|
Post by Suho on Jan 26, 2015 5:51:59 GMT
I've studied a few different things over the years. I started in Isshinryu Karate, but also did a little Tae Kwon Do for variation; Re: Kung fu, I've studied a style prominent in Korea that is really a blend of mantis and shaolin, and also studied Ving Tsun, hsing yi, Chen Tai Chi, & Yang Tai Chi. These past few years I have kind of been dormant in the martial arts (but practicing in my head).
|
|
|
Post by Madmartigen on Jan 26, 2015 9:03:27 GMT
Congrats on your promotion!
I've been practicing Shaolin Long Fist years ago. Now I am practicing Northern Praying Mantis and it is just fantastic. Very practically oriented as a combat system, we often spar, but we practice weapons as well (I am doing staff and sword myself but others practice sabre and spear in our school as well).
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Jan 26, 2015 13:08:33 GMT
aussie-rabbit, that's cool! I assume you learned weapons too? Yes, both Jian and broadsword, however like many during that period I was drawn to the Samurai sword more predominately and spent some time learning Kendo but it became rapidly stylized, expensive and I spent more time with rifles, pistols, work, kids, well you can figure the rest. The most valuable time spent oddly enough was the two years learning eastern massage ! Chinese, Indian and Northern Chinese, that has been more useful in my life that all of the martial arts training.
|
|
Aikidoka
Member
Monstrous monk in training...
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Aikidoka on Jan 26, 2015 17:08:55 GMT
Congrats on your promotion! I've been practicing Shaolin Long Fist years ago. Now I am practicing Northern Praying Mantis and it is just fantastic. Very practically oriented as a combat system, we often spar, but we practice weapons as well (I am doing staff and sword myself but others practice sabre and spear in our school as well). Thanks! It's great to know so many members are practicing
|
|
Aikidoka
Member
Monstrous monk in training...
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Aikidoka on Jan 26, 2015 17:11:37 GMT
The most valuable time spent oddly enough was the two years learning eastern massage ! Chinese, Indian and Northern Chinese, that has been more useful in my life that all of the martial arts training. Good point! Restorative massage was part of my training in Danzan Ryu Jujitsu. That training has been very useful to me over the years as well.
|
|
|
Post by Suho on Jan 27, 2015 19:01:04 GMT
The most valuable time spent oddly enough was the two years learning eastern massage ! Chinese, Indian and Northern Chinese, that has been more useful in my life that all of the martial arts training. Good point! Restorative massage was part of my training in Danzan Ryu Jujitsu. That training has been very useful to me over the years as well. I remember messing up my neck doing something in my Kung Fu class (not the instructor's fault) and my gruff teacher with hands like clubs went right to a spot on my neck along the spine and started doing some kind of massage that was sort of miraculous in its healing success. Wish I knew more of this area.
|
|
|
Post by AlvaroWang on Jan 27, 2015 23:44:06 GMT
Even though I have eastern heritage, I would never trust a kung fu teacher trying to heal my spine with these methods, I just enjoy it too much to let him touch :P
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jan 28, 2015 2:59:45 GMT
Nice. Yea I've studied kung fu for years. Primarily Wing Chun and various other soft styles over the years. Haven't been in a class for years but I'll always say kung fu is my foundation of all my martial arts training.
|
|
|
Post by Suho on Jan 28, 2015 11:18:14 GMT
Even though I have eastern heritage, I would never trust a kung fu teacher trying to heal my spine with these methods, I just enjoy it too much to let him touch Hahaha, he wasn't performing surgery! More like a sports-massage rub where my neck meets my shoulders area (I forget what that vertebrae area is called). The problem was the muscles around my neck and shoulder.
|
|
|
Post by AlvaroWang on Jan 29, 2015 23:09:08 GMT
Lol!
On the massages topic, there is a story of a chinese guy whose method was to literally jump on top of his clients. Well, as expected someday someone was doomed to get badly hurt.
One evening this guy call my father (a doctor) because someone stopped feeling his body while the masseusse was jumping on his spine. We got really tense, but the guy eventually recovered. Then we could laugh our a** off.
|
|
|
Post by AlvaroWang on Jan 30, 2015 4:06:54 GMT
I got a question to my fellow kung fu students.
The more I practice with weapons, the more I realize that soooo many moves don't make much sense if you think about empty hands. Too many postures just do not favor generation of much power.
I got epiphany number 1. Maybe they make more sense íf you had a weapon in your hands, where just a little power is enough to make a significant cut or thrust, it works even with blunt weapons like a staff.
Epiphany number 2. If it is so, that kung fu postures make sense if you have a weapon, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that kung fu is not a primarily empty hand martial art, but a martial art based on weapons that got adapted to empty hands? It would even make more sense as a development of a martial art.
Why would you bother creating a system for war using your own hands if you can grab virtually anything to work as a weapon?
I believe it would be the first thought of anyone who is in danger. If there is any kind of weapon available, one would never rely on your own fists to fight for your life.
