The Modern Day Gong Wu

POST #10: FOUR GREAT WEAPONS

2009-11-15T21:28:00.000-08:00

THIS PIECE IS A BRIEF INTERLUDE FROM THE THREE PART SERIES THAT BEGAN WITH POST#8 AND CONTINUED WITH #9. THE CONCLUSION TO THAT TRILOGY WILL BE SEEN IN POST#11.

Traditional Weapons Training

Very often people are attracted to Chinese Martial Arts because of the absolute array of weapons present in the system. No other ethnic combat system can boast such a plethora of sharp and shiney, blunt and edged, long and stout tools of defense and war. However, aside from being a “marketing” ploy, many others ask, "what is the use of training in such archaic tools for combat?" In this temporary interlude before finishing up the trilogy that started with POST #8 and #9, I will introduce a classification of weapons called the Four Great Weapons. I will then explain why I believe it important to continue training in these weapons despite the fact that the carrying of such items would either be considered illegal or simply a societal oddity.

Four Great Weapons:

In Chinese Martial Arts, weapons are usually broken down into three categories. The first category is the Four Great Weapons. The second is what is commonly called the Eighteen Classical Weapons though, oddly enough, there is some wiggle room depending on who you ask as to what constitutes as part of this family. Examples include the Guan Dao and the Double Sabres. Despite some variation though, the concept remains fairly constant throughout the majority of schools. The final category encompasses Specialty Weapons, weapons that are style specific or unique to an individual but later made standard. Examples would be the Deer Antler Knives or the Butterfly knives (not those flippy knives kids play with… these are about the length of your forearm). The latter two categories are not for discussion this time. We will be focusing on what may be called the Four Great Weapons/Four Ancestral Weapons/Four Basic Weapons etc.

The Four Great Weapons refers to the Staff, the Spear, the Broadsword (though I refer to it as a Sabre) and the Straight Sword. The staff is called the Grandfather of all weapons, the spear is called the King of all weapons, the sabre is called the General/Marshal of all weapons, and the straight sword is called the Gentleman/Scholar of all weapons. It must be noted now that I do not plan to go even into moderate depths as to the usage and techniques of said weapons. That article will come later as it is a very comprehensive topic that requires separate time and consideration.

The staff is called the Grandfather of all weapons because it is the first of all weapons. From the moment that man conceived a stick could increase range of motion for swinging and striking, the staff, as a weapon, was born. Obviously one could argue that the cudgel, a stout piece of wood no longer than the length of your arm, is the original weapon, but we won’t get into that discussion either. The power of the staff is produced by the arms. The shoulder and the wrist are the primary generators of the force involved with staff strikes. This weapon is intended for wide sweeping motions and an overall defensive/offensive position granted by reach advantage and sturdiness of equipment. The combat range of a staff is second largest, with the maximum effective range ideally being one foot distance between your opponent and the tip of your staff with whatever ready position that you choose. Obviously there are exceptions and such things will be discussed in a different piece focusing on methodologies of combat. The length and thickness of the staff is dictated by whatever school and style one may practice. It is ideal for those that wish to defend themselves while stubbornly adhering to a policy of no intentional bloodletting.

If the staff is called the Grandfather of all weapons, what, then, is the spear? From a rather pedestrian stance the spear is nothing more than a staff with a spike, often of metal, but can crudely pass with a wooden point. But let us briefly engage in a metaphorical break down.

From a slightly more metaphorical standpoint, the staff, which is the grandfather, symbolizes elders and advisors of the court. Though commanding in their own right, they lack the charisma and visible authority allotted to a king. Though powerful as an entity, in a monarchical society, the primary purpose of the advising court would be to rally and give their support to a distinguished head who wields ‘visible power’, that being the spearhead or, in accordance with the metaphor, the ruler of a country. Thus the spear is the King of all weapons. It rules the battlefield with uncompromising authority and enforces its presence with a keen, unforgiving edge. It can be used as a staff to command and solidify a position, but it can also effectively advance through the ranks by way of thrusting and cutting with the head. The power of the spear comes from a pliable waist and powerful, stable arms to guide the point of the spear true and through a target. It can be utilized as a staff, but the true power comes from the point. It has the longest range out of the Four Great Weapons as it can be swung like a staff, but it has the lethality of a bladed weapon, due to the presence of the tip. Truly the King of All Weapons on the ancient battle field.

