Falling Leaf Blocking System

[jks9199]

The new system is never tested by anyone, not even the creator of the system. But the reality of the modern age allows it to be perpetuated.

Too many people don't realize that the combative base of an art often depends on the most basic techniques and foundation skills. So they yank something out or string stuff together in a way that makes sense to them but ignores the realities of violent encounters... then people winder why so-called "traditional arts" don't work, or only work in one style of tournament...

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[punisher73]

I can certainly understand what you are saying here, however, I would like to suggest that it is POSSIBLE to do this however the probability for success is probably very small for the average practitioner. As it has been said on this board by many different people, there are not too many ways to punch and kick someone. Most martial arts have been influenced by other martial arts throughout history. There is a very high probability that many people have tried to combine elements from one style or system with another with varying degrees of success. In the instances where people were successful in incorporating these elements, new styles were born. If there were or are enough people that recognize some value to what they are being taught, then the style will be perpetuated.

In summary, I think you are probably correct when you say that mixing material from Chinese methods like this is going to get you garbage but I would add for the typical or average student. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there is or will be someone that will one day be successful at combining these elements to for a new system that will be able to operate with these different foundations perhaps not all at once but in some fashion that will give birth to a new Mantis, Snake, Hung Gar system.

Perhaps that is the optimist in me to think that everything is possible given the proper time, energy and effort mixed with the ability of humans to continuously evolve. Before man landed on the moon, how many people could think of a way to accomplish that ?

In the successful attempts, what happens is that the tactics from one system are taken and applied to the new system and the body mechanics and foundation are applied to the main system. You aren't mixing the differing methods together as much as the ideas. This allows you to have one coherent method of application that should be used and make the art homogeneous in its execution.

For example, Jow Gar combined Hung Gar, Choy Gar and Northern Shaolin into a unique approach but the systems each had elements that lent themselves to the successful combination by complementing each other. Those three are all a system that uses longer distance techniques in its striking approach and also stances that support body mechanics.

Another example is Isshin-Ryu. Tatsuo Shimabuku utilized the upper body techniques and kata strategies of Shorin-Ryu with the lower body stances and mechanics of Goju-Ryu and altered the upper body techniques to fit in with the close range distancing of Goju-Ryu (along with some other ideas and concepts about fighting from Motobu).

A student CAN create their own, but the amount of fighting experience and dedication to training is usually lacking in many modern students.

 

[Yokozuna514]

In the successful attempts, what happens is that the tactics from one system are taken and applied to the new system and the body mechanics and foundation are applied to the main system. You aren't mixing the differing methods together as much as the ideas. This allows you to have one coherent method of application that should be used and make the art homogeneous in its execution.

For example, Jow Gar combined Hung Gar, Choy Gar and Northern Shaolin into a unique approach but the systems each had elements that lent themselves to the successful combination by complementing each other. Those three are all a system that uses longer distance techniques in its striking approach and also stances that support body mechanics.

Another example is Isshin-Ryu. Tatsuo Shimabuku utilized the upper body techniques and kata strategies of Shorin-Ryu with the lower body stances and mechanics of Goju-Ryu and altered the upper body techniques to fit in with the close range distancing of Goju-Ryu (along with some other ideas and concepts about fighting from Motobu).

A student CAN create their own, but the amount of fighting experience and dedication to training is usually lacking in many modern students.

I think we are saying the same thing using different words ? It is possible and it can happen but the likelihood of success is not great if you consider the population at large throughout history.

 

[Flying Crane]

Another thought on this whole mixing issue.

It is entirely possible that some unintentional camouflage takes place.

Someone could have some solid training and real skill, and then develops something that is essentially garbage. His training could be excellent, and he may have a depth of experience that actually makes him very capable. Then when he develops something new that is garbage, the fact that it is garbage is masked by the fellow’s genuine skill.

The fact that his new invention that is garbage is now part of his system causes people to assume that his new invention has value.

I wonder about this when people say that they trained in several different systems and then distilled the best techniques and methods from those systems and created a new, streamlined system that does not waste time with the stuff that “does not work”.

Can a new student also develop real skill through the new streamlined method? Or does the instructor have skill because he took the time to learn each parent system properly? His shortcut method may be useless, without going through all that training in the original systems.

Sometimes it seems like a gifted and innovative person who creates a new method by combining elements of other systems can be amazingly skilled, but every generation downstream of that person is less skilled than the prior generation.

I think there are no shortcuts.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Another thought on this whole mixing issue.

It is entirely possible that some unintentional camouflage takes place.

