What arts are incompatible with each other?

[now disabled]

I was using the term to label the common posture used in aikido which is technically not a correct usage of the term. But I was meaning what is sometimes referred to as a triangle stance.

Ok I see what ya mean now ,,,,,I guess I was just being overly picky lol

Kamae is the stance (jodan, chudan and gedan per se) Ai hamni is really you are mirroring each other so to speak gyaku hanmi is opposing posture (yeah hanmi is used to mean stance to but I see it as more as you say a posture )

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That’s what I’m getting at. One consistent method makes much more sense than trying to do a whole bunch. They interfere with each other, you spread your training out and make slow progress.

They would interfere at the time of training. In the long run, I don't think they would. If you're looking for fastest path to effectiveness, one is better. For most versatility, two might (or might not) be better, but it's a matter of diminishing return. So I agree with your basic premise.

What I'm addressing, though, is the premise contained in the question in the thread's title. There's a difference between "conflicting during training" and "incompatible".

 

[Flying Crane]

They would interfere at the time of training. In the long run, I don't think they would. If you're looking for fastest path to effectiveness, one is better. For most versatility, two might (or might not) be better, but it's a matter of diminishing return. So I agree with your basic premise.

What I'm addressing, though, is the premise contained in the question in the thread's title. There's a difference between "conflicting during training" and "incompatible".

I believe in the long run they would continue to conflict and ultimately reduce your level of proficiency. In my mind, they are incompatible, but anybody is welcome to mash them together if they really want to.

Yes, you can have some level of skill with more than one. But overall your skill will be lower. And I cannot conceive of a realistic circumstance where it would make sense to switch between one and the other in an altercation. Real skill with a method means you can effectively apply it under any conditions. You don’t need an alternate method to be used under special circumstances.

This is my assessment based on my experiences. I’ve spent years training in methods that are heavy on striking, including Crane, Kenpo, and Wing Chun. These systems represent methods that are quite different, in their development of similar techniques. I find them to conflict. That is all there is to it.

I have little experience with grappling methods, and I would not try to make a judgement on those. I defer to those who have the expertise. I don’t know how much experience you have with a variety of striking methods. Perhaps what I am describing is simply outside of your experience?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I believe in the long run they would continue to conflict and ultimately reduce your level of proficiency. In my mind, they are incompatible, but anybody is welcome to mash them together if they really want to.

Yes, you can have some level of skill with more than one. But overall your skill will be lower. And I cannot conceive of a realistic circumstance where it would make sense to switch between one and the other in an altercation. Real skill with a method means you can effectively apply it under any conditions. You don’t need an alternate method to be used under special circumstances.

This is my assessment based on my experiences. I’ve spent years training in methods that are heavy on striking, including Crane, Kenpo, and Wing Chun. These systems represent methods that are quite different, in their development of similar techniques. I find them to conflict. That is all there is to it.

I have little experience with grappling methods, and I would not try to make a judgement on those. I defer to those who have the expertise. I don’t know how much experience you have with a variety of striking methods. Perhaps what I am describing is simply outside of your experience?

Your points make sense. My point only differs in two substantial areas. Firstly, there are things I "can apply" in situations where I have other options that work better. If a jab will work in a given situation, that doesn't mean it's the only good option, nor that there isn't a better one. Some of the better ones will require less skill and precision to be as effective. So, while I agree that real skill with a given punch (or set of punching mechanics) should mean it can be applied in a wide range of situations, that doesn't exclude a different punch (or set of mechanics) from being a better option at times. Secondly, once you study a given technique (be it punching or grappling) for a period of time, your returns for additional skill at it become minimal. So, if you were to plateau at "8 year skill" on a given punch, and add "8 year skill" of a second, you're probably as well equipped (or better) as if you had "16 year skill" in the one punch. That's largely because you're not just at "8 year skill" on two punches, but you are something near "16 year skill" at punching in general, in understanding the use of, control of, and defense against them. Mind you, that doesn't quite apply if you have to throw away everything you knew in order to conform to learn the second punch - which was part of my reason for saying blending requires that you not be a purist.

