OP
RyuShiKan
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #41
I would like to know why a few people seem to think there is a need to invent a new martial art.
The answer is in the top of my other post. Its about the ranges.
if you answer my questions objectively you will have the answer.
OK. Here's something to consider.
Each person is different. Therefore, each person's expression of the material in a system will be different. That's true even within very rigid systems when students have no other training.
Now, when someone goes out and trains in other arts. And, by "trains," I mean they really study them, not just attend a few seminars. When they do this, their personal art will change.
They may still be able to isolate all the elements, but within themselves, there will be (and should be) no delineation. It should become a cohesive whole.
If they start teaching and don't make a conscious effort to separate the material, then are they really teaching either system?
You train in A and B. They become enmeshed in your own body and understanding. When you move, the blend is what comes out and there's nothing you can do about it. When you start teaching, you teach them separately as A and B. But, gradually, you will be teaching A with some influence from B and B with some influence from A.
At what point do you draw the line? Is it respectful to A and B (and your instructors in those systems) to continue teaching these hybrids and call them A and B? Over time (through conscious decision, or natural progression) you're almost bound to start teaching how the two actually tie together. Now, not only are A and B blended in you personally, they're becoming blended in your students.
At what point is it "proper" to say, "You know what ... I'm not really doing service to A or B this way. I need to develop a curriculum that draws from the strengths of both." Now, do you call it AB? Do you call it BA? Do you call it C? How do you show proper respect to your roots and instructors while also expressing your own self honestly?
As for filling a "niche" ... pretty much impossible. Especially in today's global community. But I'm not really sure it's necessary.
Each person's background and experiences are completely unique to that individual. Consequently, their perspective and interpretation is completely unique because it's based on that background and experience.
If the material is valid and it's laid out in a cohesive progression, then the system is valid. If it's valid then it's worth sharing. If it's a valid system then, what you name it is kind of inconsequential unless you insult someone else (i.e.: blending boxing and jujitsu and calling it "bo-jitsu" -- which I've heard done -- is somewhat insulting to the practitioners of "Bojitsu," the art of the Bo staff).
So, in summary, each person will naturally develop his/her own style (personal expression). As he/she continues to train, that personal style will continue to evolve and may, depending on the individual, become something very unlike the original source(s). So, at what point does it become disrespectful to still call it by the name of the original source(s)?
And, as I said before, if you think about it, every martial art that you've ever heard of was, at one point, a new system created by someone.
I would imagine that every system that's ever been developed has undergone ridicule from members of the established systems in the region.
Mike
Each person is different. Therefore, each person's expression of the material in a system will be different. That's true even within very rigid systems when students have no other training.
Now, when someone goes out and trains in other arts. And, by "trains," I mean they really study them, not just attend a few seminars. When they do this, their personal art will change.
They may still be able to isolate all the elements, but within themselves, there will be (and should be) no delineation. It should become a cohesive whole.
If they start teaching and don't make a conscious effort to separate the material, then are they really teaching either system?
You train in A and B. They become enmeshed in your own body and understanding. When you move, the blend is what comes out and there's nothing you can do about it. When you start teaching, you teach them separately as A and B. But, gradually, you will be teaching A with some influence from B and B with some influence from A.
At what point do you draw the line? Is it respectful to A and B (and your instructors in those systems) to continue teaching these hybrids and call them A and B? Over time (through conscious decision, or natural progression) you're almost bound to start teaching how the two actually tie together. Now, not only are A and B blended in you personally, they're becoming blended in your students.
At what point is it "proper" to say, "You know what ... I'm not really doing service to A or B this way. I need to develop a curriculum that draws from the strengths of both." Now, do you call it AB? Do you call it BA? Do you call it C? How do you show proper respect to your roots and instructors while also expressing your own self honestly?
As for filling a "niche" ... pretty much impossible. Especially in today's global community. But I'm not really sure it's necessary.
Each person's background and experiences are completely unique to that individual. Consequently, their perspective and interpretation is completely unique because it's based on that background and experience.