I would like to hear your opinions on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jan 30, 2015 5:30:23 GMT
Martial arts intended for war focus very much on weapons. Martial arts intended for civilian use, less so. Martial arts intended for health/self-cultivation can be less weapons-oriented as well.
Yes, there are traditional stances that are usable as-is with weapons, but are not as useful in unarmed fighting. In the empty hand system, these come from the weapons side of things.
It's very likely that there are "empty hand" forms that are weapons forms done without weapons. There are empty hand forms based on weapons forms.
But one shouldn't overgeneralise. There are styles that originated in the 19th century with a strong focus on unarmed fighting (even if they include weapons). Definitely primarily empty hand martial arts, with weapons as an accessory.
Some forms are not directly intended for fighting, but are basic training in biomechanics. Sometimes the point is movement without telegraphing, rather than power generation, with the result that some postures in such forms don't make fighting sense. Forms are not scripted fighting demos, and need not be catalogs of fighting techniques. They are teaching tools which can have different purposes. Not everything in them is an attack or defence.
One thing that's commonly suggested in the way of alternative applications in karate kata is grappling. 'Tis said that things that don't make much sense as strikes or blocks are intended for grappling. Some people go too far with such secret applications stuff, but some makes sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 9:30:45 GMT
Depends on how the weapon is meant to be used. Jian uses very precise 'surgical' strikes and cuts to critical points which don't require too much power, but target critical points on the human anatomy. A dao doesn't need much power to create massive damage due to the weight-forward curved blade, put a lot of power into it and it can easily dismember. The dao techniques do generate a lot of power because it is a 'tiger weapon' and is meant to be used with a lot of power whereas jian is used with more precision.
|
|
|
Post by Suho on Jan 30, 2015 11:34:36 GMT
I got a question to my fellow kung fu students. The more I practice with weapons, the more I realize that soooo many moves don't make much sense if you think about empty hands. Too many postures just do not favor generation of much power. I got epiphany number 1. Maybe they make more sense íf you had a weapon in your hands, where just a little power is enough to make a significant cut or thrust, it works even with blunt weapons like a staff. Epiphany number 2. If it is so, that kung fu postures make sense if you have a weapon, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that kung fu is not a primarily empty hand martial art, but a martial art based on weapons that got adapted to empty hands? It would even make more sense as a development of a martial art. Why would you bother creating a system for war using your own hands if you can grab virtually anything to work as a weapon? I believe it would be the first thought of anyone who is in danger. If there is any kind of weapon available, one would never rely on your own fists to fight for your life. I would like to hear your opinions on the matter. I think that part of the problem with answering this is that there are such a vast and wide variety of different styles.
Re: Epiphany No. 1- I would agree that some moves would seem to be tailor made for using weapons. I don't think this applies for all or even most of the moves though. Some things to consider are that not every move is offensive and not every move is designed towards generating great power.
Re: Epiphany No. 2- I think going back in time to warring states periods and times of active invasions/defense against invasions the emphasis on military ("martial") weapons training and troop maneuvers would definitely have taken priority over hand-to-hand combat. Depending on the origin (or origin myth) of your style of preference the emphasis might be entirely different. If there is an inherent Buddhist philosophy underlying the actions and you would prefer to not harm someone more than necessary to defend against them, I think you are looking at a whole other game.
I think it's not ridiculous to assume, also, that since your hands are used as weapons that even forms conceived of as "empty" hand forms will still lend themselves to becoming weapons forms without much adaptation being necessary.
Some of what you observe may also be attributed to the fact that not every teacher learned all the secrets of his art before he began teaching on his own (for several possible reasons); some altered the teachings to emphasize those aspects they either believed in most or were most proficient at; or some teachers simply forgot/altered what they were taught or may have added/borrowed things from other styles without really understanding fully the purpose of those moves, etc....
That's my opinion, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by AlvaroWang on Jan 30, 2015 13:43:38 GMT
I think that part of the problem with answering this is that there are such a vast and wide variety of different styles.
Re: Epiphany No. 1- I would agree that some moves would seem to be tailor made for using weapons. I don't think this applies for all or even most of the moves though. Some things to consider are that not every move is offensive and not every move is designed towards generating great power.
Re: Epiphany No. 2- I think going back in time to warring states periods and times of active invasions/defense against invasions the emphasis on military ("martial") weapons training and troop maneuvers would definitely have taken priority over hand-to-hand combat. Depending on the origin (or origin myth) of your style of preference the emphasis might be entirely different. If there is an inherent Buddhist philosophy underlying the actions and you would prefer to not harm someone more than necessary to defend against them, I think you are looking at a whole other game.
I think it's not ridiculous to assume, also, that since your hands are used as weapons that even forms conceived of as "empty" hand forms will still lend themselves to becoming weapons forms without much adaptation being necessary.
