Well, I am not Alex, so I cannot answer your question. However, based on his initial post, this is the main page for the style(s) that he practices Oom Yung Doe . It contains 8 different 'TMAs', so my assumption is that this is his experience, although I am sure he will correct me if he has crosstrained/researched outside of the organization as well.
I kind of suspect that's what Chris was getting at. Oom Yung Doe is a modern eclectic art. Its founder claims to cover 8 different arts as part of the curriculum, but it's not certain exactly what his background is in those arts. From the videos I've watched on the official website, it appears that these arts (at least the ones I have some knowledge of) have been changed significantly from their traditional forms.
I gathered this, but as I don't have experience in all 8 of the arts, I can't say much or say whether it is a bad or good thing. THe only thing I can definitively state is their use of the nunchuk (the only weapon video I looked at) is very different than how I learned, but that doesn't mean much. I also wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt for all those who hadn't seen the website, considering Shaolin Kempo is also badmouthed for being an eclectic system.
I didn't see the claim that their forms are centuries old originally. As for how the arts are related and combined together, I would need to talk to someone about how they can be combined. The two possibilities I see that would make the art legitimate (to me) are either that they all have some underlying principle I do not know that the art focuses around, or that the art has taken training techniques from each, found ways that the different arts compliment each other and learned to incorporate them. If it's the first option, I'm very interested in what might be the common principal they teach from each art. If the second, it's very impressive that they managed to do this, as the only two arts that I know of that have done it well are Shaolin Kempo and JKD (both of which plenty of people will disagree on), so it would be interesting to hear it from anothers perspective.
Ah, I see. I don't claim to be a historian by any means, however I can only explain what I mean personally when I say traditional martial arts. That being the original practices of east Asia that are rooted in and spread out from Bodhidharma's teachings. However, I understand if someone else may mean something different when they say "traditional".
Yeah, this is where we start running into issues...
I understand. Like I said, as long as its inquisitive and educational conversation I take no offense. I don't disagree with what you are saying either. There is a myriad of martial arts with all different origins. To be honest I don't look into it too extensively either because over 2000 years there is expectedly much debate and no real way to say we know 100% how history really played out. Anyways, we do explain some things differently than alot of schools, but we do have the strength, skill, and ability to back it, which I hope you will find intriguing
As far as documented history I claim 0 expertise, and would be happy to read anything you'd like to share with me. Thanks.
I've got no problem with someone promoting their art based on the skill and ability of its practitioners. My primary art (BJJ) is a non-traditional art which is promoted the same way. However if I were to start telling people about what constitutes "traditional" martial arts practice based on how we do things in BJJ, then I would probably not get the most positive of responses.I understand. Like I said, as long as its inquisitive and educational conversation I take no offense. I don't disagree with what you are saying either. There is a myriad of martial arts with all different origins. To be honest I don't look into it too extensively either because over 2000 years there is expectedly much debate and no real way to say we know 100% how history really played out. Anyways, we do explain some things differently than alot of schools, but we do have the strength, skill, and ability to back it, which I hope you will find intriguing
Right. I guess it's good to mention that about 70+% of our knowledge is based on Bagua and we consider that knowledge to be the core and most valuable part of our system. I've already heard the arguments about that because people say Bagua started with Dong Haichuan, even though he stated that he learned it from Taoist monks, and it isn't stated where they learned it. Anyways, you're right, it gets fuzzy the further you go back.
Cool. I don't have any background in Bagua, so I can't judge how traditional the forms shown on the website are. I know enough about jujutsu, aikido, and kendo to see that what's demonstrated wouldn't be judged as traditional by most practitioners of those styles. Do you happen to know what Mr. Kim's background in those three arts was when he founded Oom Yung Doe?
Yes I know. Kung Fu simply means "skill" and refers to alot of arts. For sake of simplicity we base it on alot of nature forms, meaning it was derived from watching animals in their natural habitat, or from the principles of ocean waves, tornadoes, etc etc. with the emphasis being on developing the mind and body through copying the natural movement, absorbing natures energy into the body, melding ones own energy with nature(becoming one with nature) , etc etc lol. Anyways, I hope that makes sense to you.
But which of the arts are you guys referring to? You can base it on animals or nature all you want, but there should still be some underlying CMA for it to be called Kung Fu and not be misleading.
