Mike Brewer

Is this kind of stuff hurting the legitimacy of some Chinese Arts? I mean, come on. This one has all the myths rolled into one. Shaolin Warrior Monk AND Samurai Warrior. Only taught the Chinese. Deadly Poison Hand Technique. Dammit. OH! And the cartoon fire in the background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L755yDu8emY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdoz7...eature=related (You'll love the disclaimer at the beginning of this one. That must be why it's on YouTube! Now that the disclaimer has been included, let's teach those cops how to defend against the samurai sword, and apply the deadly poison hand - Dragon Snatches the Pearl. Holy Shit.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD-_N...eature=related (Female Warrior entering with Chi, striking like the Cobra, etc., etc., etc.)

I'm not posting this to trash this guy, but speaking as a non-CMA martial artist, this is the kind of stuff that really makes CMA's look hokey.

Troll Virus

So sticking it on youtube is a good idea?

There's a lot more where that came from.

There's a lot of good stuff to though.

Red Rum

This was my earlier point about video footage.
Of course it is not the ultimate test of whether a martial art is good or not (it is always far better to experience it in person), but many arts post videos of boxing, MT, BJJ etc and most of them are very good quality

With CMA it seems that there are a lot of McDojos and people trying to make a quick buck who have no skill

It is hard doing a video to satisfy everyone. If you do one explaining why we do forms, people ask for more fighting. If you do one on fighting people ask to see more formwork

I believe that there are a few federations that will be posting vids on youtube soon - certainly I am encouraging my students to film some new vids showing both the soft side and the hard side of wing chun training

It would be nice to have a video where there is total honesty, ie showing the situations that wing chun works in and showing the areas where wing chun doesn't work

I think people fear videos as they are then forever immortalised and judged by it which is unfair

I certainly think any CMA which posts bad vids should be stand by it and answer questions on it

Mike Brewer

TV,
That was kinda my point about the YouTube thing. I thought it was a little silly to put it there after such harsh disclaimers, but I guess anyone could have posted it. Still, if it's purely for law enforcement, one wonders why it was put on a commercial video...

RedRum,
As I've mentioned often, I am as green as it gets when it comes to things like traditional arts, and particularly Chinese arts. Is there any way you (or anyone else in the know) could post some videos of some legitimate stuff to balance out the tripe? I have been looking, but I'm worried that as an admitted novice, the things I consider "legit" may be far from it. I'd be genuinely interested in the input.

Knuckles&Knees

Lucky Chicago.

Red Rum

It will take some time to plan and put togther a vid. The last one Kevin Chan posted looked too 'set up' and we need to work on making people understand that some hits we cannot do for real (knife hand strikes to the throat etc) and some we can. Or to find willing people who can take hits well

We also have to get permission from the Kamon seniors before we post stuff, which is understandable

My other alternative is to film the next tournament I go to. The only downside to this is that I use about 33% wing chun, 33% grappling and 33% kickboxing, so it will probably get slated by various people (Thai Bri) for not being wing chun

Troll Virus

Ah, the pro's & cons of youtube.
Thing is, if you put two blokes in a ring and say 'hands only' you have boxing.
If you put two blokes in a ring and say 'hands and legs' you have kickboxing.
Why is there this expectation that CMA people have to impersonate a parrot, mongoose or a duck while competing?
Did Chuck Norris or Benny the Jet ever use Horse stance in their matches?

Take something like this; http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kDnm0YiNfcA
Obvious comments will no doubt materialize about "dead drills", "fully resisting opponents", "Telegraphed & pre-determined attacks".
Be fair.
Regardless of the context of the video, does Kwok Sifu look as if he might be able to handle himself?

What I will say is, the more time someone has spent in one system, the greater the possibility you will see something particular to their training within a sporting context.

Regarding legitimacy, Carlson Gracie seemed to think so; http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=n3jJ-l...eature=related

Mike Brewer

I know I'm risking a total spin-out here, but this thread brings up an awesome question. Red Rum, you mentioned the blend of styles or methods you use for fighting. Isn't that an expectation of all fighters? Using a blend of all they've been exposed to in order to be more effective? Can you even help doing this?

