OMG a balanced video on MMA vs TMA?!?!?!?!?!

[jobo]

So driving a linear punch by strongly stepping forward and using the weight of your body to "fall linearly" into the strike?

If that's it, then it's pretty common. It was the standard linear punch, called the Lead Off, Left Lead, or, when from rear, Right Straight or Rear Straight. I can document it in bare knuckle boxing going back to the early 19th Century or late 18th, but Jack Dempsey described it best in his book Championship Fighting.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

thanks for that, I was trying to explain,such to the kung fu man, who insisted such a punch did not exist. I link him to it, if he hadn't put me on ignore

 

[lklawson]

thanks for that, I was trying to explain,such to the kung fu man, who insisted such a punch did not exist. I link him to it, if he hadn't put me on ignore

A few examples:

james sullivan by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


Walker page43 by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community



ArtAndPractice pp16 left lead by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


Walker page52 by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

So driving a linear punch by strongly stepping forward and using the weight of your body to "fall linearly" into the strike?

If that's it, then it's pretty common. It was the standard linear punch, called the Lead Off, Left Lead, or, when from rear, Right Straight or Rear Straight. I can document it in bare knuckle boxing going back to the early 19th Century or late 18th, but Jack Dempsey described it best in his book Championship Fighting.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Here is a video that explains it, for clarification. Essentially you don't cock the arm. Your arm is where it is, you will extend it of course but it starts from where ever it is, unlike the standard linear punch that comes from a "ready position" as I understand it. It's very similar imo to how the WC straight punch works.

Bursting however is a technique primarily used for a surprise attack when you aren't ready but still obviously have to react. In such a surprise scenario most arts most arts, to my knowledge, teach some variation "zone, evade, deflect" while perhaps striking to get into proper position, vs straight up jumping into the teeth of the attack from whatever position you found yourself into start.

That to me makes it "new". Since the original core of KM is Western Boxing however and the founder was learning to fight in the early 1900's I would have little doubt that he adapted the mechanics of bare knuckle boxing to addressing surprise attacks in a street fighting context. Refining older techniques and/or adapting them to a different context however is still making something "new" and different.

 

[Juany118]

A few examples:

james sullivan by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


Walker page43 by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community



ArtAndPractice pp16 left lead by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community


Walker page52 by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Actually this lets me come up with another analogy for what I am trying to describe in terms of evolution of an art. Lets say I have a time machine, I go back and scoop John L. Sullivan and put him in the ring with Manny Pacquiao. Now they are both "boxers" but something tells me that John L Sullivan would see some "new" things that he would have to rapidly adapt to.

In terms of TMAs there is a reason they are called that, they try hard to stick to the Traditions of the art and are thus more static and so when they run into something not in their "tool box" the practitioner is dealing with something "new" and has to adapt to it just as John L Sullivan would have to adapt to Manny Pacquiao.

 

[jobo]

Actually this lets me come up with another analogy for what I am trying to describe in terms of evolution of an art. Lets say I have a time machine, I go back and scoop John L. Sullivan and put him in the ring with Manny Pacquiao. Now they are both "boxers" but something tells me that John L Sullivan would see some "new" things that he would have to rapidly adapt to.

In terms of TMAs there is a reason they are called that, they try hard to stick to the Traditions of the art and are thus more static and so when they run into something not in their "tool box" the practitioner is dealing with something "new" and has to adapt to it just as John L Sullivan would have to adapt to Manny Pacquiao.

yes but manny would have some new \old things to cope with as well, but the fundaments' of punch and move are the same.

the problem with some tmas is not that they are stuck in time, its that they have evolved to be less effective than they were previously, devolution if you like

 

[Juany118]

yes but manny would have some new \old things to cope with as well, but the fundaments' of punch and move are the same.

the problem with some tmas is not that they are stuck in time, its that they have evolved to be less effective than they were previously, devolution if you like

Yes and no on your first point. Many modern punching techniques, and the targets, are different between today and then. Bare knuckle fighting used the "pistol grip" punch because biomechanically it reduces the chances of a "boxer's fracture." There were also a lot more in the way of body shots to further reduce this. This kind of punching would have been VERY rare if not unheard of (@lklawson can correct me if I am wrong however.) because this became possible thanks to gloves.

As for TMAs The techniques haven't devolved, the problem lies in the training. In China, before they outlawed it in the early 20th century due to the number of deaths, there was the Lei Tai where one art fought against other arts. This way you were exposed to different methods of fighting. Over time, while participating in such challenges little would be "new". This also existed in the Hong Kong "roof top" culture.

This lack of exposure to other styles to minimize running into something that is subjectively "new" to the practitioner is what went away. Then you have adaptions of techniques, such as adapting the "falling punch" from a "ready position" to "bursting" at your opponent from whatever position you happen to be in that creates more "new" that is, again, not being tested against due to the contemporary training methods.