I'll add that the CMA methods you refer to are largely outside my experience, so it's possible there's something I just don't get about them. The different punching methods I've encountered all blended quite nicely once understood reasonably - as did the grappling methods I've encountered. It's also possible this is something that depends on how our minds look at things. Some people's minds work best with rules (they create their own to order things, and adopt useful rules wherever they find them), and for that type of mind it may be that blending two styles simply isn't a good fit for them.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I believe in the long run they would continue to conflict and ultimately reduce your level of proficiency.

Agree! Sometime even similar styles may conflict with each other.

I have a student who had Judo background before. Every time before he steps in, he always steps back first. It took a long time for me to remove that habit from him. Every time he stepped back before he stepped in, I always gave him a quick pulling. Soon he realized that his backward stepping could telegraph his forward intention and he stopped doing that soon.

 

[now disabled]

Agree! Sometime even similar styles may conflict with each other.

I have a student who had Judo background before. Every time before he steps in, he always steps back first. It took a long time for me to remove that habit from him. Every time he stepped back before he stepped in, I always gave him a quick pulling. Soon he realized that his backward stepping could telegraph his forward intention and he stopped doing that soon.

But surely stepping in every time is not always the right thing or the best option, I guess I just have a different thought process but it is good to see how others approach things (all be it in theory)

 

[Flying Crane]

Agree! Sometime even similar styles may conflict with each other.

I have a student who had Judo background before. Every time before he steps in, he always steps back first. It took a long time for me to remove that habit from him. Every time he stepped back before he stepped in, I always gave him a quick pulling. Soon he realized that his backward stepping could telegraph his forward intention and he stopped doing that soon.

Yes, and for a time I was also doing some Shaolin long fist material that was also complicating the issue. In some ways it was more similar to the crane, but still not the same. Again, I was doing it wrong for both of them, what I was doing was in between them.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I was doing it wrong for both of them, what I was doing was in between them.

I can understand your pain.

The first day that I started to train WC, I already had long fist training for 8 years. When I did the 1st WC form, instead of freezing body and only moved my arms. I rotated my body anyway.

IMO, I either do a bad WC, or I no longer believe in my long fist training. I just can't do anything in between.

Even today, I still believe in

move the body and not moving the arm > move the arm and not moving the body.

 

[Flying Crane]

Your points make sense. My point only differs in two substantial areas. Firstly, there are things I "can apply" in situations where I have other options that work better. If a jab will work in a given situation, that doesn't mean it's the only good option, nor that there isn't a better one. Some of the better ones will require less skill and precision to be as effective. So, while I agree that real skill with a given punch (or set of punching mechanics) should mean it can be applied in a wide range of situations, that doesn't exclude a different punch (or set of mechanics) from being a better option at times. Secondly, once you study a given technique (be it punching or grappling) for a period of time, your returns for additional skill at it become minimal. So, if you were to plateau at "8 year skill" on a given punch, and add "8 year skill" of a second, you're probably as well equipped (or better) as if you had "16 year skill" in the one punch. That's largely because you're not just at "8 year skill" on two punches, but you are something near "16 year skill" at punching in general, in understanding the use of, control of, and defense against them. Mind you, that doesn't quite apply if you have to throw away everything you knew in order to conform to learn the second punch - which was part of my reason for saying blending requires that you not be a purist.

I'll add that the CMA methods you refer to are largely outside my experience, so it's possible there's something I just don't get about them. The different punching methods I've encountered all blended quite nicely once understood reasonably - as did the grappling methods I've encountered. It's also possible this is something that depends on how our minds look at things. Some people's minds work best with rules (they create their own to order things, and adopt useful rules wherever they find them), and for that type of mind it may be that blending two styles simply isn't a good fit for them.

Keep in mind that I am not saying that all systems are incompatible. Some may operate on essentially identical manifestations of the principles and so can blend very well. Others may deal with very different aspects of combat to the point where there is no overlap, and again can blend seemlessly. You can also take techniques or combinations from one system and adapt it, if they can be used with the principles of your system. I actually feel that certain pieces of kenpo could be used on the crane foundations quite well. Other pieces, not so much. But whatever I might adopt, would need to be functional withing the framework and on the foundation and principles upon which crane is built.