Someone could have some solid training and real skill, and then develops something that is essentially garbage. His training could be excellent, and he may have a depth of experience that actually makes him very capable. Then when he develops something new that is garbage, the fact that it is garbage is masked by the fellow’s genuine skill.

The fact that his new invention that is garbage is now part of his system causes people to assume that his new invention has value.

I wonder about this when people say that they trained in several different systems and then distilled the best techniques and methods from those systems and created a new, streamlined system that does not waste time with the stuff that “does not work”.

Can a new student also develop real skill through the new streamlined method? Or does the instructor have skill because he took the time to learn each parent system properly? His shortcut method may be useless, without going through all that training in the original systems.

Sometimes it seems like a gifted and innovative person who creates a new method by combining elements of other systems can be amazingly skilled, but every generation downstream of that person is less skilled than the prior generation.

I think there are no shortcuts.

I would suggest that the opposite is also possible. I could train 10-15 years in 5 different systems, and create a 'streamlined' style out of it. To people that practice each style, it would probably look ridiculous and ineffective. But, I may have discovered a new foundation for my system, be that a new form of power or speed generation, or a new philosophy, or whatever, that I discovered by training in the different systems. Since you, as an outsider only knowing one of the systems, don't recognize this new foundation, it looks like a bunch of nonsense with no connecting principle. But the second you learned what the connecting principle, it could all make sense.

As someone who trained in villari kempo, I'm not suggesting that's what's happened here (although a lot of the connections between styles do make sense once you learn the system...I can't speak to the form I posted since I never learned it), but it is entirely possible that this happens.

 

[Flying Crane]

I would suggest that the opposite is also possible. I could train 10-15 years in 5 different systems, and create a 'streamlined' style out of it. To people that practice each style, it would probably look ridiculous and ineffective. But, I may have discovered a new foundation for my system, be that a new form of power or speed generation, or a new philosophy, or whatever, that I discovered by training in the different systems. Since you, as an outsider only knowing one of the systems, don't recognize this new foundation, it looks like a bunch of nonsense with no connecting principle. But the second you learned what the connecting principle, it could all make sense.

As someone who trained in villari kempo, I'm not suggesting that's what's happened here (although a lot of the connections between styles do make sense once you learn the system...I can't speak to the form I posted since I never learned it), but it is entirely possible that this happens.

Yes, it is possible, certainly.

I think what makes it less likely is the fact that often the parent methods have differing foundations, to the point where they may not be compatible to mix them. There may not be a connecting foundation that works for all of the components. When you then need to switch up the foundation methods in the middle of the system or the form, or from one technique to the next, you’ve got a real problem with inconsistency.

There are five-animal systems, and five-animal forms within larger systems. I will just say that I believe these are different from what we are discussing here. In my opinion, those are different interpretations of those animals that are put together like that, and are not the same as the comprehensive animal systems like Fukien crane or Tibetan crane or 7 Star mantis or fu jow (tiger), that exist as complete systems. The crane that is found within a five-animal form, for example, is not pieces of Tibetan crane.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I could train 10-15 years in 5 different systems, and create a 'streamlined' style out of it. To people that practice each style, it would probably look ridiculous and ineffective. But, I may have discovered a new foundation for my system,

Agree with you 100% on this.

Before I had cross trained the WC system, I always block a punch in a 90 degree angle, left to right, right to left, .... After I had cross trained the WC system, I liked to block a punch by extending my arm outward (as if water flow out from my shoulder all the way to my finger tips). This new concept doesn't exist in my primary long fist system. If I didn't cross train WC, I might never be able to figure this out by my self. Since then all my blocking become a "giant drill machine" that I intend to drill a hole between my opponent's arms (separate his arms away from his head). My rhino guard strategy was born.

 

[jks9199]

I would suggest that the opposite is also possible. I could train 10-15 years in 5 different systems, and create a 'streamlined' style out of it. To people that practice each style, it would probably look ridiculous and ineffective. But, I may have discovered a new foundation for my system, be that a new form of power or speed generation, or a new philosophy, or whatever, that I discovered by training in the different systems. Since you, as an outsider only knowing one of the systems, don't recognize this new foundation, it looks like a bunch of nonsense with no connecting principle. But the second you learned what the connecting principle, it could all make sense.

As someone who trained in villari kempo, I'm not suggesting that's what's happened here (although a lot of the connections between styles do make sense once you learn the system...I can't speak to the form I posted since I never learned it), but it is entirely possible that this happens.

If you did find a streamlined core -- I suspect that you would also have to find a set of shared common principles that would be evident throughout, bringing it into a sort of harmony.

