Why I decided to come up with my own martial arts concept...
- Thread starter fenglong
- Start date
OP
OP
fenglong
Green Belt
@Bill Mattocks
I agree there is a lot of BS being sold as something it is not, but then again, its often their own fault when people fall for this scam. Also, people have always come up with own ideas in MA, most may not have worked, some have, obviously, as it was people who created the thousands of MA across the world, not .. erm... god?
Anyway, how about some productive feedback instead of this loop of questioning my legitimation to create a style?
What about my critics on straight attacks? From my experience those moves are so inefficient, pushing all this force into a straight attack just to have your joints and muscles intercept it with even more force.
I guess most disagree with me... any info sources that disprove my theory? Or does anyone actually know of some art that offers alternatives?
I agree there is a lot of BS being sold as something it is not, but then again, its often their own fault when people fall for this scam. Also, people have always come up with own ideas in MA, most may not have worked, some have, obviously, as it was people who created the thousands of MA across the world, not .. erm... god?
Anyway, how about some productive feedback instead of this loop of questioning my legitimation to create a style?
What about my critics on straight attacks? From my experience those moves are so inefficient, pushing all this force into a straight attack just to have your joints and muscles intercept it with even more force.
I guess most disagree with me... any info sources that disprove my theory? Or does anyone actually know of some art that offers alternatives?
I don't think it's fair to say that these (extraordinarily talented) individual created any new arts. Each already had extensive training, and though they modified what they were taught, don't you think their roots still show?
Because straight attacks tend to be very fast, can be very non-telegraphic if done correctly, and if well aimed the opponent's body should be stopping the force, not the deliverer. Over training in the air is a problem, when training for power the body should have resistance.
So, let me ask, lets take a look at a lead boxing style jab, that tends to be very linear punch. If this action is so inefficient, can you offer something that does the same job at the same range for less energy?
Would personal experience training with multiple systems that use both linear and circular attacking motions count (which quite frankly is just about every art)?
mook jong man
Senior Master
Somebody once asked Sigung Tsui Seung Tin why we mainly just use the centreline punch or the palm strike .
He basically said " That's all you really need " and no one had ever been able to block his palm strike or his punch.
This is due to two main reasons , the man doesn't telegraph one iota and secondly he is just so damned relaxed and fast.
Mind you , the man's been training since about 1952.
In the context of close range combat where Wing Chun operates , linear strikes combined with wrist latching work extremely well , but if it is expedient to do so we will also use the uppercut from Chum Kiu or the Hook Punch from Biu Gee.
It depends on the situation , if your shielding your face with your arms I'm not going to use "Continuous Punch" and batter your forearms like an idiot , I'm going to latch your arms down as I pivot and hook punch you in the head , Why ? , because it is more efficient to do so.
He basically said " That's all you really need " and no one had ever been able to block his palm strike or his punch.
This is due to two main reasons , the man doesn't telegraph one iota and secondly he is just so damned relaxed and fast.
Mind you , the man's been training since about 1952.
In the context of close range combat where Wing Chun operates , linear strikes combined with wrist latching work extremely well , but if it is expedient to do so we will also use the uppercut from Chum Kiu or the Hook Punch from Biu Gee.
It depends on the situation , if your shielding your face with your arms I'm not going to use "Continuous Punch" and batter your forearms like an idiot , I'm going to latch your arms down as I pivot and hook punch you in the head , Why ? , because it is more efficient to do so.
Noah_Legel
Blue Belt
So, it sounds like you've been training for about twice as long as I have (you mentioned that you've been training for 10+ years) but I have to disagree with you.
In the time that I have been training I have gotten much faster, not slower. I have learned a lot of simple techniques, and many of them can be incorporated to the more complicated techniques I have learned and the more I work the complicated ones the easier and more natural they become. Training methods can be antiquated or rely on falsehoods, yes, but that is where doing your own research helps your training. I ask my instructor questions, so I don't know where that idea came from. As for two kinds of people training, that is kind of insulting to everybody who isn't a "brawler" or "new-age disciple" and I would guess that MOST martial artists nowadays do not fall into either of these categories. I also see that you are trying to say that circular strikes are more efficient and effective than linear strikes, which is about as logical as saying that a hammer is more efficient and effective than a screwdriver--they are both very useful in certain circumstances, and they are only as efficient as the person using them.