If the material is valid and it's laid out in a cohesive progression, then the system is valid. If it's valid then it's worth sharing. If it's a valid system then, what you name it is kind of inconsequential unless you insult someone else (i.e.: blending boxing and jujitsu and calling it "bo-jitsu" -- which I've heard done -- is somewhat insulting to the practitioners of "Bojitsu," the art of the Bo staff).
So, in summary, each person will naturally develop his/her own style (personal expression). As he/she continues to train, that personal style will continue to evolve and may, depending on the individual, become something very unlike the original source(s). So, at what point does it become disrespectful to still call it by the name of the original source(s)?
And, as I said before, if you think about it, every martial art that you've ever heard of was, at one point, a new system created by someone.
I would imagine that every system that's ever been developed has undergone ridicule from members of the established systems in the region.
Mike
OP
chufeng
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #44
In your post lies the answer...
Too many people do NOT explore their art deeply enough to look at a variety of ranges...
But, you don't need a new art...you need to go deeper into the art you practice.
Many techniques can be found in the simplest movements in forms...most people look at the "bunkai" from a "fighting distance.
That is a place to start, and in fact, it was taught that way to the newer people in the art on purpose...the juicy stuff was saved for the serious student...but just like you had to learn the alphabet before spelling, and spelling before writing a sentence, and writing a sentence before short essays...there had to be a place to start...
Once the movement of a form is hard wired into your nervous system...and once you applied the techniques of obvious "bunkai" thousands of times, you learned a pattern of movement...that pattern is what you then use to learn the deeper levels of your art...now apply the pattern to an attack from the rear...now apply it from the side...now apply it at weapons distance...now in your face...
YES, the old arts DO teach ALL ranges of fighting...but it takes many years to SEE that...too many people leave before they have drunk deeply enough from the well of understanding...too many people have promoted people prematurely, for money, and given the newly promoted the right to teach something of which they really know nothing...THAT is why MANY schools do NOT understand WHAT they are teaching...that is why you feel you need to reinvent something that has been in front of you all of this time...
IMHO
:asian:
chufeng
Amen!
However, while this sometimes has something to do with people creating their own system, I think there are valid reasons for creating one (see my previous post).
One thing that is most certainly not a valid reason is ego. And the situation describe is egotistical.
Mike
OP
chufeng
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #46
Pesilat,
I believe I agreed on your other post...
YiLiQuan is only 21 years old...it is derived, mostly, from BaiXingQuan, a Northern Shaolin system with over 400 years of history...
BaiXing had evolved over several years and actually had 72 open hand sets in it...Many of the hand sets repeated the same idea but changed a hand shape (say Phoenix Eye in one set and Sun-fist punch in another) so many of the forms were repetitious.
No one can really master more than probably three forms in a lifetime...so WHY 72???
Sifu Starr kept all fo the information from the 72 forms but cut away the repetition when he developed YiLiQuan...
...and the idea of including short forms that demonstrated a specific strategy was added...we now have a system that is much easier to learn...and each of the instructors will probably add a little here and there...and as time passes, the system may becoma as cumbersome as BaiXing was...then it will be time for another "pruning."
Sifu didn't "throw out what was not useful," because he kept all of the elements...but he streamlined it to better fit his students' needs.
Was there a shakeup when he did it?
Hell yes...he lost a good number of students...
He was criticized by many...
But, he put it out for public scrutiny in tournaments all over the United States (and even Canada)...
It has stood up, in its short history, against all challenges.
He and his art have been accepted in the Chinese boxing communities of many of the "closed" systems...but that's another story...
As another example...in the old days of Karate, one would learn one form for a long time and then maybe one or two more...that's it.
The idea of passing on ALL of the forms occurred fairly recently...
The worry was that some information would be lost.
So now we see practitioners who can do a lot of forms, but don't really understand what it is they are doing...there is a breadth of knowledge but no depth...
Hence, the question posed by RyuShiKan, WHY do we need more than we already have when we don't even understand what's in front of us?