Some of what you observe may also be attributed to the fact that not every teacher learned all the secrets of his art before he began teaching on his own (for several possible reasons); some altered the teachings to emphasize those aspects they either believed in most or were most proficient at; or some teachers simply forgot/altered what they were taught or may have added/borrowed things from other styles without really understanding fully the purpose of those moves, etc....
That's my opinion, anyway.
I do realize that we can't overgeneralise, thinking quickly, my thought wouldn't suit Wing Chun, for instance. But even Shaolin, and their myth of using staffs because they can't harm people. With all due respect, I believe it is non-sense. Hitting a person in the head with a staff, you might expect the other person to die. Now maybe there is a misunderstanding of what I am saying here. I said that probably most systems were founded based on weapons. But it doesn't mean that I am saying that in the beginning there were only weapons forms that were adapted to empty hands forms. As Timo said, forms have a variety of objectives.
Most styles have stances and moves that are just too uncomfortable to use, and when that happens, people say things like:Hey, that's only a concept. Or That's only to strenghten your legs. Or When using this technique, you gotta do some adaptations on the footwork. But at least as far as I went on my studies, that simply won't happen when using weapons. There is no footwork crooked enough that you wouldn't be able to do to get some kind of advantage. To illustrate this post, go to google images and search jiben bufa. The two first images are enough to illustrate what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Jan 30, 2015 23:26:34 GMT
Most styles have stances and moves that are just too uncomfortable to use, and when that happens, people say things like: Hey, that's only a concept. Or That's only to strenghten your legs. Or When using this technique, you gotta do some adaptations on the footwork. But at least as far as I went on my studies, that simply won't happen when using weapons. There is no footwork crooked enough that you wouldn't be able to do to get some kind of advantage. Just so. And those stances are (often) directly usable with weapons. Good with weapons. You see them in Western fight books, even. Part of it is that the weapon arts are intended for outdoor use, on potentially uneven ground. Short, almost sliding, footwork which lets you move quickly with much control on smooth floors (and lawns) can be dangerous on such ground. The deep traditional stances let you move significantly without stepping, and this is important for weapons. It's probably also useful for unarmed stuff, but I don't usually do unarmed sparring outdoors. Long stances are also important for protecting the legs.
|
|
|
Post by aussie-rabbit on Jan 31, 2015 4:18:50 GMT
Mian Chuan is primarily a soft close in style with a focus on soft and supple movements and actions. Pivoting, posture, movement and deflection of attacks, "do not be where your opponent strikes!", when your opponent is off balance, over reaching or deflected away then you strike hard to disable, points such as the inside of the knee, base of the neck, hollow at the base of the skull and so on, the only weapon forms Qin Guniang Gun staff are unusual because of their close range techniques, these have been migrated to Tai Chi.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 19:36:35 GMT
my last try with the martial arts was Wing Tsun...and thats also around 10-12 years back. I was very impressed first, mainly from watching our instructor...up to the day where he used me as "movable target" for his "black shirts"...it was a shame, really. He packed me in massive padding, 10 ouncers, shinguard and helmet and told me: "go for them. for real!" and they had to defend against me using WT techniques full force. Sorry...i destroyed everyone of them just using lowkicks, front kicks, roundhousekicks and boxing basics...i was no superfighter at all! So i gave up the quest to find the ultimate martial art...maybe MMA? Woud say so, but i am too old and fragile by now...;-)
|
|
|
Post by Suho on Feb 1, 2015 22:30:09 GMT
my last try with the martial arts was Wing Tsun...and thats also around 10-12 years back. I was very impressed first, mainly from watching our instructor...up to the day where he used me as "movable target" for his "black shirts"...it was a shame, really. He packed me in massive padding, 10 ouncers, shinguard and helmet and told me: "go for them. for real!" and they had to defend against me using WT techniques full force. Sorry...i destroyed everyone of them just using lowkicks, front kicks, roundhousekicks and boxing basics...i was no superfighter at all! So i gave up the quest to find the ultimate martial art...maybe MMA? Woud say so, but i am too old and fragile by now...;-) Hmmm. I can see how that would turn you off to the art. I can't claim to have practiced it actively for a super long time, maybe half a year, but I fully intend to go back when scheduling permits, etc.
The thing is, for those who are really good with Ving Tsun (I'm not talking about me), it is an awesome art and quite devastating. The problem is that the learning curve is much slower and you have to constantly practice it with a partner to get a feel for if it is working or how to do it right.
Also, the moves are logical based on the system's principles but counter-intuitive for anyone who has previously trained in virtually any other fighting art. There is a big "un-learning" period where you have to forget how to throw a punch, etc. the "normal" way. Once you have the style down, though, you're a badass!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 23:17:27 GMT
...kinda doubt it..."black shirts" are supposed to be instructor level i guess?...and it was so EASY! Nothing fancy, leading with a low kick, left-right jab, left hook...BAM! Essentially it were mostly the low- and powerful roundhousekicks that did the job...they didnt do the trinity thing fast enough...
|
|