Now, I find that the longer I train, the less I care about styles and categories because I feel like I am constantly adapting and modifying what I do into my own personal "style" based on everything I learn, whether I learn it as part of my base style or not. Due to that, I don't really have much of a problem with people teaching their own personal styles. That said, if you are going to go out and create your own style and start teaching it to people, you better not lie about it and you had better pressure test it, otherwise you will deserve all of the criticism you receive and any business you lose by being busted. If you go out there and start claiming soke/grandmaster/10th-dan/etc. and saying that you are the founder of Your-own-ryu without admitting openly and honestly the amount of time you have been training, what you have trained in, with whom and what ranks you earned then you are being deceitful. If you tell people that your art is more efficient and effective than any other art but you never spar, never work against resisting opponents and never hit people or get hit then you are being deceitful.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
That is because you do not understand stances in kung fu. You need more instruction, more practice, and quite probably, a better and more knowledgeable teacher.
You doubt stances in kung fu, yet you feel you need to create your own system? You do not understand the very basic fundamentals yet. You have nothing with which to build something new. That's why nothing seems to work for you.
Cyriacus
Senior Master
Just My Contribution.
You mean like a Straight Punch?
More Power. Power = Good.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Oh dear lord....
Because they have no understanding of what it actually means, yet for some reason think that they know "better". Best case in point? Right here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?94605-My-own-MA
Because they have no understanding of what it actually means, yet for some reason think that they know "better". Best case in point? Right here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?94605-My-own-MA
I guess I feel like I am not good enough to create my own style. I have a hard enough time trying to learn my present styles. Maybe when I feel like I can no longer get anything more out of my present styles, I will create my own style, but I don't think that will be happening anytime soon. Plus, I am not that creative, and it is easier for me to simply slog through and continue in someone else's style than to try and come up with something on my own.
I would say "arrogance" rather than "conceit". An arrogant person can back up his big talk. A conceited person can't.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Which, based on the posts of the OP, would put it more in Jenna's choice of word....
The problem with responding to this is all the points are sooo vague.
Point by point:
Combat and fitness training always resulted in a stronger but slower body.
What kind of combat training? What kind of fitness training? The human body just doesn't vary enough that the experiences for you would be incredibly different from others. The ability to move one's body quickly depends on a certain kind of strength. The ability to move weight depends on a different kind of strength. So the way you do combat and fitness training is immensely important. It requires some knowledge of how the body works and what gains strength, flexibility, and speed.
... or the instruction of someone who does have this knowledge, and knows how to teach others to do it.
Techniques often are complicated and not flexible, nor natural.
Techniques being complicated... well I can agree with you, depending on the technique. But at the same time, complicated is not necessarily bad. And being able to employ a technique in a stressful situation is heavily dependent on how well and in what way the technique is practiced.
As far as natural... well, nothing is natural when first learned. But the term itself is pretty subjective. "Natural" could mean, "within the normal range of human ability, not requiring supernatural ability". It could mean "easily able to pull off", or it could mean "comfortable for the practitioner"
All of these are heavily dependent on the body type, fitness level, and experience of the practitioner.
Training methods often relate to antiquated or unrelated knowledge.
Which ones? Which knowledge? This is WAAAYYY to broad to even really address it.
You are not supposed to question the teachings or even the teacher/master.
That varies from style to style, and teacher to teacher. Even lesson to lesson.
There mainly seem to be 2 kinds of people training, brawlers and new-age disciples.
I ran a martial arts studio for a couple years, and I would disagree based on that experience and many other experiences I've had. This, in my experience, describes the outliers, not the vast majority of people.
Meh. I'll reserve judgement on that. Nothing is lost but time by reading what he writes. I'm on an online martial arts forum. Can I honestly say I'm worried about that? LOL
That is actually a very refreshing perspective Glenn, I applaud you for it. I remember the old Dirty Harry quote, "A mans got to know his limitations". Very well spoken sir.
Exactly.