Next comes the broadsword. Those that know me should know that I shun using the term ‘sword’ for this weapon. That is because for Chinese people, the word ‘sword’ specifically labels something which is double edged, whereas the term ‘knife’ denotes all things with a single edge. Therefore the Chinese ‘broadsword’, being endowed with only a single edge, falls categorically under the label knife; those that have looked at the Chinese character for the Chinese ‘broadsword’ will be astounded to realize that it IS actually simply the character ‘knife’. That is why I insist on using the word sabre since sabre, in the western world, refers to a curved single edged weapon with a guard over the hand. Digression aside, the Sabre is the Marshal/General of all weapons. The translation varies but I work under the assumption that the Chinese meant to say that the Sabre has full command of the battlefield after the King so, with that assumption in mind, Marshal is a higher rank than General so the weapon will be henceforth termed Marshal of all weapons. Where the staff is support and the spearhead the authority, the dirty work of taking life belongs to the subordinate warriors of the king. Though lacking in reach, the sabre borrows the authority from the ruler and swiftly dispenses punishment on the battlefield. The sabre is a hack and slash weapon. It requires powerful arms and a coordinated body to allow the full weight of a person to chop through a target. Elegance is an unnecessary luxury which has no place for the average soldier on the battlefield. Thus the standoffishness of a staff, or the regal bearing of a spear, are best left to the side in favour of a more direct and maneuverable weapon, that being the sabre. It was easy to mass produce and easy to train for practical combat on the field. It was therefore the weapon of choice for all soldiers of the imperial army and, consequently, one of the most widely used by martial artists in ancient China.

The last of the Four Great Weapons is the Chinese straight sword. This is called the Scholar of all weapons. Originally a standard weapon during war, it was largely abandoned early on in favour of the sabre due to the sturdier nature of the latter weapon which allowed for a heavier chopping action. Though carried by generals of the army, it was largely a symbol of class rather than an oft used weapon though, if it was the only weapon on hand, it still functioned as such. The straight sword is more ideal for single confrontation rather than multiple individuals brawling due mostly to the construction of the weapon. Compared to the other three weapons, the straight sword is relatively frail and possesses a rather high learning curve, [one of my primary suspicious as to why it was relegated to a ‘scholarly’ position; the parallel being that scholars are not truly fighters and are therefore frail in body but strong of mind]. If you see the bias, then kudos to you. If not, then let me spell it out specifically: I am not a fan of the straight sword. Though useful in certain situations, I think the sabre can perform just as well in most situations. For the niche situations that only a straight sword would do compellingly well in, just count yourself unlucky and hope your training in an overall better weapon can pull you through the debacle. That or you can strap yourself down with one of each weapon and walk around with your personal armory at all times. The straight sword, even before the creation of flimsy performance blades, has always been the flimsiest of the four weapons. What chance did it have? Two of them are a body of wood. One of them was created primarily to hack a person in two while derivatives of that one became weapons to chop off the legs of horses. The straight sword had no chance in a competition amongst such a robust group.

Why We Train in Weapons:

Often times people see the many weapons of Chinese martial arts and pass them off as either marketing ploys, or as outdated, superfluous practices that have no place in modern day. In all honesty, for some schools, low quali McDojos as we call them, the weapons truly are a marketing ploy. They are placed for display purposes only or, given the low quality of the instructor, the instructor might be a forms collector and might have picked up a form or two with a weapon for the sole purpose of selling sub par information to justify the fees charged. There is no defense for this type of practice. However, the second category, that of being a superfluous practice that is anachronistic, I can, and will, defend against.

