What arts are incompatible with each other?

[now disabled]

And for the record lol Shomen uchi is not how most people today practice it lol (ie with no intent or conviction) and for that matter neither is any of the attacks and that includes the grabs that has been softened a heck of alot ...ok maybe by individual teachers or may be by the students themselves that is open to debate lol...

Go to either an Iwama style school (not the current Iwama well sort of) or go to the Yoshinkan and the strikes and grabs are done with intent and you have to deflect or move and "peform" less you get hit

And also so many of the schools now do not actually teach the weapons as they were meant to be taught( (imo) they play at them (again that could be more the students themselves either not knowing or not wanting to get hit or they cannot control the bokken or jo properly) there by the actual strikes used in the attacks are not fully understood and then are not delivered either properly or with any intent ...they are more oh ok I'm gonna strike shomen uchi do it slowly and leave it there no follow thru or intent so my partner can easily perform was he or she wants ..... and that really gets to me big time lol........................it really just acting as such ...as if you really want to know how to and understand what the strikes are and are supposed to be then (imo) you have to understand and have a bokken in your hands or a jo (slightly different) to get that ....I am not saying that people need to be swordsmen at all but if you do not have the understanding of any of the strikes then how can you do them and thereby how can a person actually learn do defend them lol.

Yes I will defend Aikido as it has been good to me and even the classical free Flowing Aikido I love and it does and did give me a big buzz but what I will say and have is that how most is being taught will not work as there is no intent at all to much is placed on the aesthetic side and the peace and love bit rather than what it actually is a n art with martial heritage and intent

 

[now disabled]

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 so agree with what you say and how you have stated it

especially the point about drills .....they are just that drills and imo is it not just down to the teacher to make that clear and also and just as important that the student themselves actually understands that and is capable (not being nasty) of actually understanding that you do not in the real world fight like that, that is for the dojo and to learn basics whether it be power generation or to gain stremgth from the stance you are in (i mean develop core and leg strength).

You may not agree but does the student not have to play there part by actually engaging there brain (again not nasty and I am not hitting at anyone at all or at any style or art) and be able to make the adjustment between what is done in the dojo to gain insight in to the hows and whys and what is the real world.

I am not saying that any of the classical stances will not work or have not or cannot but as you pointed out and in my opinion correctly there are trade offs and that to me is what the student themselves has to learn and accept and not be so set in stone as to think ...this is the way the teacher said so this is what I will do !!! you may not agree or I am not explaining what I mean in words well enough but I feel that studying any art is a two way street between teacher and student and that may have broken down over time or in some ways that folks seem to think if they are taught that stance then that is it period that is how ya fight !!!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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

I truly don't know. That stance has very weak balance.

 

[now disabled]

I truly don't know. That stance has very weak balance.

I spoke to a friend of mine whose teacher studied that style and he said that in his teachers opinion is was designed for small spaces and etc Ie the circle walking ....I am probably wrong or what I was told was wrong but anyway

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I spoke to a friend of mine whose teacher studied that style and he said that in his teachers opinion is was designed for small spaces and etc Ie the circle walking ....I am probably wrong or what I was told was wrong but anyway

I think it's more for health and performance. It's not for combat.

Most of the time when you use foot sweep, you will need a pulling force. When your opponent has leg crossing, your foot sweep don't even need pulling.

 

[now disabled]

I think it's more for health and performance. It's not for combat.

I dunno as I said just what a friend said his teacher had told him ....mind you walking a tight circle pattern not crossing as you showed is gonna be difficult as then it becomes sliding and shuffling really but that just my look at it

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I dunno as I said just what a friend said his teacher had told him ....mind you walking a tight circle pattern not crossing as you showed is gonna be difficult as then it becomes sliding and shuffling really but that just my look at it

You can cross your legs as long as you are not right in front of your opponent. You are safe to cross your leg while you are in your opponent's side door.

 

[now disabled]

You can cross your legs as long as you are not right in front of your opponent. You can cross your leg while you are in your opponent's side door.

yeah fair comment I am not disagreeing

me personally I wouldn't do that even then but that just me lol...I would feel to unbalanced and out of sync

 

[wab25]

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 am I missing here? Both the Bagua guy and the Chinese Wrestler are taking the same step. The Bagua guy is showing the cross step as his first step in his video. The Chinese Wrestler is showing the same cross step as his second step. Maybe the Bagua guy is starting his circle from the side door? Anyway, why argue when the same step is used in both arts?

 

[Tony Dismukes]

What am I missing here? Both the Bagua guy and the Chinese Wrestler are taking the same step. The Bagua guy is showing the cross step as his first step in his video. The Chinese Wrestler is showing the same cross step as his second step. Maybe the Bagua guy is starting his circle from the side door? Anyway, why argue when the same step is used in both arts?

Looks like the wrestler is only crossing his legs once he has gotten off to his partners side, so it's not as risky.

Personally I think the cross step is still unnecessary there, but at least it's lower risk.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I so agree with what you say and how you have stated it

especially the point about drills .....they are just that drills and imo is it not just down to the teacher to make that clear and also and just as important that the student themselves actually understands that and is capable (not being nasty) of actually understanding that you do not in the real world fight like that, that is for the dojo and to learn basics whether it be power generation or to gain stremgth from the stance you are in (i mean develop core and leg strength).

