to ...



A and B contradict to each other. If your opponent applies correct head lock on you, most of your counters won't work. Does that mean that you should not train those counters?

Do you train those counters that only work on beginners (or non-MA person) and won't work on somebody on your same level?

 

[Cri70]

But in grade school, high school, college, we don't see any teacher who tries to hide academic information. Why should MA teachers be any different?

If MA teachers teach 2 men drills, when you do 2 men drill without partner, you will get solo drill. If you want to link solo drills into a sequence, you will get solo form. This way, application first and form later will solve this issue completely.

I completely agree with you (and preach very much the same: nowadays we do things backwards): it makes no sense rationally.

But the same can be said for most of human society: things happen way more by tradition, habit, delusion, like or dislike, improvement to a minimal functional state and so on, than rational pursuit. Unless there's a compelling reason for it, rationality is the exception, not the rule.

This is very different than academic information. A significant amount of people who is taught academic information go and use it in the real world.
If the math you were taught was bs, you would find out very quickly the first day on your accountant job.

But there's no such thing for MAs. Nowadays they are largely unnecessary or at most lead a professional sporting or acting job (and for very few at that). There's very little demand for real understanding, because it's simply no need. Even law enforcement has guns and soldier rarely if ever need to resort to it nowadays for the same reasons.

Perhaps bouncers are the ones who have the most real world use of unarmed combat skills, but they mostly do bouncing, not encoding marital arts.

Add to that that most often people's "knowledge" on MA comes from very distorted sources - movies, basically; or combat sports, which give a completely delusional view of what MAs are and how they are supposed to work. Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Lee.. incredible athletes, surely great martial artists, but combat? Nowhere in sight. And yet.. Bruce Willis or Humphrey Bogart played "tough guys" on repeat - and people think they were actual tough guys. The list goes on. Modern role models are shaped to sell products, not represent reality.

So not only people do not have a need for MAs: they have a need for something that's very different from the original intent of MAs, and they are happy with what they get because they never really have to use it.

The market responds, and that why MAs are taught that way. People buy what they buy.

That's why I wrote of "commercial reasons".

This is not to justify of course, but to understand why it happens: it's a clear mechanism at play in many areas of our society.

 

[Teapot]

When it comes to hiding information in some Traditional martial arts, the analogy of "grade school, high school, college" isn't quite right.

You should be comparing it to "Skilled Trades" because that's what they are or were.

Ever heard of the term "Trade Secret"?

You should ask yourself if Skilled Trades such as Blacksmithing hide information.

But this is different than the original point of this thread which questions why teachers don't teach to their own students applications.
Traditionally, it should be that they DO teacher applications to their students.

But again, I think the answer is quite simple. There is a big difference between:

1. Refusing to teach applications because of upholding a tradition.
2. Refusing to teach applications because they don't know applications.

And I think you guys are confusing number 2 with number 1. Meaning, that secrecy is an excuse to hide the fact they don't know.

There are applications that are shared across martial arts where it'd be pointless to keep secret. For instance, I know a technique that Aikido would call Nikyo. It would be stupid to keep this a secret when other arts already have this - publicly so.

From a "Skilled Trades" perspective, it would be stupid if the "trade secret" is something that others already know about.

Chinese martial arts tend to share common applications because their origins are from the same region. At a bare minimum, if they will keep applications secret, it would be pointless to keep the common ones that most arts have a secret.

So if they can't even show you the "common applications" that are not secret... they probably just don't know

 

[Cri70]

When it comes to hiding information in some Traditional martial arts, the analogy of "grade school, high school, college" isn't quite right.

You should be comparing it to "Skilled Trades" because that's what they are or were.

Ever heard of the term "Trade Secret"?

You should ask yourself if Skilled Trades such as Blacksmithing hide information.

But this is different than the original point of this thread which questions why teachers don't teach to their own students applications.
Traditionally, it should be that they DO teacher applications to their students.

But again, I think the answer is quite simple. There is a big difference between:

1. Refusing to teach applications because of upholding a tradition.
2. Refusing to teach applications because they don't know applications.

And I think you guys are confusing number 2 with number 1. Meaning, that secrecy is an excuse to hide the fact they don't know.

There are applications that are shared across martial arts where it'd be pointless to keep secret. For instance, I know a technique that Aikido would call Nikyo. It would be stupid to keep this a secret when other arts already have this - publicly so.