That is not simply out of loyalty to crane. It is because the crane method makes sense to me and works effectively. So that is the method that I practice, and anything I might bring into the system would need to be useable in the same way, or it is incompatible. For example, I find that many of the combinations and forms from kenpo do not work well on the crane foundation of body-connection. The kenpo combinations put you into postures and positions that make it impossible to effectively use full-body connection, and limit you to the power of your limbs alone. I find those combinations to be impractical and for me, unusable.

This goes back to what I keep saying about foundations and principles. A good system ought to be built upon a foundation and with principles that are consistent. All aspects of the system ought to operate with these principles, or there need to be good reasons for any exceptions. It isn’t just a collection of techniques, and the techniques are not what make the system. The techniques are an expression of the principles, and once you understand the principles, you can then do anything you want in terms of technique, as long as it is compatible with those principles.

So different systems may operate on the same principles, but how those principles are expressed through the practice of technique may be quite different. But the end result may be the same: a very powerful punch, for example. But how you trained and practiced to develop that punch could be very different. But in order to develop that punch, your training needs to be consistent, and once you have developed that punch, there is no need for the methods of another system, because you have developed your technique to a high level already. Incorporating a different methodology now is pointless.

It’s like I said before: trying to drive to the next town over, you need to pick a route and stick with it. Either route will get you there. But you need to pick one, whichever one makes the most sense to you, and stick with it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Keep in mind that I am not saying that all systems are incompatible. Some may operate on essentially identical manifestations of the principles and so can blend very well. Others may deal with very different aspects of combat to the point where there is no overlap, and again can blend seemlessly. You can also take techniques or combinations from one system and adapt it, if they can be used with the principles of your system. I actually feel that certain pieces of kenpo could be used on the crane foundations quite well. Other pieces, not so much. But whatever I might adopt, would need to be functional withing the framework and on the foundation and principles upon which crane is built.

That is not simply out of loyalty to crane. It is because the crane method makes sense to me and works effectively. So that is the method that I practice, and anything I might bring into the system would need to be useable in the same way, or it is incompatible. For example, I find that many of the combinations and forms from kenpo do not work well on the crane foundation of body-connection. The kenpo combinations put you into postures and positions that make it impossible to effectively use full-body connection, and limit you to the power of your limbs alone. I find those combinations to be impractical and for me, unusable.

That makes sense. That's going back to the issue of trying to do one art while in the mode of another, and that can create problems. I can do FMA movements in pure/classical NGA mode, but not boxing movements while in that mode. But I can slide seamlessly between modes, if I don't require any of them to be pure. So, I can be pretty "boxy" at times, "karateish" other times, "aikido-like", and so on. It's only when I try to put moves from one mode into the other that I might have a conflict (as you said, sometimes they can be used in other modes).

You've found White Crane to be a good fit for your personal system, so you stay within that mode. That has advantages. My early experience was mixed enough that I've pretty much always just used an amalgamation of approaches, and have been comfortable moving between those modes without being bothered by apparent contradictions in the principles. That NGA is a (relatively) young hybrid art is also a contributing factor. Within NGA, there are some contradictory principles in evidence, because they apply in different situations, so the system still has cohesion.

 

[now disabled]

Within NGA, there are some contradictory principles in evidence, because they apply in different situations, so the system still has cohesion

Ah but are they contradictory ?

I would suggest that they are not but to an outsider they may be, or to a person just starting out they may be until you grasp and absorb that there is not a "one fits all" .....then they no longer are contradictory

Even in Aikido there is a major contradiction and everyone ignores it and just looks at what they see and hear lol

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ah but are they contradictory ?

I would suggest that they are not but to an outsider they may be, or to a person just starting out they may be until you grasp and absorb that there is not a "one fits all" .....then they no longer are contradictory

Even in Aikido there is a major contradiction and everyone ignores it and just looks at what they see and hear lol

That's the point. If I take a principle and apply it to all situations, it will conflict with other principles. But if I allow for the situational nuances, and recognize that the principles are guides to how a technique works - not necessarily how I have to operate in every instance - then two that seem contradictory become complementary. Aiki is nice when it fits the situation. When it doesn't, sometimes force-on-force is a concise answer to open the door to aiki.