There are three main reasons why TCMA continues to teach weapons. Note that I said ‘main reasons’. I am positive there are several peripheral reasons, but those are subjective in nature, differing amongst schools and practitioners. The three reasons which I believe can be unanimously agreed upon are 1) preservation and dissemination of an art 2) force training and 3) improvisation training.

As stated, one of the reasons why learning traditional weapons is important is because it preserves and allows the further dissemination of that style. Why is that important? What is a style? A style of fighting is essentially the crystallization of a philosophy for movement; a way in which the progenitor of said style thought it best for the body to move in such a way, in such a situation in order to maintain the best advantage. They are evidences of a certain type of thought process conceived, codified, and believed valid for relevant situations during the period of their creation. On a rather shallow level, it can be learned for the simple appreciation of preservation, just as how art pieces, classical literatures and ancient philosophies are considered important and preservation worthy. On a slightly higher level, the style can be learned to know what is already available with regards to a specific fighting philosophy. Doing so will allow one of three things: It will humble you to know that someone before you has conceived of an idea, it will provide a head start should you wish to develop a certain tactic more fully or seek to branch from an already established template, or it will tell you of glaring mistakes which do not stand the test of time and, therefore, should be avoided in future advancements and practices. However, regardless of the motivation for wanting to preserve a particular form of combat, the first reason is almost a purely academic reason; the same reason one would want to preserve anything old and interesting… not a truly compelling reason all on its own for the mass dissemination of a particular art form. After all, though the Ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round before people started to chart the oceans, they arrived at the correct conclusion in the wrong fashion. We don’t teach the Greek Theory to EVERYONE because it’s not worth preserving on a MASS scale… just for the specialists in the field i.e. Philosophy Students, World History Students etc.

The second, and more pertinent reason, is force training. What do I mean by force training? A powerful strike requires proper generation and termination of force. If I want to strike with my fist as the primary weapon, then at the last moment, all the force my body generates during a strike should ideally go to my fist and exit into my target from that location. Same thing can be said if I wish to throw a block with my forearm or wish to strike with my shoulder. The force generated would ideally flow and exit from my chosen striking tool and terminate completely into the target. If, however, I have bad habits and keep shoulders tensed or forearms flexed or fingers clutched too tightly, or body angled oddly, or an assortment of other physical complications, then the generation and termination of force is tainted with bad union. A good empty hand strike, therefore, requires a good unification and synchronization of joints, muscles, posture, breathing etc. A weapon does two things. Firstly, it adds a certain type of resistance training, not unlike weights but less “weightier” than the usual amount when applied for purely lifting exercises. Secondly, it teaches the wielder to direct power through a larger, slightly more disconnected object. The former goal is obvious, resistance training and what not. The latter however, is not so obvious. To put it simply, if I can exercise control and swing an 8ft pole while generating powerful strikes from anywhere between the middle of the staff to the very tip of the staff successfully, then generating that type of force will be that much easier when I have no external, disconnected, unwieldy implement in my hands but, rather, just simply waving around my arms or hands. Training to send my power or, as Cantonese people say, “faat ging lik”, through a staff will make it that much easier, and that much more powerful, when I use purely empty hands. The same goes for other types of weapons as well. In one more short example, take the sabre. Though sometimes used in conjunction with a shield or, even more uncommonly, with another sabre, it is usually a single weapon in a single hand. Wielding a sabre causes the body to be imbalanced since the weapon is in one hand while the other hand is empty. The format in which a sabre is used requires literally a compromising of weight distribution and balance. Training with the sabre then forces increased attention on establishing a strong root to offset the weight distribution discrepancy, and forces the wielder to train a union of torso, waist, and lower body to maintain balance during the broad, quick chopping motions that require whole-body union and balance.