And but at some point we have to create demarcations between what is a continuation / adulteration of one art or conflation of many and what is such a radical new way of thinking (irrespective of how many facets of its progenitor it inherits) that it can only be seen as a new art, yes?
The pedant might recite a truism that there are no new arts, only plagiarisms. I would rather not be pedantic.
Indeed. That reminds me of Mohammad Ali's line - it was something to the effect of.. "It is not bragging if you can back it up." An athlete like Ali in his day could carry off the initiation of a new "Ali Style" of boxing had he so chosen. Ifonically I would say that for all his bluster he always acted supremely modestly in his own manner. Regardless, if I had my way I would restrict architects of new fighting arts to practitioners of Ali's level of competence. Unfortunately all and sundry are free to peddle their snake oils in martial arts as anywhere else. Well, it worked for William Rockefeller. I guess that proves that if there are enough dupes it is possible to make a success of anything. Now, please excuse me, I must continue working on my martial doctrine.
Again, we need to examine the root cause of a change. Is it ego? Is it arrogance? Does a specific need exist? Is it something truly new or does it have a foundation along with modifications? If an art is studied, and truly understood and then at some point something new is learned (talking about a specific technique for example) that would serve the student base better, would it not be for the betterment of the art to replace a specific with something that works better?
To answer that question, we would also need to look at the actual experience of the person 'developing' the art in question. Is their training based upon experience, theory or a combination? Looking at a simplistic example, lets say an art has 50 methods of locking. Lets go further and say that many/most/all of the instructors of this art learned the locks very well but yet never actually used any of them on a violent, resisting attacker i.e. there was never a legitimate acid test. Now lets say that a student comes along with a plethora of actual/practical/tactical experience. Maybe he/she is military, police, corrections, professional bouncer i.e. they have an actual need to use the art often. Lets say this student trains to a high level of proficiency. Now lets say that some/many of the locks learned really don't work very well outside of the dojo/dojang. This does happen. He/she learns some/many locks that he/she can actually use in their vocation with a high % of success, more so than that which was learned previously. Is it not therefore prudent to alter the curriculum accordingly to that which works better?
Just a thought to consider along with the OP.
To answer that question, we would also need to look at the actual experience of the person 'developing' the art in question. Is their training based upon experience, theory or a combination? Looking at a simplistic example, lets say an art has 50 methods of locking. Lets go further and say that many/most/all of the instructors of this art learned the locks very well but yet never actually used any of them on a violent, resisting attacker i.e. there was never a legitimate acid test. Now lets say that a student comes along with a plethora of actual/practical/tactical experience. Maybe he/she is military, police, corrections, professional bouncer i.e. they have an actual need to use the art often. Lets say this student trains to a high level of proficiency. Now lets say that some/many of the locks learned really don't work very well outside of the dojo/dojang. This does happen. He/she learns some/many locks that he/she can actually use in their vocation with a high % of success, more so than that which was learned previously. Is it not therefore prudent to alter the curriculum accordingly to that which works better?
Just a thought to consider along with the OP.
Aiki Lee
Master of Arts
I numbered your posts Bill so I could respond to them better. I like what you wrote, I just want to add my 2 cents.
1. I think seeing people who are unqualified to teach anything, especially something they've made up or pieced together from a few years of dabbling is the most frustrating thing to any serious practitioner of the martial arts. I personally know a guy who started teaching his own made up system and his highest rank was a green belt in the martial art I train in. The man does not understand what makes a martial art a martial art.
2. I think this is a good attitude to have, but I believe you could attain mastery if you set your mind to it, and lived long enough. You could definitely be there by age 80!
Teaching has never been synonymous with proficiency. Sometimes you teach because, well, someone has to, and sometimes its ones ego pushing.
I know of Hachidans well into their 80’s who consider themselves students, and they’ve been training for 70 years. If you ever get to the point where you consider yourself an expert at anything, you’ve either missed something, or you’re omnipotent.
I know of Hachidans well into their 80’s who consider themselves students, and they’ve been training for 70 years. If you ever get to the point where you consider yourself an expert at anything, you’ve either missed something, or you’re omnipotent.
Similar threads