 

[Flying Crane]

That makes sense. That's going back to the issue of trying to do one art while in the mode of another, and that can create problems. I can do FMA movements in pure/classical NGA mode, but not boxing movements while in that mode. But I can slide seamlessly between modes, if I don't require any of them to be pure. So, I can be pretty "boxy" at times, "karateish" other times, "aikido-like", and so on. It's only when I try to put moves from one mode into the other that I might have a conflict (as you said, sometimes they can be used in other modes).

You've found White Crane to be a good fit for your personal system, so you stay within that mode. That has advantages. My early experience was mixed enough that I've pretty much always just used an amalgamation of approaches, and have been comfortable moving between those modes without being bothered by apparent contradictions in the principles. That NGA is a (relatively) young hybrid art is also a contributing factor. Within NGA, there are some contradictory principles in evidence, because they apply in different situations, so the system still has cohesion.

For a long time I did not understand these issues. I had been training in a few different systems and I was just going along with what I was shown and didn’t think much beyond it. To me, a punch was a punch was a punch and I didn’t have any concept of what was (or should have been) going on underneath it.

In hindsight, I think that says a lot about the quality of the instruction I had been receiving. Teachers were showing me things and that was it. This combo, that kata, etc. Over the years I think I had a nagging suspicion that something might be missing in my understanding, but nobody was teaching me any differently. I first had an inkling of something more when I started training crane, because we have a very specific way of training our basic techniques, and quite honestly it is kind of odd compared to other systems. But it still took me a while to really understand it. In the middle of that, I had a few years of wing chun and from that I also began to get a glimpse of something deeper underneath the techniques themselves, although I can say that I never fully understood the wing chun method, even though I learned all three of the primary forms.

It was not until my first white crane Sifu, after over a decade with him, introduced me to his Sifu, my Sigung, and I became that mans’s student, that it really started to sink in. The quality of the instruction was way above all the other teachers I had previously. He had a way of presenting the instruction in a way that it really made sense to me and I finally understood what was supposed to be going on underneath it. Honestly, the five or so years I spent training with him was worth more than the previous 25 combined.

I have said before that I think it is a good idea to train in multiple systems, but not to try to master them all, nor to keep them all. You do it in order to get some wide experience so that you can then make a good decision about which method, and which teacher, is the best fit for you. And it can take several years of training in each system before you are in a position to make the best decision. You do the best you can with what you have, until you find something better. Once you discover that, I recommend you stop training the others.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Tibetan White Crane drills punches by pivoting the body sideways, using the torque of the full-body pivot to get power for the punch. But the body turns all the way until you face sideways to the enemy. That is how we drill the punch, but not necessarily how we would use it in a fight. It is an exaggerated movement designed to teach and develop full-body connection.

When I was training Tracy Kenpo, we would stand in a square horse facing forward and drill punches by keeping the shoulders square to the front, and punching straight ahead. It seemed to me that we were relying on muscle power of the arm and shoulder, and not really engaging the body.

Because I was doing both, I ended up not pivoting far enough when doing white crane, and pivoting too far to no longer be square facing the front when doing kenpo.

My white crane Sifu would tell me, “pivot more, you aren’t going far enough”.

My kenpo teacher would tell me, “stop pivoting, keep your shoulders straight.”

I was doing it wrong for each method, based on the parameters and standards of each method. Practicing kenpo was undermining my crane, and vice-versa.

Now, I could certainly continue to practice both methods. I could be very careful to compartmentalise my training and practice both methods, and try to not let them affect each other. But this is not efficient training.

If you want to be able to punch, you want to train a consistent method so that the skill becomes internalized within you and your body harnesses the power consistently and automatically.

What you do not need is multiple ways to throw a punch, multiple ways to harness power for the same technique. That inconsistency in the method will slow your development and confuse your automatic response if you need to throw a punch, under pressure. In terms of training, it is like trying to drive your car to the next town, but you can’t decide which of two routes to take. You get two miles down the road and then change your mind, so you go back and take the other route, but when you get two miles down the road you change your mind again and go back to the first route. And then again and again. You never reach the other town.

Pick a route and stick with it.
Pick a method and stick with it.

Training multiple systems that have conflicting methodology is like that. You simply need a reliable and effective punch. You DO NOT need two or five or eight different ways to power your punch. That may be of interest academically, but ultimately is not terribly useful.