 

[lklawson]

Here is a video that explains it, for clarification.

This looks exactly like the Straight Rear with a (high) left parry (sometimes a Parry a Round blow at your ear). I can track this to Daniel Mendoza, mid-to-late 18th Century, just prior to the U.S. war of independence.

I love seeing the similarities in these sort of things. Kinda a hobby of mine.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Actually this lets me come up with another analogy for what I am trying to describe in terms of evolution of an art. Lets say I have a time machine, I go back and scoop John L. Sullivan and put him in the ring with Manny Pacquiao. Now they are both "boxers" but something tells me that John L Sullivan would see some "new" things that he would have to rapidly adapt to.

Generally the rule set each work under is fairly important. Throw Sullivan in with Manny under modern gloved rules and I'd bet money on Manny every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Throw Manny back under LPR's bare knuckle rules with Sullivan and I'm changing my better faster than a politician forgets his promises.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Yes and no on your first point. Many modern punching techniques, and the targets, are different between today and then. Bare knuckle fighting used the "pistol grip" punch because biomechanically it reduces the chances of a "boxer's fracture." There were also a lot more in the way of body shots to further reduce this. This kind of punching would have been VERY rare if not unheard of (@lklawson can correct me if I am wrong however.) because this became possible thanks to gloves.

Pretty rare, yeah. "Swinging" blows or "Round Blows," tended to turn the hand over so the top of the fist (thumb side) was down or sort-of-down-ish.


Doran's Science of Self Defense by lklawson on MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

"Swings" were generally considered less effective, more telegraphed, easier to parry, and the mark of a less sophisticated boxer. Driscol positively rants about it in his book.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jobo]

Yes and no on your first point. Many modern punching techniques, and the targets, are different between today and then. Bare knuckle fighting used the "pistol grip" punch because biomechanically it reduces the chances of a "boxer's fracture." There were also a lot more in the way of body shots to further reduce this. This kind of punching would have been VERY rare if not unheard of (@lklawson can correct me if I am wrong however.) because this became possible thanks to gloves.

As for TMAs The techniques haven't devolved, the problem lies in the training. In China, before they outlawed it in the early 20th century due to the number of deaths, there was the Lei Tai where one art fought against other arts. This way you were exposed to different methods of fighting. Over time, while participating in such challenges little would be "new". This also existed in the Hong Kong "roof top" culture.

This lack of exposure to other styles to minimize running into something that is subjectively "new" to the practitioner is what went away. Then you have adaptions of techniques, such as adapting the "falling punch" from a "ready position" to "bursting" at your opponent from whatever position you happen to be in that creates more "new" that is, again, not being tested against due to the contemporary training methods.

well no for two reasons, one,, that manau of the Chinese styles are fast moving and powerful, its only some which are very poor.
when I did la ga fung fu in the 80s we did a lot of horse stance, to build legs and character, but no one ever suggested you would fight that way . It was fast good body mechanics'
and very effective
two, if I can borrow your time machine and pop back to the ming dynasty's,
a young man is showing the emperor his new style, to teach the royal body guard's
emperor,,, right, so all you do it stand their like a crab
young man. , yes it makes it hard for them to hit me or knock me over,
emperor, what if they run past you and attack me,
young man, I hadn't thought of that

emperor, get out

 

[Juany118]

well no for two reasons, one,, that manau of the Chinese styles are fast moving and powerful, its only some which are very poor.
when I did la ga fung fu in the 80s we did a lot of horse stance, to build legs and character, but no one ever suggested you would fight that way . It was fast good body mechanics'
and very effective
two, if I can borrow your time machine and pop back to the ming dynasty's,
a young man is showing the emperor his new style, to teach the royal body guard's
emperor,,, right, so all you do it stand their like a crab
young man. , yes it makes it hard for them to hit me or knock me over,
emperor, what if they run past you and attack me,
young man, I hadn't thought of that

emperor, get out

I am sorry but I fail to see how anything that you said above is relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[jobo]

I am sorry but I fail to see how anything that you said above is relevant to the topic at hand.

the topic at hand is why are tcma so poor,
answer they arnt only some of them are
they can't always have been so poor as nobody would have offered them in the first place

 

[lklawson]

the topic at hand is why are tcma so poor,

I don't recall anyone writing that. Could you help me out and link to it, please?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

the topic at hand is why are tcma so poor,
answer they arnt only some of them are
they can't always have been so poor as nobody would have offered them in the first place

Really? I am the OP and have only studied TMAs in depth (currently studying Wing Chun and Filipino Kali). I thought this thread was simply talking about the strengths and weaknesses of different fighting styles and the potential causes of the weaknesses. I didn't see anyone say that TMA's were poor.

 

[jobo]

Really? I am the OP and have only studied TMAs in depth (currently studying Wing Chun and Filipino Kali). I thought this thread was simply talking about the strengths and weaknesses of different fighting styles and the potential causes of the weaknesses. I didn't see anyone say that TMA's were poor.

it was a summation, most arts have,strengh and weakness, others just have weaknesses, that equals them being poor

 

[Juany118]

it was a summation, most arts have,strengh and weakness, others just have weaknesses, that equals them being poor

First I think you are reading too much into. 2nd I do not believe that many, if any, TMAs have only weaknesses. Some have bigger weaknesses than others though even that gets complicated. As an example. Some TMA's are impractical in the modern context because of how much training it takes. There are certain strikes in certain animal forms of Kung Fu that require body hardening techniques to be practiced as an example. That can be practical if you are a Monk and part of your monastic life is training, or if you are wealthy and thus have a lot of free time (and the cultural derived drive) to do such training but in the modern world it's impractical. This doesn't mean the art is all weakness.

If TMAs were all weakness they never would have lasted into the modern world. There is no better example of the effects of Darwinism than combat.

 

[jobo]

First I think you are reading too much into. 2nd I do not believe that many, if any, TMAs have only weaknesses. Some have bigger weaknesses than others though even that gets complicated. As an example. Some TMA's are impractical in the modern context because of how much training it takes. There are certain strikes in certain animal forms of Kung Fu that require body hardening techniques to be practiced as an example. That can be practical if you are a Monk and part of your monastic life is training, or if you are wealthy and thus have a lot of free time (and the cultural derived drive) to do such training but in the modern world it's impractical. This doesn't mean the art is all weakness.

If TMAs were all weakness they never would have lasted into the modern world. There is no better example of the effects of Darwinism than combat.

that was my point before, they arnt all weak, and the weak ones wernt always weak.

. If your going to assess their weakness, then you need tp compare them against other martial arts. Then you have to find some elements of win chun for example, that are stronger than another art. Then when you conclude there arnt many or even any, then you have to conclude its poor/ weak or what ever .

nb I'd count a style that requires a deformed hand as having a major weakness, its a bit more than not being convenient or practical

 

[Juany118]

that was my point before, they arnt all weak, and the weak ones wernt always weak.

. If your going to assess their weakness, then you need tp compare them against other martial arts. Then you have to find some elements of win chun for example, that are stronger than another art. Then when you conclude there arnt many or even any, then you have to conclude its poor/ weak or what ever .

nb I'd count a style that requires a deformed hand as having a major weakness, its a bit more than not being convenient or practical

It doesn't actually require a deformed hand IF you do it properly. By properly I mean kinda like how one wants to smoke a brisket, "low and slow." In short you first make sure you have the proper striking technique down, then build up and use Jow, lots of it, before and after. You start by using beans or rice, then move to a medium like gravel or rocks, inside canvas bags. You might start doing just 10 reps per each part of the hand daily, working your way up to maybe 50, for a 100 day foundation program and then have the "real" training that starts after that lasts for 2 years. The idea is to slowly work your way up, if you get injured stop, heal, then continue. You don't get to the point where you are doing what this video shows until you are fairly well along

In doing it slowly you minimize the types of injuries or lack of uniform healing that would cause deformed hands. What makes it impractical is simply the following question. How many people who are working full time and raising families are not only going to train in their Martial Art but also set up the proper training equipment in their own home and strike a bag filled with something 40-200 times a day, with each hand, for 100 days just to get to the point where you are then doing it 400 times a day for the next year so that you get the result without the injury. That is the impracticality of it.

Here is a decent book on the subject... 9781943155118: Fundamental Iron Skills: Tempering Body and Limbs with Ancient Methods - AbeBooks - Dale Dugas: 1943155119

 

[Gerry Seymour]

that was my point before, they arnt all weak, and the weak ones wernt always weak.

. If your going to assess their weakness, then you need tp compare them against other martial arts. Then you have to find some elements of win chun for example, that are stronger than another art. Then when you conclude there arnt many or even any, then you have to conclude its poor/ weak or what ever .

nb I'd count a style that requires a deformed hand as having a major weakness, its a bit more than not being convenient or practical

A strength in an art doesn't have to be stronger than another art to be valid. Close standing grappling is a strength of NGA (as I know it). It is definitely not stronger than Judo in that area.

 

[jobo]

A strength in an art doesn't have to be stronger than another art to be valid. Close standing grappling is a strength of NGA (as I know it). It is definitely not stronger than Judo in that area.

its only a strengh if it effective,what are you going to compare it effectivness against if not judo?