The final reason why training in classical weapons, especially the Four Great Weapons, is an essential part to TCMA, is because it allows for improvisation. What do I mean by improvisation? Obviously, in most parts of the world, they will not allow you to strap a spear to your back or walk around town with a sword at your side or an 8ft long ‘walking stick’ [I did while I was at school though. University police gave me such awkward stares]. However, there will always be a need to defend yourself regardless of how benign a situation may seem; a 0.5% chance of being mugged is still more than a 0% chance… and we do not live in a world of absolutes… just ‘as close as possible to absolutes’.

In such situations of necessary defense, there may be benign objects which you can use immediately during a confrontation: a briefcase, an umbrella or a hat. At worst you need to look around the area, or perhaps escape to an area, to procure items for self-defense. Thus we require improvisation.

A person skilled at using a staff will undoubtedly wield a discarded broom, laundry dowel, mop etc far more proficiently against assailants then an individual desperately scrounging for an item, unsure as to how they can best use it, and relying on intuitive, but otherwise random, flailing. There just isn’t any competition as to who has a better chance of emerging from the confrontation victorious.

A person trained in using a sabre can easily pick up a discarded rod, perhaps a conveniently thrown away meat cleaver [you ran into the alley of a Chinese Restaurant] or, in a desperate move, a heavy article of clothing which might have buttons and zippers. If you’ve ever seen a Chinese sabre/broad sword demonstration, you will understand why a heavy coat with buttons and zippers might prove effective in an absolutely desperate situation [I speak hypothetically about the coat… I have never seen nor done this myself… always at least a rod in my situation].

If you have an umbrella or a cane and you know straight sword, you immediately have a way of defending yourself. With regards to an umbrella, it is very unwise to actually swing it like a club, as seen on cartoons, as the metal ribbings are quite fragile and not made for constant impact (unless you get that $100+ self defense umbrella that functions perfectly as an umbrella even after breaking watermelons and getting run over by a car). Trust me, in those situations, best to use it as a straight sword. Unless, of course, you are using those small compact, point-less umbrellas that look more like clubs. That being the case, I hope you know how to use butterfly knives (STILL not referring to those tiny flipping blades). The point is, classical weapons training is transferable to everyday objects that can be improvised to serve in the stead of actual weapons.

Train Hard. Talk Less.
~Thunder Palms

POST #9: PART 2 GUNG FU v TECHNIQUES [B]

2009-11-14T20:34:00.000-08:00

This is an addendum, and the finale, to the previous post. Here are a few videos, none of which are mine and, therefore, none of which I take any credit for, to further illustrate the difference between Gung Fu training and Techniques training, as outlined by the previous post [POST #8 where I discussed Lien Gung and Saan Sik].

This is true Gung Fu training, or "Lien Gung", as stated in the previous post. These are the monotonous exercises which are at the heart of a true Gung Fu person. No glamour. No magic. No real secret. Just boring, tedious, strenuous, repetitive, gradual, methodical conditioning to specifically make a portion of your body into a feasible weapon:

[Sifu (Master) Tak Wah Eng of the Tiger Claw Style, "Fu Jow Pai", talking about several methods of conditioning the hand for that special tear and gripping power characteristic of the style.]

[Sifu Parrella instructing in Iron Palm conditioning. This is a generic conditioning exercise done by most martial arts to gradually strengthen the hands for impact. This is usually the skill employed for brick breaking demonstrations etc]

The fruits of Gung Fu labour:

[Sifu Tak Wah Eng breaking two non-spaced bricks. Spacers, for those unaware, make breaks easier. Still impressive to an extent, but noticeably easier.]