It seems as though there are a lot of people who want to make a single style be the answer for everything. Obviously with my background in martial arts, this has always seemed kind of silly. I came into martial arts as a JKD-type guy, and so everything was about experimenting with what's out there and finding the right "prescriptions" from any source you could find them. It's odd to me that someone would take a single art - Hung Gar for example - and try to make it fit every situation. More than that, it's strange to me that the same person would think that refinging the art and doing it more like the past masters, more like the system that was developed in past centuries would somehow make it more suitable for today.

That said, here's my question:
I find it completely legitimate that a Chinese Martial Arts proponent would want to diversify and seek effectiveness outside his own system, even if he only decided to look as far as other Chinese systems. That makes sense to me, and it's a totally legit thing to do. Why does it seem there's so much animosity between the more traditional guys who do that, though? Is there really still a "system loyalty" in CMA's? It seems like it, because even when people branch out and include things like BJJ or boxing or kickboxing, they still want to call it Wing Chun or Hung Gar or whatever. It's like it's offensive to them if they have to admit they're drawing from other sources.

Or am I just full of shit?

Red Rum

You are definatley not full of sh*t
The trouble is that when you start incorperating other moves into your art, it starts to lose its identity, and in some ways, credibility

Kamon is starting to incorperate sparring using boxing/kickboxing techniques into the grading syllabus
To be a black belt at kamon you also will have had to be a bit more experienced in BJJ (at least 10 seminars under Master Chan)

This is good in many ways and it makes for a good all round fighter, but in some ways it is also detrimental to the credibility of the art.

When people talk about 'how good wing chun is', they will ask why we incorperate other techniques into it
Whilst any sane person can understand that wing chun has a very limited floor and long range game, there are those people who will not understand. And these people, unfortunately are usually he people who influenec the world of martial arts

I think the other thing (and this is a very debatable point) is that there is a risk of watering down of a martial art. Some people I know have become okay 'all round fighters' but aren't specialized enough in one type of fighting to teach it

I know that one of the leading MMA guys (think it was Chuck Liddell) said that he would not be able to teach a class full of people specific aspects of fighting (ie close range, long range etc) but instead show them drills to cover all bases in a limited way

Troll Virus

"Kung Fu" means 'work in progress', 'work', 'skill', 'effort' etc.
That means if I train boxing, kickboxing BJJ or Martian Arts, they are all still part of my K/Gung Fu.
They are all things I absorb for myself.
It's not offensive at all.
Thought a JKD guy would understand that?

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.

jubaji

The Crane-dude will end up on his ass and then spend the next hour telling you all the ways he could have killed you just then?


But I guess it would depend on where this class was...

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.

Mike Brewer

Yup. Or he'll tell you that you weren't attacking right.

Red Rum

I think there is a limit though.
This is where MMA or Jeet Kune do come in

Bruce Lee tried to make people understand that the ultimate evolution of martial arts is to make your body flow in a natural way, rather than force it into certain structures or styles

Yet I strongly believe that to begin with you need a 'foundation art'
You can't get a guy hitting a bag all his life without teaching him about footwork and you can't teach a person about footwork until they understand foundation

These kind of arts - karate, wing chun, Judo etc are often ridiculed in the martial arts community, but they ultimately strengthen your core elements before you progress onto more fluid arts like boxing, BJJ etc

Its also nice to have an identity, and to appreciate where your martial art came from. Although wing chun doesn't have the most documented history, we still know of people like Yip Man and (for me Kevin Chan), rather than end up down some gym training random moves

Mike Brewer

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? I'm not asking to be a jerk - I just have a hard time understanding this stuff sometimes as I did start my martial pursuits a little differently. All my life, from my very first lesson onward, there was a distinct disavowment of styles and systems per se - even JKD itself really. I was never "taught" the appreciation for one stylistic identity or another, and so in topics like this I often come across sounding either patronizing or just stupid. Believe me, it's stupid if it's either of the two.

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. I know many people don't see it that way, but plenty more do. There are, after all, 8th, 9th, and 10th degree whatevers who do nothing but their foundation art and they teach it as self-defense. Sometimes, these folks also stress the fundamental traditions of the original art, claiming that the answers to combat are there. To someone like me, with my distinctly American perspective and outlook, this runs quite contrary to instinct. The preservation of tradition can be important in terms of values, but in terms of function, innovation is king.

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), 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.