:asian:
chufeng
I believe I agreed on your other post...
YiLiQuan is only 21 years old...it is derived, mostly, from BaiXingQuan, a Northern Shaolin system with over 400 years of history...
BaiXing had evolved over several years and actually had 72 open hand sets in it...Many of the hand sets repeated the same idea but changed a hand shape (say Phoenix Eye in one set and Sun-fist punch in another) so many of the forms were repetitious.
No one can really master more than probably three forms in a lifetime...so WHY 72???
Sifu Starr kept all fo the information from the 72 forms but cut away the repetition when he developed YiLiQuan...
...and the idea of including short forms that demonstrated a specific strategy was added...we now have a system that is much easier to learn...and each of the instructors will probably add a little here and there...and as time passes, the system may becoma as cumbersome as BaiXing was...then it will be time for another "pruning."
Sifu didn't "throw out what was not useful," because he kept all of the elements...but he streamlined it to better fit his students' needs.
Was there a shakeup when he did it?
Hell yes...he lost a good number of students...
He was criticized by many...
But, he put it out for public scrutiny in tournaments all over the United States (and even Canada)...
It has stood up, in its short history, against all challenges.
He and his art have been accepted in the Chinese boxing communities of many of the "closed" systems...but that's another story...
As another example...in the old days of Karate, one would learn one form for a long time and then maybe one or two more...that's it.
The idea of passing on ALL of the forms occurred fairly recently...
The worry was that some information would be lost.
So now we see practitioners who can do a lot of forms, but don't really understand what it is they are doing...there is a breadth of knowledge but no depth...
Hence, the question posed by RyuShiKan, WHY do we need more than we already have when we don't even understand what's in front of us?
:asian:
chufeng
In my estimation, one good reason to keep them is because different forms may suit different students better or worse. You may only master a few of them, but your students may master a different few depending on their tastes and attributes. But that's a tangential subject to the topic at hand
There will always be more to learn. We can always dig deeper. But by doing so, we learn more about ourselves and our personal expression will change even more. Then we're back to "When does it move so far away from your instructor's style that it becomes your style? And when should that change be recognized?"Whether it's done within a single system or by cross-training, this is possible.
Innovation is the catalyst of progress. Is every system created good? No. Is every system created worthwhile? No. And when they aren't they either die out or they get really well marketed and succeed as businesses but are looked down on by other arts.
The problem I have is when people just dismiss them out of hand because they're new.
Personally, when I hear about a new system, I think, "Cool. I'll have to go check it out." My junk-o-meter may go off, but I reserve judgment until I actually see what they have to offer. If it's a valid system then I'll respect it and them.
Case in point: Shen Chuan
In 1998, I had to go to Nacogdoches, Texas for work. I was going to be down there for a week. When I traveled for work, I always tried to find people to train with. I got online and couldn't find anything except TKD in Nacogdoches. I would have settled for TKD because, at least, it would have been a workout. But I prefer to study Kali or Silat or, failing that, something I've not been exposed to previously.
I asked around online and a guy in Houston said, "There's a guy in Nacogdoches named Joe Lansdale. I don't know him, but my instructor thinks pretty highly of him. Here's his website." - http://www.joerlansdale.com/shenchuan
If you visit the site, you'll see the same thing I saw. I read, "This is the system designed for self-defense" and I thought, "OK. I've heard that before." Then I looked at the bios of their instructors. All kinds of alarm bells went off. I though, "OK. There's a high probability that these guys are either scam artists or paper tigers."
But, unlike TKD, it wasn't something I'd seen before so I decided to check it out. I called the school and talked to Professor Lansdale. I explained who I was and a little of my background and asked if I could visit and train while I was there for work. He said, "Of course you can. Come on down. We'll have a good old time!"
So, I went and checked it out. On Monday night they had a Combat Hapkido class and an "Aikibujutsu" class. The Combat Hapkido was interesting, but didn't hold much appeal for me. The Aikibujutsu itself didn't hold much appeal for me, but Shihan Coy, the instructor, was very good. They use the term "Aikibujutsu" because, between them, the instructors have rank in a couple of Aikido and Aikijujitsu systems. Rather than use a specific system name, they just used the generic term and taught the principles the various systems had in common.