[Master Parrella having several of his students demonstrate brick breaking. There are several students who have a noticeable tremor in their hand, or who actually shake their hands afterward in a characteristic 'ow' fashion. This is a good example of having too much power for the weapon you wield. They clearly have the strength to break the brick. However, the reaction of pain shows the lack of conditioning in their hands. This illustrates the Boxer scenario detailed in the previous post]

This is a Saan Sik session:

[Master Parrella demonstrates and drills a particular technique over and over again in order to develop muscle memory. Though Saan Sik is important to martial arts, it is not the most integral aspect. First and foremost will always be Lien Gung. Those slaps and palms would only be efficacious after conditioning them to be hard and heavy. Unlike a lot of "BELT FACTORIES" or "McDOJOS" (these are derogatory terms for schools focused on pumping out lots of poor quality students for commercal reasons e.g. six year old black belts, gaurantees of after X amount of time you will have X colour belt, ridiculous NUMBER of belts in order to maximize money made etc) true application drills during any given session concentrates on one, possibly two different techniques. NEVER the quantity... ALWAYS the quality.]

I hope the above clips helped better illustrate some of the points I made in the previous post. Remember that I did not make these video clips, did not physically record these video clips, nor do I have any legal rights to these video clips. They were online for viewing and I simply decided to utilize them in a strictly non-commercial fashion to help readers better understand a point.

Train Hard. Talk Less
~Thunder Palms

POST #8: PART 2 GUNG FU v TECHNIQUES [A]

2009-11-13T23:48:00.000-08:00

This is the second part of my three part series which began, in the previous post, with a discussion of the Gung Fu Form and its purpose in the art, despite criticisms of its uselessness.

Our second pairing will be that of Gung Fu and Technique. First and foremost, these two are NOT the same. Let me repeat that by saying that they are NOT THE SAME. They are not synonymous save by the most extreme and tenuous stretch of the imagination. The character “Gung” literally translates to “merits and achievements” with the implied undertone of [through hard work]. The character “Fu” literally refers to a male person/figure. So literally the phrase would translate to “A man who has achieved merits through hard work”. More colloquially, Gung Fu would simply be “a hard working man”. The phrase is appropriately used for all skills which require a level of diligence and ability to become adept i.e. cooking, cleaning, building/fixing things, gardening, writing, fighting etc. Thus a person who does Gung Fu does not train in techniques, but simply the skills required to make their techniques viable.

Let me now introduce three phrases that used to be separate in meaning for Chinese Martial Arts curriculum. The first is ‘“Lien Gung”’, the second is ‘Lien Kuen’, the third is ‘Saan Sik’.

For the first phrase, the word ‘lien’ means ‘to train or practice’. The ‘gung’ character still refers to the merits and achievements mentioned. Thus to ‘“Lien Gung”’ means ‘to practice and train the meritous skills’. In the context of TCMA, it refers to fortifying the body, training in the tools and skills to make techniques efficacious when used.

The second phrase, ‘Lien Kuen’, is what most people think gung fu is all about. ‘Lien’ is still the same as the previous statement and ‘Kuen’ refers to fists; in TCMA though, Kuen is sometimes used, as in this scenario, as an umbrella term for a form/kata. So, as popularly understood, the phrase ‘Lien Kuen’ refers to forms training.

The final phrase, ‘Saan Sik’, refers to techniques. The character ‘Saan’ translates roughly as ‘scattered’ or ‘dispersed‘. The character ‘Sik’, translates to ‘formulae’ or ‘style’. So if we translate literally, ‘Saan Sik’ means ‘scattered formulae’. However, colloquially, it refers to the training of the individual techniques found within a gung fu form.

For better or for worse, these three quite distinct categories of training are now lumped under the umbrella term of Gung Fu. Some blame Bruce Lee for using the term Gung Fu quite candidly and, due to his popularity, people took to it and refused to give it up. Some blame the times, seeing the necessity to have some sort of cohesive label for things to appeal to a more disparate audience. I blame both, but I waffle on which gets the most blame. That is why when strangers or interested individuals ask me what I do, what would normally be a 10-15 second interchange with a native Cantonese-Chinese speaker becomes a several minutes long explanation to a non-native/total stranger to the subject.