So the incompatibility lies in the methodology, and not necessarily the body of techniques. You can swap and trade and adopt techniques from any other system, as long as they are compatible with a consistent methodology, or if the realm of combat is so different that there really is no overlap with the methodology.

I can understand your pain.

The first day that I started to train WC, I already had long fist training for 8 years. When I did the 1st WC form, instead of freezing body and only moved my arms. I rotated my body anyway.

IMO, I either do a bad WC, or I no longer believe in my long fist training. I just can't do anything in between.

Even today, I still believe in

move the body and not moving the arm > move the arm and not moving the body.

I think (as I mentioned in my earlier comment) that the key to integrating different methods is to understand why they are done differently and the trade-offs being implemented in a given method.

Regarding Kenpo, practitioners do not actually fight or spar standing in a horse stance square to an opponent and throwing punches straight ahead with no body rotation. That's a drill. In order to decide whether the drill is compatible with a different style, you'd need to understand what the purpose of the drill is. Personally, I suspect that the exercise may have been adopted from some earlier style and kept for tradition's sake without comprehension of its meaning, but I'm open to being corrected on that point.

Wing Chun, on the other hand, does advocate fighting with shoulders square to an opponent. Hip/body rotation can be added to a punch, but usually only when accompanied by an angle shift relative to the opponent, so the practitioner still ends up with shoulders squared off after the rotation. Since this is more of a special case, most lineages don't seem to include it in the first form.

The purpose of this squared stance is to allow both hands to be equally and simultaneously engaged in the fight. The downside is the significant penalty to power due to the lack of body/hip rotation. Despite this penalty, WC practitioners can develop functional (if not exceptional) power. The main engines for this power are "elbow power" (which actually originates in the back muscles and is transmitted through the arms via good structure not arm strength) and forward body motion, typically from a pull step.

My primary art for punching is western boxing, which relies heavily on body/hip rotation for power. It also uses forward body motion for power, but typically with a push step or drop step instead of a pull step.

What I've found is that I can integrate "elbow power" into most of my boxing punches with no problem. The power still starts with my feet, I still rotate my body, but now the structure for transmitting the power from my back through my elbow is cleaner. Even for punches where that exact structure doesn't apply (like an overhand right), I am now more aware of structure principles in general.

For the body movement, I can use push steps, pull steps, drop steps, or some combination, depending on where my feet need to be at a given moment.

Bottom line, I'm not any sort of WC expert, but WC training has given me some subtle tools to make my boxing better. To be clear, there are plenty of boxers out there who use these same kinds of subtle body dynamics. The difference is, they aren't generally taught explicitly in boxing. Boxers are given the big tools for power generation, then spend countless hours throwing punches. Along the way, many of them subconsciously pick up these nuances for extra power. In contrast, WC opts not to use the big power generation tools and so it can develop more conscious awareness of some of the smaller tools.

 

[Flying Crane]

I think (as I mentioned in my earlier comment) that the key to integrating different methods is to understand why they are done differently and the trade-offs being implemented in a given method.

Regarding Kenpo, practitioners do not actually fight or spar standing in a horse stance square to an opponent and throwing punches straight ahead with no body rotation. That's a drill. In order to decide whether the drill is compatible with a different style, you'd need to understand what the purpose of the drill is. Personally, I suspect that the exercise may have been adopted from some earlier style and kept for tradition's sake without comprehension of its meaning, but I'm open to being corrected on that point.

Wing Chun, on the other hand, does advocate fighting with shoulders square to an opponent. Hip/body rotation can be added to a punch, but usually only when accompanied by an angle shift relative to the opponent, so the practitioner still ends up with shoulders squared off after the rotation. Since this is more of a special case, most lineages don't seem to include it in the first form.

The purpose of this squared stance is to allow both hands to be equally and simultaneously engaged in the fight. The downside is the significant penalty to power due to the lack of body/hip rotation. Despite this penalty, WC practitioners can develop functional (if not exceptional) power. The main engines for this power are "elbow power" (which actually originates in the back muscles and is transmitted through the arms via good structure not arm strength) and forward body motion, typically from a pull step.

My primary art for punching is western boxing, which relies heavily on body/hip rotation for power. It also uses forward body motion for power, but typically with a push step or drop step instead of a pull step.