I was very impressed with Coy's ability to do and to teach. And I was very impressed with Professor Lansdale's down-to-earth attitude and everyone was very cool to me -- which, unfortunately, isn't always the case when an experienced outsider visits a school.
While the material I'd seen didn't really appeal to me, I went back on Tuesday to check out what was taught that night. The first class was called "Stickboxing." It's rooted in FMA, but not a pure FMA system. The instructor, Eugene, had trained to a brown belt level in Modern Arnis and then his instructor moved away. The instructor gave Eugene permission to teach the material he had. Eugene then applied the Shen Chuan principles to the stickwork that he had and the system is very good. But it would have been disrespectful and misleading to claim it was a "Filipino martial art" so they just call it "Stickboxing."
Then I went to the Shen Chuan class taught by Prof. Lansdale. I was very impressed. The man is very good. The material is very good. It's a very solid system. It was developed by Prof. Lansdale.
In 2000, I went down and taught at an annual seminar the Prof. Lansdale has. In 2001, I moved down there to train in Shen Chuan and to teach. It was a very rewarding experience in a lot of ways.
Had I dismissed it out of hand because it was a "new system," I'd have missed out on some really good training and some really good friendships.
Mike
I understand your point but your assuming that training from kata will hold up in the modern world martial arts and modern training application of technique. Even if all the instructors were true masters, learning a system from them thats takes to long to master is not efficient! Not in the least bit!
Over 30 years ago Bruce would tell karate instructors that his students would be proficient fighters in 18 months. Whether it was longer than 18 months or less, it does not matter. What matters is he was teaching someone to do what? Fight and be proficient in a matter of time that cant be done from kata! I also question Anyone that believes that they are proficient fighters without fight training. Kata does not fit that bill.
If you think that what you practice in a form is going to work in a real fight, I hope your insurance policy is up to date. Im not saying kata has no use, your just overrating it. Kata is a tool in the toolbox. To a lot of people (modern day martial art fighters) its not even a tool, but thats another thread in itself.
And like I said before, you really need to do the math. 65% standup and 35% groundgrappling. For every hour of training, there is approximately 20 minutes on the ground.
There is no kata bunkai that can teach you like that!
I asked if there were any systems out there that taught like that, but I already new the answer. The only ones are the the ones taught by eclectic martial artist. The ones that truely understand "all ranges." If your system is all ranges, I'll be the first to bow down. I just haven't seen a traditional system that is truely "all ranges." Stating that you need to wait for so many years is not an answer, nor an option!
I really do teach in this fashion! You seem to misunderstand what you are doing as being complete which it isn't! Your to fixed on the technique you think that you will eventually learn. Its not going to happen. All the "years" spent on your bunkai, could have been used on other arts and then maybe your martial art really would be complete.
Hence, the question posed by RyuShiKan, WHY do we need more than we already have when we don't even understand what's in front of us?:asian:
chufeng [/B][/QUOTE]
I just gave it to you!
chufeng [/B][/QUOTE]
I just gave it to you!
OP
chufeng
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #50
Exactly !!!
YOU haven't seen it...but it is out there...
Your whole concept of "practicing for thirty years isn't efficient" IS the problem...anything worthwhile is worth the patience necessary to get to that end result...MOST teachers don't give any one art thirty years...and so we have this proliferation of "sensei" who don't KNOW why this or that particular movement is in a form.
Forms are VERY important in keeping an art alive...the forms are the textbooks from which we pull all of the neat stuff out of.
Do I train ONLY in forms...no...
...ask Yiliquan1...
Drills and freestyle drill are HOW we learn and test our technique.
If all you are interested in is fighting skill, then go spit in somebody's beer...repeat until you get the fighting thing correct.
If all you are interested in is self-defense, then get a permit to carry concealed weapons and spend some time on the range...