For our purposes, ‘Lien Kuen’ has already been discussed in the previous section which detailed, in a nutshell, the “Gung Fu Form”. We will be discussing “Lien Gung” and “Saan Sik”.

There is no mysticism about the power behind real Gung Fu people. There is no magic technique, no ultimate punch or kick, no extraordinary strength or speed. It all comes from ordinary, rigorous, time consuming training. You see a martial artist punch through boards, bricks, concrete and, if you are a lay person, you might be inclined toward slight mysticism. You may be properly convinced of esoteric meditations and arcane movements and dietary regiments that might produce such epic powers. But in all honesty, to attribute such brilliant displays of martial prowess to such nonsense is doing TCMA a severe injustice. Granted there is a certain level of mystique about the Asian Martial Arts but, to be quite honest, the mystique stems more from the ambience of where training used to commence (temples, mountain tops, secluded forests etc), than the actual training itself. There is nothing mystical about slowly pounding away at stones and wooden training dummies to gradually make your bones denser. There is nothing very mystical or mind boggling about rubbing liniment oils onto your bruises to decrease the swelling and to promote blood circulation after all that physical abuse. There is nothing properly magical about rising early in the day, taking in the fresh air, doing gentle, but effective, and time consuming stretches and breathing exercises to limber up, freshen up, and encourage circulation and muscular toning day in and day out.

“Lien Gung” is fortifying the body.

“Lien Gung” is the heart of TCMA.

It is the process of strengthening all of your body so that the punches and kicks and grabs and throws you learn from forms and drills can actually be used. Allow me, if you will, an example to illustrate the reality of “Lien Gung”. Boxers are notorious for superior punching skills, and rightly so. If a discipline centered on primarily one type of hitting, that being a punch, it better be bloody magnificent in that category. And boxing genuinely is. Time and time again, when taking the average practitioner (average, not individual, as there are some shit boxers and some marvelous gung fu/muay thai/judo/karate etc punchers) the boxer reigns supreme in the punching category. However, the mainstream boxer wears gloves; All that power… through a gloved hand. I promise you that if you take off the gloves of the average boxer, and told them to punch as hard as they would normally with the gloves on, most of them would find themselves unable to perform close to their gloved-potential; they have powerful punches, but relatively soft hands. Their hands cannot handle the strength of their own punches. No doubt a punch from a professional boxer, without gloves, should knock out the average individual. At the same time though, chances are that the boxer will also split their hand or break a knuckle on impact. The Gung Fu person, though, seems to punch through wood, bricks, concrete etc barehanded with none of the injuries that would be sustained by a bare handed boxer. Are they stronger? Perhaps… but, on average, not likely in the punching category. What makes the fist of the Gung Fu person not split open and spill blood? The “Lien Gung” aspect prevents this. Over years of gradual, constant, static and dynamic pressures applied to the striking surfaces (palms, forearms, knuckles etc), the bones harden and skin toughens up. Though their peak power upon impact might be less than the boxer, their toughened bones and skin can withstand the impact with little to no injury. This allows the Gung Fu person to consistently throw out powerful punches, time and time again, with little time for recovery. If that picture wasn’t vivid enough for you, try this. Boxers are equal to the world’s most magnificent and powerful Glass Cannon. Glass is easy to manufacture; it’s just melted sand. It’s a bit time consuming to melt and mold so much glass, but once it’s done you have one quickly made cannon. One shot and BOOM, chances are that the bridge will collapse. A shame about the cannon though, because that also goes BOOM and can’t be used anymore until proper repairs are made. The Gung Fu person might simply be a regular cannon. It needs the wooden frame and the iron casting and the ceramic bits and steel whatsits. It’s more expensive to make and has a longer production time. But it fires more regularly and can be used quite consistently… and it’s still a cannon.