You may not agree but does the student not have to play there part by actually engaging there brain (again not nasty and I am not hitting at anyone at all or at any style or art) and be able to make the adjustment between what is done in the dojo to gain insight in to the hows and whys and what is the real world.

I am not saying that any of the classical stances will not work or have not or cannot but as you pointed out and in my opinion correctly there are trade offs and that to me is what the student themselves has to learn and accept and not be so set in stone as to think ...this is the way the teacher said so this is what I will do !!! you may not agree or I am not explaining what I mean in words well enough but I feel that studying any art is a two way street between teacher and student and that may have broken down over time or in some ways that folks seem to think if they are taught that stance then that is it period that is how ya fight !!!

Yes and no ...

I do believe that the teaching process should be a two-way dialogue, where the student is actively questioning, experimenting with, trying to understand, and even challenging what the teacher is showing.

I also understand that many teachers don't encourage or actively discourage that sort of interaction. If I, as a teacher, have my students training drills which are significantly removed from actual applications, and where the true purpose of the drill is not intuitively obvious, but do not point my students towards the actual point of the drill or encourage them to ask about it, then blame them for not being clever or "dedicated" enough to figure it out on their own - then I'm just being a bad teacher.

If I then raise up a crop of students who have been taught to unquestioningly perform the drills and exercises by rote without understanding of their purpose and application, award some of them instructor rank, and send them out to continue the cycle - then I have no-one but myself to blame for the degradation of the art.

 

[now disabled]

Yes and no ...

I do believe that the teaching process should be a two-way dialogue, where the student is actively questioning, experimenting with, trying to understand, and even challenging what the teacher is showing.

I also understand that many teachers don't encourage or actively discourage that sort of interaction. If I, as a teacher, have my students training drills which are significantly removed from actual applications, and where the true purpose of the drill is not intuitively obvious, but do not point my students towards the actual point of the drill or encourage them to ask about it, then blame them for not being clever or "dedicated" enough to figure it out on their own - then I'm just being a bad teacher.

If I then raise up a crop of students who have been taught to unquestioningly perform the drills and exercises by rote without understanding of their purpose and application, award some of them instructor rank, and send them out to continue the cycle - then I have no-one but myself to blame for the degradation of the art.

Again I agree

I know what you mean about some teachers do not like questions ....but even then the student should still be able to if they are studying the art differentiate between a drill and what is actually used per se

 

[wab25]

Looks like the wrestler is only crossing his legs once he has gotten off to his partners side, so it's not as risky.

Personally I think the cross step is still unnecessary there, but at least it's lower risk.

My point was that he said the two arts are incompatible and that an argument would start, due to the difference. He showed the Bagua circle step, then he showed the Chinese Wrestling clip. He since, followed up with how risky the cross step was, but because Bagua is

more for health and performance. It's not for combat.

Its probably ok to do so. However, his Chinese Wrestling clip clearly shows the guy doing a Chinese Wrestling pull, followed by immediately starting the Bagua Circle walk, complete with the cross step... this is the same circle cross step, demonstrated by the Bagua guy. This shows they are compatible, since the Wrestler uses the Bagua circle step following his pull.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the Wrestler uses the Bagua circle step following his pull.

As long as when you cross legs, your opponent's leg cannot reach to your leg, you will be safe.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

I might have to give that book a look someday. I'd be interested in seeing some of those contradictions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I truly don't know. That stance has very weak balance.

I agree. I assume there's some reason they do that, but I can't for the life of me think what it is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think it's more for health and performance. It's not for combat.

Most of the time when you use foot sweep, you will need a pulling force. When your opponent has leg crossing, your foot sweep don't even need pulling.

It hardly needs the sweep.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes and no ...

I do believe that the teaching process should be a two-way dialogue, where the student is actively questioning, experimenting with, trying to understand, and even challenging what the teacher is showing.

I also understand that many teachers don't encourage or actively discourage that sort of interaction. If I, as a teacher, have my students training drills which are significantly removed from actual applications, and where the true purpose of the drill is not intuitively obvious, but do not point my students towards the actual point of the drill or encourage them to ask about it, then blame them for not being clever or "dedicated" enough to figure it out on their own - then I'm just being a bad teacher.

If I then raise up a crop of students who have been taught to unquestioningly perform the drills and exercises by rote without understanding of their purpose and application, award some of them instructor rank, and send them out to continue the cycle - then I have no-one but myself to blame for the degradation of the art.

Agreed. And I think that has happened a lot. in the hyper-hierarchical world of TMA, often it is expected that the student simply follows instruction and learns the lesson later. This has even become a stereotype (we see it in the Kung Fu series, the Karate Kid, and a bunch of other pop culture sources). That unquestioning following doesn't build thinking students, and weakens the instructor. I think some of it comes from instructors not being willing to say "I don't know", or even "you know, that's a better thought than I had".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Again I agree

I know what you mean about some teachers do not like questions ....but even then the student should still be able to if they are studying the art differentiate between a drill and what is actually used per se

I think many teachers use training/teaching approaches that guide students into non-thinking. We are programmable, to an extent, and if we are given answers and not rewarded for questions, many of us stop asking them, even internally.

 

[now disabled]

I might have to give that book a look someday. I'd be interested in seeing some of those contradictions.

If you look at the part where he talks about shomenuchi and doing Ikkyo he actually says nage should instigate and even where to deliver atemi lol