 

[Flying Crane]

If you did find a streamlined core -- I suspect that you would also have to find a set of shared common principles that would be evident throughout, bringing it into a sort of harmony.

Yes, and not just common principles, but a common way of expressing those principles. I think a lot of principles are common to different systems, but they get expressed differently through different training methodologies, and that can make the systems incompatible.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think a lot of principles are common to different systems, but they get expressed differently through different training methodologies, and that can make the systems incompatible.

I believe the principles are the same but different systems have different emphasize on.

For example,

- WC punches with 90 degree shoulder:

PRO: Both arms has equal reach.
CON: Can't obtain the maximum reach.

- Long fist punches with 180 degree shoulder:

PRO: Can obtain the maxim reach.
CON: You end with 1 long arm and 1 short arm.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Another thought on this whole mixing issue.

It is entirely possible that some unintentional camouflage takes place.

Someone could have some solid training and real skill, and then develops something that is essentially garbage. His training could be excellent, and he may have a depth of experience that actually makes him very capable. Then when he develops something new that is garbage, the fact that it is garbage is masked by the fellow’s genuine skill.

The fact that his new invention that is garbage is now part of his system causes people to assume that his new invention has value.

I wonder about this when people say that they trained in several different systems and then distilled the best techniques and methods from those systems and created a new, streamlined system that does not waste time with the stuff that “does not work”.

Can a new student also develop real skill through the new streamlined method? Or does the instructor have skill because he took the time to learn each parent system properly? His shortcut method may be useless, without going through all that training in the original systems.

Sometimes it seems like a gifted and innovative person who creates a new method by combining elements of other systems can be amazingly skilled, but every generation downstream of that person is less skilled than the prior generation.

I think there are no shortcuts.

When distilling, I think there's a real risk of not putting in new stuff to fill gaps. Especially if much of what was removed was actually drills disguised as "non-working" techniques. If you take those out (and do nothing else), you remove part of how the system's principles were communicated/learned. In some cases (maybe even all cases), a simpler and more straightforward exercise could replace each of those parts, but just removing things is likely to cause a gap for at least a generation or two of students.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes, it is possible, certainly.

I think what makes it less likely is the fact that often the parent methods have differing foundations, to the point where they may not be compatible to mix them. There may not be a connecting foundation that works for all of the components. When you then need to switch up the foundation methods in the middle of the system or the form, or from one technique to the next, you’ve got a real problem with inconsistency.

There are five-animal systems, and five-animal forms within larger systems. I will just say that I believe these are different from what we are discussing here. In my opinion, those are different interpretations of those animals that are put together like that, and are not the same as the comprehensive animal systems like Fukien crane or Tibetan crane or 7 Star mantis or fu jow (tiger), that exist as complete systems. The crane that is found within a five-animal form, for example, is not pieces of Tibetan crane.

This is what I was talking about before. So, let's say I take a movement I see in Ueshiba's Aikido, something I see some real promise in, but is different from what I've learned in NGA and Judo. I experiment a bit with it, and find it works nicely by using the principles I know. I include it in a video on YouTube, and someone who really understands Ueshiba's Aikido principles looks at it. They say, "Well, that lacks all the fundamentals that make it work." And they're right, in a way; it lacks all the Aikido fundamentals that make it work in their system. But I've applied a different set of fundamentals that happen to work with those movements, and those make it work, too. But it's not really the same as it was in Aikido, at all.

 

[jks9199]

This is what I was talking about before. So, let's say I take a movement I see in Ueshiba's Aikido, something I see some real promise in, but is different from what I've learned in NGA and Judo. I experiment a bit with it, and find it works nicely by using the principles I know. I include it in a video on YouTube, and someone who really understands Ueshiba's Aikido principles looks at it. They say, "Well, that lacks all the fundamentals that make it work." And they're right, in a way; it lacks all the Aikido fundamentals that make it work in their system. But I've applied a different set of fundamentals that happen to work with those movements, and those make it work, too. But it's not really the same as it was in Aikido, at all.

I think tnat taking an idea from a style, applying and tweaking it to fit with your principles is a little different. I also think that, if it works in the same application or way, it would have to have many of the same principles, or something recognizably related. Change them enough, and it will no longer be the same.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think tnat taking an idea from a style, applying and tweaking it to fit with your principles is a little different. I also think that, if it works in the same application or way, it would have to have many of the same principles, or something recognizably related. Change them enough, and it will no longer be the same.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Agreed. I think this is what happens in a lot of combining. One system becomes the primary base, and most (though not all) of the new system's principles come from that source. Techniques from other sources may or may not have to be adapted to fit with that foundation.