Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Talk' started by Kung Fu Wang, Oct 25, 2020.
The goal of the Chinese MA is for weapon fight.
ha ha ha.. not to be disrespectful, but sounds like an excuse to me. There's no way in the world that ancient soldiers would only know how to fight with a weapon and not without one. Hand-to-hand combat is fundamental in any war including modern war. The fact that hand-to-hand combat is still taught today, highlights the importance of it. I have yet to see evidence that Archer drew their bows back like that. There would be no benefit to drawing a bow like that, especially if you are in a row of archers.
Instead of saying "Those kung Fu Masters sucked" this comes up.
here's what's wrong, He takes a few things that look like the same hand position as weapons and makes the assumption that all of it is for weapons. There's a lot more to spear fighting than what he showed. I'm going to assume that he doesn't spar. Holding a low guard encourages someone to swing for your head. Why would I want someone to swing for my head? Because it takes away s the guessing of where the next strike will go. It's that simple.
If you want someone to punch your center then open the center.
If you want someone to punch your flanks then close the center
If you want someone to punch your head then make the head open.
Once you know where the punch is going to go, you'll be able to pick the right counter punch.
Here's the big thing.. Most fighters don't use a high guard unless it's boxing. In a world of kicks and punches The high guard can cause more problems than solve. Here we can see the low guard being used.
If I had to guess. The person in the OP's video probably doesn't get a lot of sparring in.
Firstly, i doubt that young fellow in the video is deeply knowledgeable about so many systems that he can speak authoritatively about them.
Second, he is identifying similarities between empty-hand and weapon use that may be legitimate on some level but probably not as directly as he presents. I don’t take it to mean he feels soldiers in the past could not fight without a weapon.
Regarding the archery bit, when pulling a heavy war bow you do definitely need to get more from the stance and twisting the body. A war bow was much more powerful than the typical hunting and target bows of today. War bows pulled at well over 100#, and could definitely be in the range of 120-180, while a hunting bow of today, for something like white tailed deer, is typically in the 40-65# range.
Pulling a bow above 100# is difficult and exhausting and you need to dig in your feet and push to rotate the body away from the bow while you push the bow away from the string, which you anchor at your jaw, and make the final pull of the last inch or two when the bow is pushed out. A hunting bow does not need to be pulled in this manner. A reasonably strong person can simply hold the bow out, reach across with the draw hand to grasp the string, and pull, although better technique does include some pushing of the bow as well. But at poundages of 40-65, for many people it does not overly stress the shoulder.
However, at higher poundages in the 100+ range, reaching across to pull creates a tight angle in the pulling shoulder, and can injure the shoulder in the pulling arm. Instead, the bow is raised, the string is anchored in the fingers at the chin or jaw, and the bow is pushed out. This keeps a much more open angle in the shoulder of the pulling arm, and is much safer for that shoulder. While pushing the bow out, the feet dig into the ground and push to rotate the body away from the bow. I believe the posture that this fellow showed in the video is exaggerated beyond what is realized in archery with a heavy bow, but the mechanics do push it in that direction.
I am speaking from experience with this, I have a Hungarian recurve that pulls at 110# at 32 inches, although my best pull with that bow gets me to about 28-29 inches, and probably 90+ pounds. It is a monster to pull and I pull it regularly as part of my strength training. With a European finger pull I can hit 30 inches max, even with a lighter bow. I would need to use a thumb pull to hit the full 32 inches, which I have not trained and do not have a thumb ring.
But I have injured my shoulder with it by reaching and pulling, and learned that bit the hard way, the need to raise and push instead. You can get away with technique with a hunting bow that would get you injured with a war bow.
So in short, I feel the fellow in the video has identified some parallels that may be legitimate, but I would definitely not take it as directly as he want to present. In my system we use similar and identical mechanics for both empty-hand and weapons because they work and the concepts are sound and they translate and overlap well. I wouldn’t read any more into it than that.
I thought Bow stance was front leg bent rear leg straight. In the video he leans back. Front leg straight rear leg bent.
Edit. Nevermind. I found my answer. Seem that the angle of which the arrow will be shot makes a difference in how the stance will be, which makes sense.
"knew how to" is sort of mixed. Bayonet drill didnt always exist for example and fighting with muskets and the like before they codified a system of teaching was just to club them or just hit them until you either die or your block looses, or your block wins.
But i would bring up the issue in at least the veterans not knowing fisty cuffs to some extent as mercinaries and the like tend to not be best people in society. (nor do soldiers for that matter) Or just in general, finding somone in that sort of job who has never had a fight with anyone especially in the peroid would be rare, finding someone who has several wars under their belt who has never done that seems to be rarer.
I think having 2 legs and 2 arms is just going to result in some repetitive standing structures with or without weapons. There's only so many ways that our bodies can create a stable structure with 2 legs and 2 arms. We see people transition in and out of these stances all the time while doing various things.
I was taught, in the context of Kenpo, that “bow and arrow” stance had the front leg bent. The front leg and torso make the bow, the back leg is the arrow drawn. But it is not used in actual archery. Rather, just a shape made by the body, similar to that of an arrow drawn in a bow.
In Chinese martial arts, in my training, we never really discussed it on that level. We tend to call it a stepping stance.
But the act of drawing a heavy bow engages a push with the front leg, turning the torso away from the bow. It would not end in a posture as extreme as the fellow showed in the video. But it moves in that direction.
I may do a short video demonstrating the draw that I am describing, if people are interested.
Go for it. I'll watch it. Stuff like this usually sends me through some research that I otherwise wouldn't have learned.
It has been noted several times that if you don't have a ton of time to teach someone, using stances and positions which are the same when empty handed as when holding a weapon because advantageous.