If you want to learn a martial art...spend some time with it...
:asian:
chufeng
I'm not opposed to new systems, per se, but I do wonder at what point one is qualified to make changes significant enough to found a new system.
One thing that is most certainly not a valid reason is ego. And the situation describe is egotistical.
Mike [/B][/QUOTE]
Was that aimed at me? I don't understand?
Mike [/B][/QUOTE]
Was that aimed at me? I don't understand?
Absolutely not. I've gathered that you are or have started your own system, but I haven't seen anything about it except the very brief description you gave. As I said previously, I reserve judgment until I see/feel it first hand. I have no idea what your motivations are.
But ... why would you think it was aimed at you?
Mike
OP
chufeng
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #53
The "bunkai" are where all of that 65%/35% stuff actually comes from...do you think that technique and form are separate?
Do you think that if I pull off a "naked strangle" that I divorced myself from form to do it? No...the techniques come directly from the forms...training the "bunkai" CORRECTLY will show you what I mean...again, it seems as though you haven't been exposed to GOOD traditional teaching...I certainly can't fix that over the internet...and I'm sure you'll disagree with me again on this point...but I am in the arts for more spiritual reasons and to get in touch with myself...I don't care who the baddest guy on the block is...
Fighting is fighting...what we do is much more than that...fighting is the lowest level of achievement...so, if that is your yardstick, so be it.
:asian:
chufeng
OP
A.R.K.
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #54
This is actually a rather profound statement. I think you've hit something here. Not the spitting in the beer per say
but there is a difference in a martial 'art' and a defensive or 'fighting' system.For example, LEO's, corrections, EP agents etc don't have the time, luxury or agency dollars to learn an 'art'. Budgets are always limited and many are lucky to attend a 40 hr course. Fortunately a lot can be covered in a 40 hour block for immediate hands on use. Going deep into things takes time that simply is not available in many cases.
Hence the need for 'new' systems perhaps. It fills a niche so to speak that a martial 'art' may not be able to because of training time/budget limitations. This does not invalidate the 'art' portion but helps to explain, to a certain degree, the current trend of new systems perhaps. Same wheel overall, just different spokes and in some regards more expediant job related results.
OK. Going back through the series of posts that led to my statement, I can see how you might have gotten that impression.
My bad. No, it wasn't aimed at you.
It was a general statement about anyone who doesn't dig deep enough to fully appreciate what is in front of them; then they go off and start a new art to fill the imaginary gap that they, in their ignorance, perceive.
If this does apply to you, then it is, in fact, aimed at you. But I'm not in a position to aim anything at you. Only you know why you are creating your own system. As I said before, personally, I reserve judgment until I see/feel it in person. If I ever get the opportunity to meet and work out with you, then I would determine whether I personally thought your system had merit.
Mike
Really, I knew you don't do just forms and it is my goal to preserve the old but also embrace the new.
Over the last week I've been able to do a self evaluation of what I really want for the future of my martial arts. I myself have gone back into the traditional world but it does not fit the bill for what I teach as my system. Just differant.
Things always have a way of working out. I live in No. Ca. and we all know that Dan Inosanto is in So. Ca., I don't know what you think of this man but I've debated for along time on going down there. It is a 6 hour drive, its long but not out of the question.
Also I've questioned myself as to whether my training would hold up in the "his" world. So during this week a new guy started with me who actually knows Dan. Let me state. This guy is not my student. He is advanced and just needs to someone to train with. I beleive he had 10 years of Praying Mantis Kung-Fu and followed that with 6 years of JKD. Anyway he is a student of Dans student and has trained under Dan on occasion.
He opened me up to what I knew would be the right path for me but my Sifu did not walk this path. The end result is I'm going to make that 6 hour drive.
Chufeng, understand there are many ways to do things. Some of us just see things differant. We always will see things differant. And that is why are arts are differant.