What I've found is that I can integrate "elbow power" into most of my boxing punches with no problem. The power still starts with my feet, I still rotate my body, but now the structure for transmitting the power from my back through my elbow is cleaner. Even for punches where that exact structure doesn't apply (like an overhand right), I am now more aware of structure principles in general.

For the body movement, I can use push steps, pull steps, drop steps, or some combination, depending on where my feet need to be at a given moment.

Bottom line, I'm not any sort of WC expert, but WC training has given me some subtle tools to make my boxing better. To be clear, there are plenty of boxers out there who use these same kinds of subtle body dynamics. The difference is, they aren't generally taught explicitly in boxing. Boxers are given the big tools for power generation, then spend countless hours throwing punches. Along the way, many of them subconsciously pick up these nuances for extra power. In contrast, WC opts not to use the big power generation tools and so it can develop more conscious awareness of some of the smaller tools.

I agree, it is a drill, which is how you train your body to internalize and understand the mechanics. How you fight can be quite different from the drill.

That is where I keep saying, you need consistency in how you drill. That is the methodology.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Wing Chun, on the other hand, does advocate fighting with shoulders square to an opponent.

I don't like shoulder square for the following reasons:

1. My arm can't reach to the maximum length.
2. My chest is completely exposed.
3. I can't generate punching power by moving from 1 extreme to another extreme.
4. I can't spring forward or backward from that position.
5. My opponent can attack my right leg and left arm at the same time.
6. My opponent can attack both of my legs at the same time.
7. My opponent can pin both of my arms at the same time.
8. ...

Of course the POR is I can punch with both arm with equal length instead of 1 long arm and 1 short arm. But the advantage of 1 long arm and 1 short arm is the long arm can change into the short arm, and the short arm can change into the long arm. I prefer to have 1 arm that I can reach to my opponent than to have 2 arms that I can't reach to my opponent. The advantage of that short arm is my opponent can't control it.

If my opponent can attack my right leg and left arm at the same time, in wrestling, that's as bad as you allow your opponent to attack both of your legs at the same time. A sweep right leg to the left and pull the left arm to the right can be as bad as the double legs.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

you need consistency in how you drill. That is the methodology.

Agree! This is why when I drill groin kick, face punch combo, my punch always coordinate with my foot landing. I find it to be very difficult to coordinate punch

- one day with foot landing,
- next day before foot landing, and
- the next day after foot landing.

No matter which method that you decide to train in your drill, after you have developed that habit, that habit will be with you for the rest of your life. You may cross train many different MA systems after that, your habit will never change (if you truly have faith in it).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If a Chinese wrestler cross trains the Bagua system, he will have argument with his Bagua instructor during the first day.

When a Bagua guy walks in circle, he will move his leading leg first. This will immediately cause a leg crossing. In wrestling, it's a big NO NO.

When a Chinese wrestler moves in circle, he will move his back leg first.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If a Chinese wrestler cross trains the Bagua system, he will have argument with his Bagua instructor during the first day.

When a Bagua guy walks in circle, he will move his leading leg first. This will immediately cause a leg crossing. In wrestling, it's a big NO NO.

When a Chinese wrestler moves in circle, he will move his back leg first.

What is the advantage the Bagua guys gain from using that cross-step?

 

[now disabled]

That's the point. If I take a principle and apply it to all situations, it will conflict with other principles. But if I allow for the situational nuances, and recognize that the principles are guides to how a technique works - not necessarily how I have to operate in every instance - then two that seem contradictory become complementary. Aiki is nice when it fits the situation. When it doesn't, sometimes force-on-force is a concise answer to open the door to aiki.

I agree

Hence I said there is a contradiction in Aikido and from Ueshiba himself ( if you look at his book budo and at he actually explains how you do Ikkyo from shomen uchi you will see that he actually contradicts how that is taught these days and how he described irimi nage is umm again a bit different) Yes Ueshiba was well now for changing things and he did ....relentlessly infact ...that could be he was refining things but there again it could be the influence of oomoto, the war and yes him getting older and also I still stick to the Aikido that was exported to the world was more the Aikido of the second Doshu etc than purely Ueshiba Morihei