Weapon fight is the CMA goal

[JowGaWolf]

I don't like the 2 arms head protection boxing guard for the following reasons.

- Put yourself in defense mode.
- Give your opponent's too much free space.
- Invite your opponent's low kick.
- Invite your opponent to pull your guard apart.
- Easier for your opponent to control both of your arms at the same time.
- Make fight in your own territory instead of your opponent's territory.
- ...

I prefer a mid guard because it's halfway to a high guard and a low guard. I don't need a lot of response time to go from mid to low or from mid to high. In my opinion it's more appropriate for dealing with punches and kicks. I'll use a high guard only when needed. Boxers use the high guard often because they don't have to worry about kicks and take downs.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I prefer a mid guard ...

If you are good in long arm guard, you can almost disable your opponent's jab and cross.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I thought Bow stance was front leg bent rear leg straight. In the video he leans back. Front leg straight rear leg bent.

I was taught, in the context of Kenpo, that “bow and arrow” stance had the front leg bent. The front leg and torso make the bow, the back leg is the arrow drawn. But it is not used in actual archery. Rather, just a shape made by the body, similar to that of an arrow drawn in a bow.

In Chinese martial arts, in my training, we never really discussed it on that level. We tend to call it a stepping stance.

But the act of drawing a heavy bow engages a push with the front leg, turning the torso away from the bow. It would not end in a posture as extreme as the fellow showed in the video. But it moves in that direction.

Right.

There are generally two "bow and arrow" stances in Kung fu, they are both the same in that the front toe and back heel are aligned, the rear leg is straight and the front leg is bent over the knee. Usually referred to as a side horse stance.

Gung/Gong (Jee/Jeen) Bo is one name, like in Jow Ga.

Hung Kuen would use Jee Ng Ma or even Chin Gong How Chin Ma (12 and 6 o'clock stance, after the sundial).

The exaggerated stances themselves are for training only, of course, but they are in fact archery stances, but what FC describes is Juk Meen, side facing, meaning the person in Gong Bo would punch or shoot a bow Juk Meen Jin Choi (side facing arrow) style.

There is some really trippy old Chinese artwork depicting this style of archery, but I doubt you'll find any in the history of empty handed CMA, like you won't find bow and arrow in practically any formal CMA. What you will find are stances intended to strengthen the legs to withstand a lot, which everyone here probably knows if they've spent much time on Gung Bo Ma.

 

[JowGaWolf]

like you won't find bow and arrow in practically any formal CMA. What you will find are stances intended to strengthen the legs to withstand a lot, which everyone here probably knows if they've spent much time on Gung Bo Ma.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I actually use the stances. I can go through my sparring videos and actually show the use of these stance.

Bow stance applied

Stance transition from bow -> Cat -> Golden Rooster. The stances that are trained in Jow Ga are for actual use. They aren't just for strengthening the legs.

Cross stance applied

 

[JowGaWolf]

There is some really trippy old Chinese artwork depicting this style of archery, but I doubt you'll find any in the history of empty handed CMA

Sometimes artwork is just artwork and people shouldn't read too munch into it. When it comes to artwork, they aren't always trying to depict realism. I wouldn't use such pictures as a historical reference on stances

 

[Flying Crane]

Sometimes artwork is just artwork and people shouldn't read too munch into it. When it comes to artwork, they aren't always trying to depict realism. I wouldn't use such pictures as a historical reference on stances

I agree with you, but sometimes the artwork is depicting something other that what we assume it is.

Check out this video of Lars Anderson, a fellow reinventing very rapid, on-the-move archery. He is lightning fast and his accuracy would be remarkable even if he was shooting from standing still. But he shoots on the run, jumping, turning, etc and is amazing. It is clear that he is not using a full draw, and my suspicion is that the bow is no more than 50#, possibly much lighter, but that is just my guess. At any rate, for that kind of fast, on-the-move archery, one does not have time to dig in the feet and give the effort that a heavy warbow requires. But his skills are impressive, to say the least.

I also know that English archers, often as peasants, were required to maintain archery skills as part of the national defense. So they trained regularly at the archery range, but they also would go "roving" which was simply a walk in the countryside where they would bring their equipment and target shoot at targets like stumps, as they would present. It was recreation but also practice, and it helped put archery into a context other than the massed archers shooting volleys of arrows at a charging body of horsemen. It created a more personal archery useful for shooting at picked targets.

