Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer
I do understand it. What I don't understand is why there are so many kung fu people who insist that something is or isn't part of their system. Go ahead and shoot a double leg to a side control and Kimura in a Northern Crane class, and you'll see what I mean.
|
I can't say as I've come across that mentality a great deal, or to be honest, I'd naturally filter it out.
e.g. I remember talking to a guy after a class who told me he was entering a kickboxing tournament and was confident his Chun was going to assure him victory. He wasn't too chuffed when I told him he'd get creamed.
I usually switch off my ears when people start espousing delusions.
I prefer to focus on what arts 'are', rather than what they are 'not'.
That to me is what is good about the whole JKD thang.
Absorb what is useful etc etc.
Thing is, you'll not hear Inosanto slagging off arts of any description.
They are what they are.
If there is something useful in them, absorb it and move on.
Quote:
|
So does that mean that the true functionality of a traditional art only extends to the degree it can serve as a basis for expanding into other things?
|
Why do arts have to have a beginning and an end?
They come about through a natural process of evolution.
I spent a few years travelling the UK, training quite deliberately with the best people I could find in different TMA systems and asking those kinds of questions.
Some people do regard their TMA systems as bases to which they build.
Some people can actually demonstrate that reasonably convincingly, while I remain somewhat sceptical.
It's certainly true of many FMA systems, in that there is a systemised approach to footwork and weapon drills which translate to empty hands, but's really the old Nature vs Nurture question wrapped up in an awkward bundle.
How much of what comes out when push comes to shove is developed or natural.
Quote:
|
I was never "taught" the appreciation for one stylistic identity
|
I'd think you were taught the opposite?
Be formless etc.
Quote:
|
I guess I can see and appreciate where you're coming from, but it still leaves me with the base question of why some folks believe that one art, unchanged from its original founding state, can be the answer to evolving and changing combat.
|
Is there now a definitive answer to that question?
I haven't seen one, just a lot of theory.
Quote:
|
The preservation of tradition can be important in terms of values, but in terms of function, innovation is king.
|
How can you be sure you are innovating if you haven't examined all that exists already?
Quote:
|
I guess what I'm trying to learn is whether or not the traditional crowd sees what it does as a group identity that's sort of as important or more important than fighting (in which case, more power to them; I think that's an entirely valid reason to train),
|
There are varying states of delusion in every aspect of life on this planet.
I did a survey within the membership of a TMA school once and the majority were there for fun and social reasons, not fighting!
However, I know a local Karate school and the guys most definitely CAN fight!
Now you can look back and say their style originates back to Okinawa and then into Southern Kung Fu styles. In actual fact many of these systems are less than 100 years old, their origins often within living memory.
You have to take a step back and look at the bigger picture to see the evolution, it's just not as black and white as a lot of people would have you believe.
In terms of 'group identity', well yeah you could class CMA systems in that way. There's the idea of 'family', with the father at the head and everyone else being brothers and sisters of that family.
That's something that doesn't exist to the same extent in any other TMA I can think of.
Quote:
|
or whether they really believe that they're learning the best fighting methods out there by doing centuries-old patterns and drills in a modern, evolving world.
|
First of all, that's quite a complex subject in itself. I never, ever studied a form all the time thinking how much of a better fighter it would make me.
I did them, because somebody else knew something I didn't.
Therefor I wanted to know what they did.
I also did them because they are fun.
I like watching them because they are interesting and often beautiful, just as you appreciate athletes or ballerinas.
I respect the effort that goes into them and I know that anyone capable of devoting a high level of effort in one walk of life, inevitably can in another.
See, if I know what you know, but you don't know what I know, then I know more than you or vice versa.
I co taught a seminar a few of years back with, a DBMA instructor and a WMA instructor.
I'd been asked to show some odd things, so I showed a short section of a hand form without explaining what it was for.
Thing is, none of the students could tell me, but they'd been doing the exact same movement as an FMA stick strip.
You see, we were 'fascillitated' as students.
We were taught to 'learn', which means even things like forms have useful and interesting things in them if you know what to look for.
It was never handed out to you on a plate, you got a bit of a puzzle to work out on your own.
Babies and bathwater.