Traditional CMA's future

[RHD]

With all of the threads regarding various martial arts that claim to be kung fu this past year, I have begun to wonder just how it is that people do not take the time to research what they're paying for. Equally amazing is the amount of poop that's out there hiding under the mysterious blanket of CMA. It really disturbs me to see the level of ignorance out there as to where people's kung fu comes from and in many cases how it works... :erg:

As for myself:I guess at this point I could be referred to as a "non-traditional" practitioner of Hung Gar. By that I mean there is no mysteriousness, secrets, nor-information withheld in the process by which I teach my students. As an instructor, it's very important to be up front about where you learned, what you learned, and your experience actually using what you've learned and how that's affected your training process. Unfortunately, this may make for a very mundane background...

Anyway, as a lead in to the new year I will throw this out for discussion:

Chinese martial arts are among the least popular and most difficult to find quality instruction in. With the advent of MMA, Xtreme MA, Wushu, psuedo-CMA styles, and the overwhelming numbers of TKD schools out there....What do you all think the future of traditional CMA will be? :idunno:

Mike

 

[clfsean]

Eh those who choose to study a TCMA will study a TCMA. Those who don't, won't.

TCMA will always be in the background compared to KMA, JMA, MMA, XMA, etc... MA ... but it will always be there & those of us who make the choice to study, teach & propogate TCMA will be there too.

Then again... many of the aforementioned MA's will still try to keep some connection to TCMA saying "descended from..." or "originated in..." etc...

 

[7starmantis]

This is something that is on my mind quite often actually. There is an ever increasing number of "CMAist" who lack desire, skill, and hard training. Yet they like to call themselves CMAist. The amount of truly skilled, highly skilled CMAist is, in my humble opinion, very small. Its more or less the main reason the US Kung Fu Exchange (of which I am a member) was created. An organization of schools and sifus teaching true CMA who train hard and apply everything to fighting. A group where each member has a very high level of skill to stand on and back up what they teach. In a world of money-hungry, psudo-kung fu schools, an organization like that can really shine bright.

However, on the flip side, I actually sort of enjoy this situation. For one, I know that there are few who train as hard and complete as we attempt to. I also know there are few who will have the desire to put in the training and time to become highly skilled at CMA. This gives me, my school, and others who train as hard and complete as we do, a bit of an advantage. Being the "underdog" or less popular style helps us weed out those who are not interested in serious TCMA training. Thos "hobbiest" or "weekend Martial artists" will more than likely never come into our school or leave pretty quickly. Thats ok, the more serious students we have, the better the future of TCMA looks to me.

7sm

 

[cashwo]

Sometimes it's not a matter of choice but a matter of what's available. CMA simply doesn't exist within a 3-4 (or more) hour drive of me. For the 2 in my area I did some heavy research on and had some serious problems with them.

 

[7starmantis]

There is also a thread I started a while back that is similar to this one.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4302

Might have some good points there as well.

7sm

 

[Fumanchu]

Having been to a number of different schools I agree there is a disparity in the quality of teaching and I'm fortunate having found a good school.

I think TCMA that is institutionalised will continue to decline in quality. This is because some ppl become more concerned about about the who's who - like whether the grandmaster that founded the school is a famous fighter, or arguing about which school has the most comprehensive collection of forms or who is ranked at what level. I think the efforts of trying to preserve TCMA is leading to its demise.

For good TCMA to survive, I think the practitioners need to understand their system in the context of their own language instead of saying - did sifu say such and such or is this or that drill traditional. I think a good approach is to say the end justifies the means - meaning I do this - does it work in practice. It's important to experiment and cross training knowing that the developers of good fighting systems in the past did just that.

 

[East Winds]

I think it is important to decide what the definition of TCMA's is. Or rather where the limits lie. In my own case, TCMA means the Internal arts of Taijiquan, Bagua, Xing-I and Liu Ho Pa Fa. But only because I have no experience of the others. It has been said many times on this and other boards, that if you want a quick fix for a fighting MA then don't go the TCMA route! As far as expeimenting and cross training go, I think that this will be the cause of TCMA's demise. If you have gone so far in the study of your art that you think you can improve on it by experimenting and cross training, then I think you need to look again at what it is you want from your MA and where you want to go with it. Many people in the past have thought they could improve on what they were taught. The most noticable in the Internal CMA's was of course Cheng Man-ching. Who after supposedly studying with Yang Cheng-fu, went for the quick fix and changed the from he was taught. It is questionable and debatable whether that change was for the good. No disrespect to the many adherents of Cheng Man-ching's very popular style. However in the process he lost many of the Yang principles that we Traditional Yang stylists pursue today. I have been working on this particular form for 15 years now (and teaching it for 7 years) and am still amazed that my own teacher can take me right back to the beginning and demonstrate a flaw in my form!!!! I don't have the time to experiment and cross train I'm too busy working on what I am being taught!!!!!!
An interesting discussion by the way.