So it is possible that this painting is depicting such an archery scene, a more casual archery probably with a bow with a lighter draw weight. The stance as such wouldnt be a specific archery stance. It might literally just be the fellow taking a shot while he is casually walking along.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I agree with you, but sometimes the artwork is depicting something other that what we assume it is.

True. But we still have to remember that sometimes art work is just artwork. In the past I've seen many people just take any old picture and assumed that it was a historical representation of something. Humans have been telling stories, creating music, and drawing art for entertainment. People back then also had imagination as well and enjoyed creating things that were beautiful or things that were scary. Unfortunately sometimes people in general forget that. Some of it was just entertainment, a story warning kids about certain dangers. Or just a story for enjoyment because everyone likes a good story.

When I see this image, I don't see a historical reference on how to shoot an arrow. To me it looks like an image that one would use to tell a story You have kids, you have the animal in the sky, You have the archer that seems to be turning around to shoot backwards.

To prove my point, I actually looked up some more information about this picture.

So here's the reality about the picture show. It's based on a legend called Tiangou, a demon dog that lives in the sky. And what we are seeing is Zhang Xian, the god of birth, the protector of male children and a master bow-man.

So now that you know more information about what you are looking at, the picture makes sense as art for entertainment.

Historical Art tends to look dry in comparison, almost like manual. They don't capture the eye the same way. During a time where most people probably couldn't read or write, I'm sure there were tons of drawings everywhere by non artists which is why some of the drawings look really bad.

When ever I see historical drawings or paintings, I always remind myself that it could just be art. Then from there I try to learn more about what I'm looking at.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I agree with you, but sometimes the artwork is depicting something other that what we assume it is.

Check out this video of Lars Anderson, a fellow reinventing very rapid, on-the-move archery. He is lightning fast and his accuracy would be remarkable even if he was shooting from standing still. But he shoots on the run, jumping, turning, etc and is amazing. It is clear that he is not using a full draw, and my suspicion is that the bow is no more than 50#, possibly much lighter, but that is just my guess. At any rate, for that kind of fast, on-the-move archery, one does not have time to dig in the feet and give the effort that a heavy warbow requires. But his skills are impressive, to say the least.

I also know that English archers, often as peasants, were required to maintain archery skills as part of the national defense. So they trained regularly at the archery range, but they also would go "roving" which was simply a walk in the countryside where they would bring their equipment and target shoot at targets like stumps, as they would present. It was recreation but also practice, and it helped put archery into a context other than the massed archers shooting volleys of arrows at a charging body of horsemen. It created a more personal archery useful for shooting at picked targets.

So it is possible that this painting is depicting such an archery scene, a more casual archery probably with a bow with a lighter draw weight. The stance as such wouldnt be a specific archery stance. It might literally just be the fellow taking a shot while he is casually walking along.

What I see him do makes more sense to me from a fighting perspective, no difference than a hand gun vs a rifle. A lot of the bows that we usually see are long bows. Those would be arrows that are used to soften up ground troops. The more you can kill at a distance the better.

But when you look at Mongolian Archers, you will see that the bows are smaller and more mobile. You will also see that they hold the arrows in a similar way.

You can find a lot of artwork that depicts this, but it doesn't have the same feel as the one with the children in it.

 

[Flying Crane]

True. But we still have to remember that sometimes art work is just artwork. In the past I've seen many people just take any old picture and assumed that it was a historical representation of something. Humans have been telling stories, creating music, and drawing art for entertainment. People back then also had imagination as well and enjoyed creating things that were beautiful or things that were scary. Unfortunately sometimes people in general forget that. Some of it was just entertainment, a story warning kids about certain dangers. Or just a story for enjoyment because everyone likes a good story.

When I see this image, I don't see a historical reference on how to shoot an arrow. To me it looks like an image that one would use to tell a story You have kids, you have the animal in the sky, You have the archer that seems to be turning around to shoot backwards.

To prove my point, I actually looked up some more information about this picture.

So here's the reality about the picture show. It's based on a legend called Tiangou, a demon dog that lives in the sky. And what we are seeing is Zhang Xian, the god of birth, the protector of male children and a master bow-man.

So now that you know more information about what you are looking at, the picture makes sense as art for entertainment.

Historical Art tends to look dry in comparison, almost like manual. They don't capture the eye the same way. During a time where most people probably couldn't read or write, I'm sure there were tons of drawings everywhere by non artists which is why some of the drawings look really bad.

When ever I see historical drawings or paintings, I always remind myself that it could just be art. Then from there I try to learn more about what I'm looking at.

