"classic" martial art vs "modern" martial arts

[windwalker099148 178]

There are many paths and options to get to what we want from our respective training methods. In my limited experience within my small arena, I have found that I must resolve my own internal conflicts in order to resolve external conflicts. T

Very true… echoes my own work.

Change the internal state… the interaction changes.

We must first recognize the tension and resistance within ourselves.
Without that, we cannot truly develop 听劲 (Tīng jìn) — the ability to listen and perceive through direct contact, or non-contact.

If we cannot feel our own imbalance, we will misread the other.
If we are internally divided, what we sense will already be distorted.

When listening is clear, we don’t oppose.
We adjust so the other’s force begins to reveal itself.

With those I work with, I stress that we cannot directly change what the other person is doing.
What we can change is our own internal state — maintaining our 中定 (Zhōng dìng),

At its core, in our line of Taiji this unfolds through four progressive ideas:

听 (tīng), 问 (wèn), 拿 (ná), 放 (fàng).

Listen.
Ask.
Control.
Release.

Listen: allows understanding.
Ask: through contact — lightly tests what is present.
Control : what is given, not what we try to impose.
Release : without fixation.

Through this, the exchange shifts indirectly.

 

[Wing Woo Gar82 5]

Very true… echoes my own work.

Change the internal state… the interaction changes.

We must first recognize the tension and resistance within ourselves.
Without that, we cannot truly develop 听劲 (Tīng jìn) — the ability to listen and perceive through direct contact, or non-contact.

If we cannot feel our own imbalance, we will misread the other.
If we are internally divided, what we sense will already be distorted.

When listening is clear, we don’t oppose.
We adjust so the other’s force begins to reveal itself.

With those I work with, I stress that we cannot directly change what the other person is doing.
What we can change is our own internal state — maintaining our 中定 (Zhōng dìng),

At its core, in our line of Taiji this unfolds through four progressive ideas:

听 (tīng), 问 (wèn), 拿 (ná), 放 (fàng).

Listen.
Ask.
Control.
Release.

Listen: allows understanding.
Ask: through contact — lightly tests what is present.
Control : what is given, not what we try to impose.
Release : without fixation.

Through this, the exchange shifts indirectly.

YES! I could not agree more.

 

[Kung Fu Wang148 178]

We must first recognize the tension and resistance within ourselves.
Without that, we cannot truly develop 听劲 (Tīng jìn) — the ability to listen and perceive through direct contact, or non-contact.

When you pull your opponent's arm, is "听劲 (Tīng jìn)" still needed?

IMO, when 2 objects touch on each other, Ting Jin is required. But when 2 objects are locked, Ting Jin is no longer required because your arm and your opponent's arm are just 1 object.

 

[Kung Fu Wang148 178]

You can bypass "listen" and try to achieve "lock" ASAP. As long as the "unlock key" is under your control, it will be your advantage.

 

[Wing Woo Gar82 5]

You can bypass "listen" and try to achieve "lock" ASAP. As long as the "unlock key" is under your control, it will be your advantage.

View attachment 33867

Maybe you should try listening

 

[Wing Woo Gar82 5]

When you pull your opponent's arm, is "听劲 (Tīng jìn)" still needed?

IMO, when 2 objects touch on each other, Ting Jin is required. But when 2 objects are locked, Ting Jin is no longer required because your arm and your opponent's arm are just 1 object.

View attachment 33866

I may listen and hear your attempt at locking and beat you to it.

 

[Steve]

Possibly a fable to teach empathy. And not necessarily a Combative instructional.

There are a bunch of really cheezy videos on you tube. That do similar. Where the mean waiter throws out the homless guy. Who is secretly a millionaire.

And the moral is you need to respect poor people or otherwise you don't get secretly rewarded in some way.

(Honestly I never understood the message)

Yeah, I hear you. And a few others confirmed basically what you're saying. The story bugs me, and I've been mulling over what the basic problem is. Ultimately, to the point of this thread, I think it's that it exemplifies a key difference between classical and modern martial art. I would say that the traits central to this story (confidence and calm demeanor) come from experience and competence. In this story, the lesson seems to be that you can sort of just fake it and then after the fact say it was intentional and not just luck.

His lack of experience and competence makes the entire thing very dicey. And in the spirit of this discussion, in this story of the Tea Master, what would happen next is this tea master might open a school and teach tea-do self defense, using this story to validate his teaching.

 

[windwalker099148 178]

When you pull your opponent's arm, is "听劲 (Tīng jìn)" still needed?

IMO, when 2 objects touch on each other, Ting Jin is required.
But when 2 objects are locked, Ting Jin is no longer required because your arm and your opponent's arm are just 1 object.

Before touch may be even more important.

“听劲 (Tīng jìn)” can be understood simply as perception.

There are levels to it:

After.
During.
Before.

For most people, usable sensitivity becomes clear once contact is made.

But before movement — before structure commits — is the highest level. It allows one to engage… or not.

When two arms appear “locked,” they are only locked as long as both maintain the same structural state.

Even when connected, internal pressure, balance, and intent are still changing. The connection remains dynamic.

听劲 allows one to maintain perception within that dynamic.

If perception stops, the lock becomes solid.
If perception continues, the structure is never truly fixed.

In your example, you are creating a dynamic condition that forces the other person to maintain the very lock he is trying to escape from.

 

[Steve]

The resolution of conflict is a higher goal than testing ones mettle, or style, or methodology, or whatever. Many folks don’t seek this sort of thing in their training.

I think you might be mashing to very different things together. Deescalation, emotional intelligence, conflict resolution, empathy, and so on, are traits and/or skills. These traits can be fostered and these skills can be learned with martial arts training... or not. They may be complimentary to martial arts training, but aren't the same as developing martial skill.

Because they can’t grasp the tangible value as it relates to training, and or they see other external methods as more effective and efficient to the goal of ever increasing ability and performance in their given arena of measurement.

One can grasp the value of these skills and traits while also understanding that they aren't replacing ability and performance. They are simply two different things.

It’s all perfectly fine and logical from each point of view. There are many paths and options to get to what we want from our respective training methods. In my limited experience within my small arena, I have found that I must resolve my own internal conflicts in order to resolve external conflicts. This has a ripple effect throughout my training experience as well. In the end, whether it’s kata, fighting, combat sports, or football, the real opponent is always within. Resolving those conflicts can add some real and useful benefit to our martial arts physiology and performance. I reckon it’s as useful as any other exercise.

Wise words.

 

[Kung Fu Wang148 178]

Before touch may be even more important. ... Even when connected, internal pressure, balance, and intent are still changing. The connection remains dynamic.

Agree with you on this 100%. The simplest example is if you raise your arm straight up, none of my "under hook" and "over hook" will work on you. So "Listen" before contact is much more important.

Don't understand what "The connection remains dynamic" means. 2 linked rings will stay connect until broken. As long as it's connected, it's considered as 1 single union.

It depends on whether you try to "wait for opportunity", or you try to "create opportunity". IMO, "Listen" is a conservative strategy. To "set up a trap and let your opponent to fall into" is better strategy. To use a groin kick to set up a face punch is a simple example.

 

[windwalker099148 178]

Don't understand what "The connection remains dynamic" means. 2 linked rings will stay connect until broken. As long as it's connected, it's consider as 1 single union.

It means:

Two linked rings are mechanically fixed until separated.

Human bodies are not rigid rings.

Even when connected, pressure, balance, and intent are still changing. The condition is maintained — not permanent.

If perception stops, the lock feels solid.
If perception continues, the structure is never truly fixed.

The “single union” exists only as long as both maintain the same structural relationship.
If that relationship changes, what appears unified no longer functions as one object.

听劲 (Tīng jìn) is what allows one to perceive that relationship — and therefore maintain it or dissolve it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang148 178]

Human bodies are not rigid rings.

Also agree with you on this. When

- the 1st ring pulls the 2nd ring, there will be only 1 outcome. The 2nd ring will be pulled by the 1st ring - follow.
- you pull my arm, there will be 3 outcomes, follow, resist, and borrow force.

In other words, when you pull my arm, you force me to select 1 of those 3 responds.

IMO, "Link" should be included as part of "Listen".

 

[Kung Fu Wang148 178]

Two linked rings are mechanically fixed until separated.

In 1 Taiji PH, I pull my opponent's arm. He said, "This is not Taiji". I ask him, "Why?" He didn't come up a reasonable answer.

Taij "Lu" and "double pulling" are pulling. Pulling is in the Taiji DNA.

 

[windwalker099148 178]

In 1 Taiji PH, I pull my opponent's arm. He said, "This is not Taiji". I ask him, "Why?" He didn't come up a reasonable answer.

Taij "Lu" and "double pulling" are pulling. Pulling is in the Taiji DNA.

Push hands (推手, Tuīshǒu) isn’t necessarily defined by whether someone pulls or pushes.

It can serve different purposes depending on intent and level of interaction.

If someone pulls, pushes, or does something else, that simply becomes the condition of the exchange.
Ideally, training allows us to respond and adjust to that condition.

If the interaction becomes rough, that may say more about level and emphasis than about whether it is “Taiji.”

Perhaps it also reflects differing approaches in training — and how comfortably each person can adapt to the other.

It’s also possible to “win” an encounter, yet not have the skill acknowledged — because it wasn’t the type of skill the other person considers “Taiji.”

"this is not Taiji"

 

[Kung Fu Wang148 178]

It’s also possible to “win” an encounter, yet not have the skill acknowledged — because it wasn’t the type of skill the other person considers “Taiji.”

"this is not Taiji"

This is the difference between TMA and modern MA.

From

- TMA point of view, you train a certain MA system. you only train what your MA style "encourage" you to train.

- modern MA point of view, you want to develop certain combat skill. You then try to find a training method from a certain MA system that can achieve your goal.

You can't prevent your opponent from kicking at your chest. You also can't prevent your opponent from pulling your arm.

As long as you train "how to fight", you will never say, "This is not ...".

 

[Haruhiko]

That state doesn’t replace skill, but it helps prevent collapse under pressure.

That state you're referring to, in Gorin no Sho, as Musashi emphasises at the end of virtually every paragraph, is after careful, intense study and practice.

He's also writing it to Terao Magonojo, whose skills were sufficient enough for the ryū to be passed on to.

In my reading (haven't studied Ku no Maki with my sensei or the school's sōke yet), the state replaces skill completely.

Happy to be corrected by @Chris Parker and @Hyoho

It is not logical to assume untested dogma has functional worth.

You've used "dogma" quite a bit in the thread. It's doing a lot of lifting for something you've not sufficiently articulated yet.

Your whole system is a shiny trinket. Its worth is not based on objective function and therefore requires things like evidence.

You're in no position to objectively propose a system's "worth" without so much as understanding, let alone practice, these systems.

And yet. You still don't produce anyone any good. Weird. With all that expertise and understanding of martial arts.

Nakayama Hakudo-sensei (and his entire school's lineal heads all the way up to Hayashizaki Jinsuke)

Musashi-sensei (and his lineal successors)

These are two schools I study and practice in. These two schools have produced hundreds of koryū and gendai budōka. Good ones.

 

[Wing Woo Gar82 5]

This is the difference between TMA and modern MA.

From

- TMA point of view, you train a certain MA system. you only train what your MA style "encourage" you to train.

- modern MA point of view, you want to develop certain combat skill. You then try to find a training method from a certain MA system that can achieve your goal.

You can't prevent your opponent from kicking at your chest. You also can't prevent your opponent from pulling your arm.

As long as you train "how to fight", you will never say, "This is not ...".

Learn the rules to break them.

 

[drop bear147 22]

You've used "dogma" quite a bit in the thread. It's doing a lot of lifting for something you've not sufficiently articulated yet.

Dogma refers to a core set of principles, doctrines, or beliefs held by a group—most commonly in religion, politics, or philosophy—that are asserted and accepted as undeniably true without question or doubt. It often implies a rigid, authoritative, and unchanging framework that dictates behavior or belief.

An example of dogma would be.

"Then I'm assuming I know more about the school and its kata, philosophy, teachings, pedagogical sensibilities than generations of students and masters.

Sounds like a very naïve thing to do."

 

[drop bear147 22]

You're in no position to objectively propose a system's "worth" without so much as understanding, let alone practice, these systems.

And yet I am.

You see your subjective worth that was so important before means I can just say it has no worth to me.

The funniest thing about standing on this subjective worth hill. Is that I can claim to be as much of an expert at your system as anyone else. And I don't have to show any evidence to justify it.

I can just determine my own criteria for worth and therefore my own criteria for understanding. So I am actually an expert in your field. And there is nothing you can do about it.

Or we can us my method of objective worth that requires evidence of function. I can say there just isn't any.

 

[drop bear147 22]

Nakayama Hakudo-sensei (and his entire school's lineal heads all the way up to Hayashizaki Jinsuke)

Musashi-sensei (and his lineal successors)

These are two schools I study and practice in. These two schools have produced hundreds of koryū and gendai budōka. Good ones.

Yep.

We all know what weasel words are these days.