Very best wishes

East Winds

 

[7starmantis]

I also think that there are two schools of thought on the word "traditional". When I think of "traditional kung fu" it brings up images in my head of intense training. Traditional training in the sense of hard conditioning, severe fighting, doing forms until you can barely walk and then fighting for a couple of hours. Six hour classes, 5 times a week. Learning a little bit and training it "into the ground" before learning more. That is what traditional is to me.

However, there is another school of thought about what "Traditional" means. There seems to be a belief that "traditional" kung fu involves doing only forms, or no contact. It seems people believe "traditional" holds no application value. People also start lumping spirituality in with "traditional" CMA. The mysticism and "magic" of TCMA, where you can kill your opponent without touching them.

I think we need to swing the "opinion" or belief system back to what true traditional kung fu means. In the second sense, I would most definitely be non-traditional, and I think most of us would fall short of what the first definition held as well. I guess I'm a non-traditional traditionalist.

7sm

 

[East Winds]

7starmantis,

Good post. You and I are in entire agreement. In Traditional Yang Tajiquan, if the form is not correct, the application won't work. Simple as that. You certainly cannot take the martial out of Taijiquan. The spiritual is the last and greatest attainment in taijiquan, not the first, as so many new age and taicheese schools proclaim. I think there is a future for TCMA's but I also think they have to be trained in the traditional way. There are no short cuts!!!!!!

Very best wishes

East WInds

 

[RHD]

However, there is another school of thought about what "Traditional" means. There seems to be a belief that "traditional" kung fu involves doing only forms, or no contact. It seems people believe "traditional" holds no application value. People also start lumping spirituality in with "traditional" CMA. The mysticism and "magic" of TCMA, where you can kill your opponent without touching them.

7sm

:barf:

This is what will kill CMA in my opinion. It's had a serious detrimental effect to this point.

Mike

 

[RHD]

I think it is important to decide what the definition of TCMA's is. Or rather where the limits lie. In my own case, TCMA means the Internal arts of Taijiquan, Bagua, Xing-I and Liu Ho Pa Fa. But only because I have no experience of the others. It has been said many times on this and other boards, that if you want a quick fix for a fighting MA then don't go the TCMA route! As far as expeimenting and cross training go, I think that this will be the cause of TCMA's demise. If you have gone so far in the study of your art that you think you can improve on it by experimenting and cross training, then I think you need to look again at what it is you want from your MA and where you want to go with it. Many people in the past have thought they could improve on what they were taught. The most noticable in the Internal CMA's was of course Cheng Man-ching. Who after supposedly studying with Yang Cheng-fu, went for the quick fix and changed the from he was taught. It is questionable and debatable whether that change was for the good. No disrespect to the many adherents of Cheng Man-ching's very popular style. However in the process he lost many of the Yang principles that we Traditional Yang stylists pursue today. I have been working on this particular form for 15 years now (and teaching it for 7 years) and am still amazed that my own teacher can take me right back to the beginning and demonstrate a flaw in my form!!!! I don't have the time to experiment and cross train I'm too busy working on what I am being taught!!!!!!
An interesting discussion by the way.

Very best wishes

East Winds

East Winds, please check your PM

Mike

 

[Fumanchu]

Lets take TCMA: Taijiquan, Bagua, Xing-I, it was through experimentation and adaptation of earlier styles such as long fist that these styles came about. So I don't see what has changed between "then" and "now" that you think that we don't need to experiment to learn. In the old days even the masters cross train. Styles like mantis were learned at an intermediate level, which means that a student has got a foundation from else where. If it was not for cross training how did branches like 6 harmonies mantis come about.

There's a difference between training a traditional system compared to training the old way. We don't need to rely on old training methods to arrive at the same objectives to what the style is designed for. Our understanding of the human body is superior to the chinese 300 to 400 hundred years ago. I don't think hammering away at a form till you can hardly walk is particuarly an efficient way of learning.

 

[East Winds]

RHD,

Thanks for your input. Boy!! Do you still have along way to go in the study of TCMA's!!!!

Why do you guys think that spirit has something to do with religion or airy fairy techniques? Talk to the Shaolin boys.

Fumanchu,

If we know so much about the body, why do western doctors still regard the Yellow Emperors Canon of Medicine essential reading in their studies?

As I said in my earlier posts my knowledge of the external TCMA's is limited and therefore I know little of their training methods. What I do know about the IMA's is that there is no substitute for hard training. That's the only way to internalise your art.

Very best wishes

East Winds

 

[East Winds]

RHD.

Sorry, that last reply was just ME being "Politically incorrect". Please see your PM.

Fumanchu.

That is not how Bagua, Xing-Yi and Liu Ho Pa Fa were developed. That would be to suggest they were merely sub-sets of taijiquan and of course they are not. The are complete and seperate arts on their own. Where about in China are you located?

Very best wishes

East Winds

 

[RHD]

RHD.

Sorry, that last reply was just ME being "Politically incorrect". Please see your PM.

East Winds

The reason behind the PM is that I've thought about studying some Tai Chi Chuan, but where I am it's mostly slow motion granola bar health dance. I'm more interested in the Chuan part.

No prob.
I think the philosophy stuff isn't as deep as people want it to be in CMA.

By the way CMA=Chinese Martial Arts.
TCMA=Traditional Chinese Martial Arts? That's pretty much the same thing.

Mike

 

[East Winds]

Mike,

Agreed! CMA and TCMA same as Tai Chi and Tai Chi Ch'uan. Shorthand (and probably sloppy) ways of saying the same thing. I know exactly what you mean about the slow motion dance. We have plenty of that here!
Incidentally, I have a couple of guys who practise Lau Gar who come to my classes to try and internalise (and soften?) their own art. Incidentally what is the difference between Lau Gar and Hung Gar?

Very best wishes

East Winds

 

[7starmantis]

I think we can seperate philosophy from spirituality in CMA. My religion and my kung fu are seperate. I do see similarities in principles that can relate to both kung fu and religion, however the physical training aspect of kung fu has nothing to do with religion or spiritualism. That being said, there seems to be alot of usage of the word "spirit" in kung fu, but I dont think its used in the way that religion uses the word. For example: "The spirit of a technique". People come into our school all the time wanting a spiritual class where they can sit and meditate and get upset and leave when they have to do such hard physical training. This idea that CMA or TCMA are a religion or offer some "magic" or spiritual powers is wrong and I agree with Mike that it has and will continue to hurt CMA in general.

7sm

 

[RHD]

Mike,

Incidentally, I have a couple of guys who practise Lau Gar who come to my classes to try and internalise (and soften?) their own art. Incidentally what is the difference between Lau Gar and Hung Gar?

Very best wishes

East Winds

I have a friend in Scotland who practices Lau Gar. I'll ask him and let you know what he says.

Mike

 

[Fumanchu]

East Winds,

I agree if you want to reach a high level, physical training is demanding. That goes without saying, whether you want to be good at basket ball, tennis etc. you have to put the hours in. I'm talking more about the effectiveness of one's training program.

I've not come across "Yellow Emperors Canon of Medicine" as an essential text in todays medical programs. I think as part of the history in medicine we learn about what ppl like hippocrates did and his theories. some are correct while others have shown to be false. In any case we have a more indepth understanding allowing us to better explain their methods.

Development from earlier styles doesn't mean they are sub-styles. If they didn't come from earlier fighting systems then where did they come from? They are self contained styles that share a great deal of similarities between one another. No. they didn't come from tai chi which as developed around the same time as Hsing I and mantis. It is Bagua which is a later comer.

On that point where does one draw the line between traditional and mordern? Weren't all styles modern at some stage?

 

[7starmantis]

Effectiveness can be measured in a variety of ways with many variables. I would not claim someone’s training practices as effective without a degree of intense hardcore training. However, your right fumanchu, intense hard training alone doesn't make one's training effective.

I have come across many texts about "eastern medicine" in my education in the medical field. I think its interesting how medicine is now swinging back to natural and even "eastern" practices. Using the pendulum analogy we see that there were some very advanced and greatly accepted (even today) practices in ancient medicine. We are starting to see a trend of natural "drugs" as opposed to man-made drugs again as well.

7sm