I don’t disagree at all. What it really boils down to is having some context for the artwork.

 

[Flying Crane]

What I see him do makes more sense to me from a fighting perspective, no difference than a hand gun vs a rifle. A lot of the bows that we usually see are long bows. Those would be arrows that are used to soften up ground troops. The more you can kill at a distance the better.

But when you look at Mongolian Archers, you will see that the bows are smaller and more mobile. You will also see that they hold the arrows in a similar way.

You can find a lot of artwork that depicts this, but it doesn't have the same feel as the one with the children in it.

Again, I agree. My point was simply that in the complete world of archery, one is likely to encounter a variety of stances, used in a variety of circumstances. If one simply does not have experience with a particular archery context, then that stance work may seem unusual and could lead to some erroneous assumptions. Context matters.

 

[Flying Crane]

What I see him do makes more sense to me from a fighting perspective, no difference than a hand gun vs a rifle. A lot of the bows that we usually see are long bows. Those would be arrows that are used to soften up ground troops. The more you can kill at a distance the better.

But when you look at Mongolian Archers, you will see that the bows are smaller and more mobile. You will also see that they hold the arrows in a similar way.

You can find a lot of artwork that depicts this, but it doesn't have the same feel as the one with the children in it.

Fascinating video, by the way. I would not want to be the fellow holding the target. I wonder how often a horse gets hit. I imagine they are using some kind of safer blunts, but still, that could be very injurious.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Fascinating video, by the way. I would not want to be the fellow holding the target. I wonder how often a horse gets hit. I imagine they are using some kind of safer blunts, but still, that could be very injurious.

ha ha ha. it would definitely be a nightmare if I did it. I would be lucky to hit the pony or to stay on the pony and not impale myself on one of those arrows.

.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I wish schools had a larger selections of physical activities beyond soccer, tennis, basketball, baseball, football, etc.

 

[Flying Crane]

I wish schools had a larger selections of physical activities beyond soccer, tennis, basketball, baseball, football, etc.

A martial arts program would be rather progressive.

 

[Hanzou]

The goal of the Chinese MA is for weapon fight.

Your thought?

So essentially what he's saying is that Chinese kung fu is useless for modern hand to hand combat because it was designed for fighting with obsolete medieval weapons?

Well..... that certainly explains a lot.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

In unarmed fighting? Probably. The unarmed curriculum that I've seen is pretty basic. For other venues of fighting? It's different. Riflery among U.S. Marines is a step above that of most other branches, even for a non-combat job. As always, what your job will be determines what level of training you get in other stuff. A fire squad for the Army or Marines is going to have a higher level of training with their rifles and will have related weapons training, and a lot of training is team movement and team tactics. A network engineer for the Army will still learn how to shoot and will have to pass the basic rifle qualification but that may be where it ends.

As a general rule, I haven't seen much of the unarmed and "melee" weapons which are being taught to standard forces in modern militaries which impresses me. Start getting into what's often called "special forces" and things start changing. But the unarmed stuff that they teach to rank-n-file seems like it's pretty much designed for the inevitable drunken bar brawl with civvies.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Sir, not sure if you served or not, but I am currently in, and you've really hit the nail on the head. As the dedicated law enforcement/base defense for my branch, our standard curriculum is just enough to defeat the enemy through raw numbers and/or superior firepower, and to get someone killed if we lack both of those. The infantry get better training, but still, the SOF guys are really the ones the military invests all of its effort into. For the rest of us, training is standardized and dumbed-down to be easily digestible.

 

[drop bear]

Do practical modern weapon fighters adopt these martial concepts?

 

[Oily Dragon]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I actually use the stances.

Me too.

 

[Cynik75]

Do practical modern weapon fighters adopt these martial concepts?

Street fights with sticks and bats does not look like this. Who the love will block bat with his hand?
When I was about 19/20 I once tried to parry stick (holded by nazi skinhead) with my forearm. I missed a little, he missed a little and the stick hit my left hand/palm/metacarpus.
I am righthanded so I still was able to fight with my own bat, but my lefy hand was useless for on month.

 

[lklawson]

Street fights with sticks and bats does not look like this. Who the love will block bat with his hand?
When I was about 19/20 I once tried to parry stick (holded by nazi skinhead) with my forearm. I missed a little, he missed a little and the stick hit my left hand/palm/metacarpus.
I am righthanded so I still was able to fight with my own bat, but my lefy hand was useless for on month.

Who would do that? Pretty much everyone. It happens all the time. It's instinct. It's called "defensive wounds."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk