Intellectualising Martial Arts?

[Damien]

One thing to keep in mind: you do not need to be formally educated or even literate, to be intelligent and highly educated about a particular topic(s). Members of pre-literate societies certainly knew their business, whether it was farming or animal husbandry or hunting or making a home (just to make a few examples), or the practice of combative methods.

Oh definitely, you could be illiterate and a genius level martial artist. My point was that those who are illiterate and uneducated are less likely to be very articulate in their explanations (limited vocabulary, limited array of wider concepts to draw on for analogies). Some concepts can be confusing, and some techniques need precise movement. These things need a very clear explanation to understand.

Equally their students from the same place are less likely to understand explanations that are articulate, as they would be uneducated and illiterate too. How likely is it that every generation has someone who intuitively understands martial arts on such a level that good explanations are not needed?

This is one reason why you see mistakes creeping in to styles, or movements being lost to time, or things being dismissed as useless; they haven't been explained well enough and/or the learner hasn't understood the lesson well enough.

I believe this is the reason that most Shaolin practitioners have never heard of Yao Bu, let alone know how it differs from (the 2 versions of) Gong Bu. At some point someone (or likely multiple people) didn't understand the explanation of the two stances well enough and we end up with them and all their students doing a weird amalgamation stance and calling it Gong Bu. These individuals then went on to teach others and you ultimately end up with everyone in the temple doing it this way. Now we've got people all round the world doing Ma Bu to "Gong Bu" twists with a front arm strike, which biomechanically doesn't make sense. Gong Bu as a lunge, and Yao Bu have been forgotten except in the villages which stopped cross-pollinating martial arts with the temple before this took hold.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Take Northern Shaolin as an example, it is one of the broadest styles of king fu, but you wont find a roundhouse in any of its core drills or forms. Crescent kicks, axe kicks, push kicks, flick kicks, side kicks, various jumping kicks, but no roundhouse.

In my long fist system, all the basic training came from the form training. There exist no basic training that's not recorded in my long fist form.

In another thread, I have stated that in my long fist system (northern Shaolin) has no roudhouse kick in the forms. Also there is no roundhouse kick in the basic training. Smeone said that I have a bad long fist training.

Sometime to be honest during online discussion just don't pay off. May be I should say that my long fist system contains everything. There are all hidden in my long fist form.

A: Do you have TKD spin hook kick in your long fist system?
B: The TKD spin hook kick is just the long fist backward floor sweep but much higher.

Does B tell the truth?

 

[drop bear]

Don't focus on the finger. Focus on all the important back of house that it took to get that finger to where it is.

 

[Damien]

In another thread, I have stated that in my long fist system (northern Shaolin) has no roudhouse kick in the forms. Also there is no roundhouse kick in the basic training. Smeone said that I have a bad long fist training.

Sometime to be honest during online discussion just don't pay off. May be I should say that my long fist system contains everything. There are all hidden in my long fist form.

It's a dumb attitude, it's like saying oh you don't know how to play this song on guitar, you only know these over 500, pfft you suck.

Just because it's not traditionally in your system doesn't mean you can't learn it and use it. Equally there's no reason why you do have to use a particular technique, whether its in your system or not.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

It's a dumb attitude, it's like saying oh you don't know how to play this song on guitar, you only know these over 500, pfft you suck.

Just because it's not traditionally in your system doesn't mean you can't learn it and use it. Equally there's no reason why you do have to use a particular technique, whether its in your system or not.

The solution is simple. All I need to do is to replace one of the front kick in the form with the roundhouse kick. Anybody who learns form from me will have roundhouse kick in it.

Old long fist form:

New long fist form:

I also added the hook kick and spin hook kick into my long fist system.

 

[TularosaKungFu]

Martial arts was about chi and physicality. The origin of it was energy development and health, later all the knowledge that was, got trimmed off so vulgar people could fight without learning an entire philosophy and practice or dedicating their life to buddhism. (Or fight an army weaponless like okinawa) Poor people got taught to fight because of invasions and wars. There are few systems now that have any of the original knowledge and most all focus on a physical concept, the way wing chun was isolated out and developed as a "miniature complete fighting system". If somebody educated now was going to write, it seems like a physical therapist is a more likely candidate? Because the origins are not combat, they led to them and the purpose was a mastery (gong fu) that developed a combat system.

When you know what your book is about, then you can evaluate whether you think there would be an audience and lots of people write books for the pleasure of it, without selling 10?

If you want to introduce your own theories or practices or are writing history? Or re-writing history, which is what it seems like you want to do? Rewrite history to give you a justifiable basis for your own replacement theories? or just even writing rehash to write a book with their name on it, like many do, for the audience you want to appeal to. Like count dante did, except all yours could fight with office weapons? Be the deadliest alive with a flying briefcase, biscotti or cutting dig that more poofy is a better that trogs can't reach?

Subject, goal and audience. Until you have those each lined out clearly it will be difficult to evaluate.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Martial arts was about chi and physicality. The origin of it was energy development and health, later all the knowledge that was, got trimmed off so vulgar people could fight without learning an entire philosophy and practice or dedicating their life to buddhism.

I don't think the knowledge was trimmed. I think the religion part was trimmed. If learning Kung Fu means I have to dedicate my life to Buddhism. Then I would never take a martial arts.

The knowledge that is missing is because people are not training function. This is where the rewrite of things began. There's a big difference between reading a book about surgery and actually doing surgery. There's a lot of understanding of surgery that is gained by doing surgery. Kung fu is just like this. Knowledge also comes from direct experience of "doing"

From what I understand of "digging deeper into a technique." Damien is going to explore the techniques through use, then analyze his personal experience and findings. This would not be rewriting history.

Subject, goal and audience. Until you have those each lined out clearly it will be difficult to evaluate.

It will be difficult to evaluate if he doesn't know how to actually use the techniques he's discussing.

 

[Flying Crane]

In my long fist system, all the basic training came from the form training. There exist no basic training that's not recorded in my long fist form.

In another thread, I have stated that in my long fist system (northern Shaolin) has no roudhouse kick in the forms. Also there is no roundhouse kick in the basic training. Smeone said that I have a bad long fist training.

Sometime to be honest during online discussion just don't pay off. May be I should say that my long fist system contains everything. There are all hidden in my long fist form.

I’m going to go ahead and comment on this because I believe the above statement about “someone” telling you that you had bad long fist training was aimed at me.

As usual, context matters and the above statements ignore the context of prior discussions on this topic. On the one hand, I appreciate that in this particular post you distinguished YOUR long fist training. You state that YOUR long fist contains all the fundamentals in the forms, and if it isn’t found within the forms then it does not exist in the system. But in numerous prior discussions you have stated it as a more absolute condition of Chinese martial arts. You have stated it in language to the effect of, “in Chinese martial arts (and it might have even been more general than simply Chinese martial arts, and may have simply stated ‘in martial arts’…) if it isn’t in the form then it does not exist in the system.” (And I realize I am paraphrasing as I don’t recall the exact language you used and don’t feel inclined to dig it up). In those prior discussions several of us have pointed out that is incorrect, based on our experiences. The problem is that after having such a discussion, some weeks or months later, you would repeat such a claim in another thread. And this has happened several times, to my recollection. And each time we others have addressed the issue and given you the same explanation.

So yeah, I believe I finally gave up in frustration and conceded that I guess you had lousy long fist instruction because it seems clear it is lacking the kind of foundation and structure that others of us, practitioners of Chinese martial arts and other methods, have found to exist in our training.

Hence my comment. As I said, context matters. Your post above ignored the context that gave certain comments meaning.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Don't focus on the finger. Focus on all the important back of house that it took to get that finger to where it is.

Funny, I say that all the time to my students, don’t watch the finger!

 

[Damien]

Martial arts was about chi and physicality. The origin of it was energy development and health, later all the knowledge that was, got trimmed off so vulgar people could fight without learning an entire philosophy and practice or dedicating their life to buddhism. (Or fight an army weaponless like okinawa) Poor people got taught to fight because of invasions and wars. There are few systems now that have any of the original knowledge and most all focus on a physical concept, the way wing chun was isolated out and developed as a "miniature complete fighting system". If somebody educated now was going to write, it seems like a physical therapist is a more likely candidate? Because the origins are not combat, they led to them and the purpose was a mastery (gong fu) that developed a combat system.

When you know what your book is about, then you can evaluate whether you think there would be an audience and lots of people write books for the pleasure of it, without selling 10?

If you want to introduce your own theories or practices or are writing history? Or re-writing history, which is what it seems like you want to do? Rewrite history to give you a justifiable basis for your own replacement theories? or just even writing rehash to write a book with their name on it, like many do, for the audience you want to appeal to. Like count dante did, except all yours could fight with office weapons? Be the deadliest alive with a flying briefcase, biscotti or cutting dig that more poofy is a better that trogs can't reach?

Subject, goal and audience. Until you have those each lined out clearly it will be difficult to evaluate.

No offence but I don't think you understand martial history very well. Martial arts have always been about fighting, that's why they are martial. That's not to say certain groups didn't develop martial arts out of a spiritual/health background. For example the Shaolin Temple's practice likely started with health based exercises to support their religious practice, but it developed into martial arts, and was shared with, and absorbed elements from others such as the military, for whom martial arts was all about fighting.

Looking elsewhere in the world martial arts have had much less of a connection to spirituality, though arguably in certain contexts some to morality and the idea of being the best possible person e.g. ancient Greece, the Roman Empire.

With regards to the guide I'm writing, I'm certainly not trying to invent, reinvent or re-write anything. I'm trying to adequately explain concepts which already exist, some of which are not particularly well known, some of which I'm simply trying to articulate better than others have, and some are just plain basic. But hey, I'm going for broad appeal here.

And JowGaWolf is correct with regards to certain techniques, I'm taking ideas that already exist and actually trying to use them, because there are certain things within Shaolin that are not commonly practiced anymore within a fighting context, or which were created for different fighting contexts than we have today. My aim is to put them to the test to see what still has value within the modern fighting context and therefore aught to be resurrected in live use and passed on to my students.

 

[JowGaWolf]

With regards to the guide I'm writing, I'm certainly not trying to invent, reinvent or re-write anything. I'm trying to adequately explain concepts which already exist, some of which are not particularly well known, some of which I'm simply trying to articulate better than others have, and some are just plain basic. But hey, I'm going for broad appeal here.

Invent or re-write. None of that is important. If you can experience it and are successful with it, and then write about your experience, then you would have more than enough knowledge to write about it. To be honest I would say your knowledge for that specific thing would be more than a Sifu who has never used it. This isn't to diss the teachers out there. They are equally important in helping to continue to spread the knowledge. I believe that martial artist fit in 2 categories. Scholars and application users.

Scholars are like game designers. Very smart they understand what the game is about, but the real question is. Are they actually good at the game? This is where the application user come in who know and learn how to use the software. So much so that programmers will seek their advice on how to make it better. This is how I see Kung Fu. Those who train and actually try to use this stuff will have a wealth of knowledge and will often be the one's who inform the scholars on things that were discovered through application.

 

[JowGaWolf]

My aim is to put them to the test to see what still has value within the modern fighting context and therefore aught to be resurrected in live use and passed on to my students.

Just make sure that you keep in the back of your mind that it may be your lack of understanding as to why a technique doesn't work.

 

[Damien]

Just make sure that you keep in the back of your mind that it may be your lack of understanding as to why a technique doesn't work.

True enough. If it's not being used anyway, then there's not much to loose. I'd certainly take an open mindset and encourage others to try things too. Much better to have a sample size larger than one!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Martial arts was about chi and physicality. The origin of it was energy development and health,

When people say that MA is for health, I like to ask the following question:

The general body exercise is good for health. Why do we need MA for health?

 

[isshinryuronin]

The general body exercise is good for health. Why do we need MA for health?

We don't. But why not kill two (or three) birds with one stone? As you know, one move can accomplish both defense and offense. MA can accomplish exercise PLUS self-defense, competition and intellectual stimulus. If one is only interested in health, they can join a Jazzercise class. Others may want to maximize their effort and get the most benefits from their activity and so join an MA class.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If one is only interested in health, they can join a Jazzercise class.

I would probably choose something else if I just wanted exercise.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When people say that MA is for health, I like to ask the following question:

The general body exercise is good for health. Why do we need MA for health?

That’s specious reasoning. The same could be said of literally any activity that is good for health.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That’s specious reasoning. The same could be said of literally any activity that is good for health.

If one is only interested in health, he doesn't need power and speed.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If one is only interested in health, he doesn't need power and speed.

I donr know about speed and power. I do know I like other things than martial arts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If one is only interested in health, he doesn't need power and speed.

He doesn’t need them to be absent, either.