It's kinda a numbers game. Can you teach to competency some basic stuff, that covers a lot of ground, really fast, to a bunch of people who have little or no training? Good! Bang 'em out and get 'em to the fight.
Do you have a lot of time and dedicated people? Sure, spend a few years getting them expert level? Cool. Do that. You have have them teach the basic, foundational stuff to the completely untrained (above) and lead them in the fight, 'n stuff.
In WWI, the U.S. had experts in Boxing and Judo come in and teach the Dough-boys in basic training. They had maybe a few days of practice at each. The WWI British Bayonet manual is the same. It is intended to be completed and learned in a week or two, while training for other stuff as well. The object was to push out guys with a certain level of competence above that of the untrained, not to make them experts.
There are actually lots of examples of this.
So if someone wants to posit that some forms of Kung Fu had the same theory, I'd give it serious consideration. It's not the most effective way to learn fighting in multiple ranges to expertise, but it certainly is an efficient way to learn effective fighting across unarmed and some weapons to a minimum competency.
Peace favor your sword,
What about now? is this still the same plan?
In unarmed fighting? Probably. The unarmed curriculum that I've seen is pretty basic. For other venues of fighting? It's different. Riflery among U.S. Marines is a step above that of most other branches, even for a non-combat job. As always, what your job will be determines what level of training you get in other stuff. A fire squad for the Army or Marines is going to have a higher level of training with their rifles and will have related weapons training, and a lot of training is team movement and team tactics. A network engineer for the Army will still learn how to shoot and will have to pass the basic rifle qualification but that may be where it ends.
As a general rule, I haven't seen much of the unarmed and "melee" weapons which are being taught to standard forces in modern militaries which impresses me. Start getting into what's often called "special forces" and things start changing. But the unarmed stuff that they teach to rank-n-file seems like it's pretty much designed for the inevitable drunken bar brawl with civvies.
Peace favor your sword,
I'll save you the trouble of making a video.
The gentleman in the videos below is Justin Ma, who co-authored a translation and commentary of a Ming Dynasty military archery manual. Justin weighs about 130 pounds and shoots bows with draw weights almost equal to his own body weight.
Thanks. This one hits the spot for me. I'm satisfied now and I also want a bow and some arrows lol. I notice his stance was similar to the ones. I was watching his waist to see if there was any significant change in stance. Then I found another video showing for distance.
Excellent videos. Thanks!
He has some things going that I don’t, I shall need to work on this and see how it affects my draw.
He is not pushing the bow out in the way that I am. But he is setting up differently in a way that still keeps his draw shoulder on a more open angle, avoiding the injury.
His first comment of why Chinese Martial Arts Don't guard the head is because it's made for killing doesn't make sense to me. If the head is the target then you would want some way to defend the head. There's no way I can believe that a complex fighting system would even rationalize. Don't worry about the head, because we use weapons. I do know that the height of a fighting stance will change the distance that a punch mush travel before it hits your head. In the example of 2 people of the same height fighting. A lower stance will change the angle of a punch and increase the distance that a punch must reach the head. You can see this in some of my sparring videos. When I'm in a low stance, there is less of a need for for me to use a high guard and you'll see my guard move lower. When I'm in a high stance, you will see me use my high guard. Verification of this is simple. Get into a fighting stance and throw a punch and keep it extended so that your knuckes connects to the wall head height. With your punch extended move it downward as if you were trying to punch a lower target. You'll soon notice that your knuckles are no longer touching the wall.
So now to the spear technique. Here we are talking about using the arm like a spear. But if you watch, you'll see how many times he gets hit in the head. There's no way that you'll go 20 years of system development without that being an issue. My guess is that they his training doesn't target the face when they spar and as a result they forget that it's something that needs to be protected. Now does it fit well with the spear. Does Xingyiquan have techniques for protecting the head. Yes. According to Liang, Shou-Yu & Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming, definitely.
My guess with this is that not guarding the head is a cultural / training thing, as I have seen in the past in competition where a Muay Thai practitioner accidentally hits a TKD practitioner or a CMA practitioner in the face and gets penalized for it. That always frustrates me. The assumption is that you always need a high guard to protect the head and that's not always true. Boxer have use a lower guard and still protect the head, yet they don't use weapons.
Yeah I always thought that too. But he's locking his arm in a way that drives that pressure in a way that's balanced. Technique is everything. Which is why I get a bit stubborn when people try to do things without technique lol. Let some youngin come in and say he's going to hulk smash through everything and I instantly turn into an old man that becomes stubborn.
I still want a bow and some arrows lol.
This statement reminds me of my kung fu training where the teacher sees so many things wrong that he only corrects a few at time. Then after months of training he says. "oh you are doing that wrong" lol.
Yes, that is the bow arm. I am referring to the draw arm, the arm the pulls the string. Reaching across creates a tight angle in the shoulder and creates a lot of stress on the shoulder when you pull. That is why I was anchoring the string at the jaw and then pushing the bow out, rather than pulling the string back. It works, it saved my shoulder, I never could have pulled that bow at all in the way I had been doing it.
But he is not pushing the bow out, he is pulling the string. But he approaches it differently and still avoids creating a tight angle with the shoulder of the draw arm.
I am almost entirely self-taught in archery. I just grew up shooting the bow in the back yard and nobody gave me guidance. Now and again some instruction helps.
I don't like the 2 arms head protection boxing guard for the following reasons.
- Put yourself in defense mode.
- Give your opponent's too much free space.
- Invite your opponent's low kick.
- Invite your opponent to pull your guard apart.
- Easier for your opponent to control both of your arms at the same time.
- Make fight in your own territory instead of your opponent's territory.
Separate names with a comma.