From a "Skilled Trades" perspective, it would be stupid if the "trade secret" is something that others already know about.

Chinese martial arts tend to share common applications because their origins are from the same region. At a bare minimum, if they will keep applications secret, it would be pointless to keep the common ones that most arts have a secret.

So if they can't even show you the "common applications" that are not secret... they probably just don't know

I like the skilled trade idea, but that assumes that there is, actually some skilled trade to hide. The reality is that by far and large, the biomechanics involved in "proper" MAs are the same, as there's only so many ways a human body can move. And they have been discovered and re-discovered independently all over again. If all MAs were to be forgotten, and someone decided to look seriously again at unarmed combat, after a few years they would end up with very similar stuff to what we know - obviously with different names and probably also origin myths.

I mean ju-jutsu, karate, wing chun, bare knuckle fighting, even fencing (which did include a lot of grappling and not blade-based stuff) they all have loads of similar principles, goals and therefore movements. The marked differences happen only when there's agreed sport fighting and rulesets.

In other words, there's no real magic. There's stuff that works, and stuff that looks martialish but doesn't. But since the world doesn't really need stuff that works, few notice the difference (and as you write, often teachers don't even know it.. because they don't need to).

 

[Teapot]

I like the skilled trade idea, but that assumes that there is, actually some skilled trade to hide. The reality is that by far and large, the biomechanics involved in "proper" MAs are the same, as there's only so many ways a human body can move. And they have been discovered and re-discovered independently all over again. If all MAs were to be forgotten, and someone decided to look seriously again at unarmed combat, after a few years they would end up with very similar stuff to what we know - obviously with different names and probably also origin myths.

I mean ju-jutsu, karate, wing chun, bare knuckle fighting, even fencing (which did include a lot of grappling and not blade-based stuff) they all have loads of similar principles, goals and therefore movements. The marked differences happen only when there's agreed sport fighting and rulesets.

In other words, there's no real magic. There's stuff that works, and stuff that looks martialish but doesn't. But since the world doesn't really need stuff that works, few notice the difference (and as you write, often teachers don't even know it.. because they don't need to).

From a scientific perspective, one cannot simply claim that "there are no trade secrets" in martial arts.

If something is truly a secret, by definition, outsider wouldn't know it.

The best one can say is: "There is no publicly available evidence to support the claim that martial arts have 'trade secrets.’" However, the absence of evidence does not necessarily mean that such knowledge doesn’t exist.

There are plenty of people in traditional martial arts who market themselves by saying they know "the secret", just as there are those who claim there are no secrets at all.

By and large, the majority of those people and those teachers were never "apprentices"; they had no lineage. In other words, they never went to "trade school".

The word "lineage" confuses many people. If I learn Wing Chun from some dude that traces back to Ip Man, that does not mean I am part of Ip Man's lineage. If I went to become an "apprentice" (a disciple) under Ip Man himself or Ip Man's disciples/apprentices, then I could claim that I am part of Ip Man's lineage.

I have seen many people who claim there are no secrets, but they speak from a position where they never went to "trade school". It would be the equivalent of saying that blacksmithing has no trade secrets, but I am speaking as someone who has never been an apprentice under any master blacksmith.

I met a teacher who wrote on his website that he teaches the "indoor secrets" of a lineage which is rubbish because 1) I manhandled him and 2) He has no lineage.

You wrote, "There's no real magic," as if to imply that there was a claim that magic was involved.

The problem with the term "secret" is that it often conjures up Hollywood-style fantasy, things like exploding someone's heart as in Kill Bill.

We don't make a big fuss about a proprietary tool in a company.

A chef’s “secret ingredient” doesn’t mean they got water from the Fountain of Youth.

When it comes to martial arts... suddenly, people's imagination might run wild - into a fantasy land.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If all MAs were to be forgotten, and someone decided to look seriously again at unarmed combat, after a few years they would end up with very similar stuff to what we know - obviously with different names and probably also origin myths.

Confucius spent 3 days in thinking. At the end of those 3 days, he told his students that he would rather spend those 3 days in studying instead.

All "secret" can be figured out. The question is how long will that take?

How to develop

- counter to circular dragging?
- strong head lock?
- strong leg twisting power?
- fast forward footwork?
- ...

Here is a clip for "leg twist". How to develop that skill since we don't use our leg muscle that way in our daily life.