And my goal is to make my students better than myself. And I will teach my students how to beat any system that I have learned. I'm not going to send a thug out with some dangerous technique. A thug is going to have a charactor self evaluation of himself before he is taken seriuosly and this he will figure out by himself. Thats something that I keep from the old, but I have to teach it all in a progressive manner that does not take forever.
6 hours or not, you're a lucky bugger to be close enough to visit Guro Dan's school on even a semi-regular basis. I've been to a couple of classes there with him and spent 100+ hours at seminars with him. He's an incredibly well-versed martial artist, an excellent practitioner, and one of the best instructors I've seen.
I'm curious about this statement, though. Was it poor wording, or do you actually think that way? Not trying to attack you, just curious.
Your students won't be fighting the systems that you've learned. They'd be fighting people who train in the systems. But you can't guarantee that any of your students will be able to beat any student of any system all the time.
Mike
I'm curious about this statement, though. Was it poor wording, or do you actually think that way? Not trying to attack you, just curious.
Your students won't be fighting the systems that you've learned. They'd be fighting people who train in the systems. But you can't guarantee that any of your students will be able to beat any student of any system all the time.
Mike
I didn't think so but I've gotten hammered so much, I wouldn't put it past anyone. Your posts are very objective and I can tell you understand quite a bit more than what a lot of people are willing to accept.
The last couple of times that I talked to my Sifu I told him that I was calling my art Bujutsu. He accepted that. It no longer was just Gung-fu, nor could I call it or Karate or Jujitsu or anything else all by itself.
I'm not creating a new system, it created itself. Its a part of me guiding a fighter into his own self as a martial artist.
My Sifu was not only my instructor but also my friend and I hope as things get better to be able to bring him in to teach his system "pure" the way he wants it to be taught.
Yea I feel lucky too. I hope we can go down as a group maybe monthly. We definately plan to go down. From what I've seen of the way he teaches he is the "Master Blender."
Most people have a hard tme undrestanding me, it probably is my wording.
My students will not compare to a BJJ fighter on the ground. But I definately will teach how to beat a grappler by exposing all the weaknesses that I've experienced. The same goes for Gung-Fu and Karate.
All arts have weaknesses and what we practice is what come out in a fight. I'm not going to box a boxer or grapple a grappler. I will use grappling against a grappler but I will take the fight into another range and out of his world. Thats the way I teach.
You have to spend a lot of time fighting from your back or else what I'm saying would be crap. Most peoples weaknesses are in ranges that they don't practice. So practicing all ranges and specializing in a range or ranges that work best for you is a realistic approach to teaching.
I do my best. I've been around the martial arts for a while (longer than some, not as long as others -- about 23 years). I'm relatively young (only 31), but over the years, I've been exposed to a lot of stuff. Some good. Some bad -- OK ... a lot of bad. But I've been surprised enough times to know that it doesn't pay to jump to conclusions. I always try to keep an open mind and remain objective. Especially until I've seen/felt something first hand.
Also, I've been involved in the internet MA discussions for about 10 years. I know that all too well that this medium is a double-edged blade. On the one edge, it presents a great opportunity for people to share and explore beyond the bounds of their physical locale. On the oother, it's very easy to misstate or misinterpret something out here.
And, unfortunately, when you make a faux pas out here, it generally comes back to haunt you. As such, I try to be very honest and clearly state myself -- though I sometimes hang the pooch. And I try to always keep in mind that writing and language have always been areas I've excelled in. Other people out here -- a lot of people, in fact -- aren't that lucky. So if I, with my knack for language and writing, can step on my own tongue out here, then it's probably even easier for a lot of other people to do so.
So I try to be very clear when I write while also giving other people a lot of leeway and, often, the benefit of the doubt. And before I jump on something, I try to draw out a clarification to determine if it's just a miscommunication.
So often, I see a debate rage back and forth for a while and then, suddenly, both people realize that they're basically saying the same thing. They're on the same sheet of paper with different colored crayons and they're focusing more on the color used than what is actually being written
Sounds to me like you're doing it right. Again, with the caveat that I reserve judgement until I see/feel in person
Mike