“Lien Gung”, by itself, is quite non-spectacular in appearance. It consists of standing in stances, walking in stances, slapping materials of varying densities and hardness, running laps, jumping, stretching, exaggerated breathing, segmented muscular tensions and, to a certain degree, weight/resistance training. Inherently, there are no techniques in these exercises. But it doesn’t matter how many techniques you know. A weak hand cannot punch. Flimsy legs cannot stand. Fragile fingers cannot grab. Stiff muscles cannot move well. You may know every single tiger claw technique known to man, but if the fingers are weak and the stance is shaky, there will be an absence of the power to grip and the foundation to sink and pull. No longer can it be called a tiger claw but more aptly titled a pussy cat claw. Even pussy cat claws are probably better than the “lack-of-lien-gung” claws, because at least cats have sharp nails. It used to be that learning Chinese Martial Arts was nearly ALL ABOUT “LIEN GUNG”. However, certain changes in the times required for a refocusing of the curriculum. The major one is that it was no longer financially viable for CMA Masters to teach as they used to and, in order to make money, they had to make the training less harsh to generate a more reasonable cash flow. Thus they flooded the curriculum with drilling techniques with a severe de-emphasis on training Gung. Ask yourself honestly this question: “If you went to a martial arts teacher, paying for instruction in the initial stages, and all you learned for the first two to three years was standing in various stances, slapping various objects of increasing density and hardness, and bludgeoning tree trunks and bamboo poles with your forearms etc… would you seriously consider staying at the school?” Most likely no… no one in the modern era would acquiesce to this type of training due to lack of time and general unwillingness for such physical abuse. However, if you saw a school that taught lots of quick punches and kicks and pine board breaking within the first year… that would draw your attention immediately. Even as spectators, the latter is far more appealing to watch then sweating, shaky limbed individuals trying to hold horse stance for an indeterminate period of time. Thus “Lien Gung”, what should be 85% of Chinese Martial Arts training, is something more along the lines of 30% in most schools. Insurance is another big issue… can’t have children smacking hard surfaces without taking into account sue happy parents.

“Saan Sik” refers to the individual techniques. This phrase includes the ‘Wood Punch’, the ‘Double Tiger Claws’, the ‘Reincarnated/Revived Crane’ and the like. “Saan Siks” are the separated units of a formal Gung Fu Form. Just because they are codified and practiced in a particular sequence DOES NOT MEAN that in an actual physical confrontation that they are to be used IN THAT ORDER. It may seem like common sense to many of you that the form itself does not signify an actual battle strategy, but it is surprising how many people watch a form and go “that would never work in a fight” with the idea that the form is teaching you how to fight. That notion is, by nearly every stretch of the imagination, INCORRECT. Think of the Gung Fu Form as the ABCs of your respective system. In the forms are the collected movements which are relevant to a particular combat philosophy. It is your job, as a diligent practitioner, to recognize the individual techniques that are strung together, detach them from the set, and reassemble them as you see fit (and by that I mean ‘as you find them to be actually efficacious in combat), and drill those combinations. This is the portion of Gung Fu where “dead movements” are given life and the art is allowed to continue changing and evolving to fit the body structure and needs of the individual practitioner. Everyone learns the form one way. Everyone does the same conditioning and body fortifying exercises in one way. But when it comes to the expression of individual techniques, different people will choose to use different techniques. Different people may also find a way to utilize the same technique in different ways. Let me give you an example. There is a sequence in the Hung Gar system, found most noticeably in one of the Pillar Forms known as “Gung Ji Fook Fu” which translates roughly as “Taming the Tiger Along the Gung Character (the Gung character in this case is shaped like the letter I [aye] so it is often translated as –Taming the Tiger Along the I Pattern—). In this sequence, we have what is called a Gwa Choi followed by a Pao Choi (a hanging back fist followed by an upward rising strike with the opposite arm). I understand it is hard to imagine, but bear with the poor illustration. Some interpret this sequence as the Gwa Choi blocking an attack and, followed by a side step, the Pao Choi attacking upwards to the face. That is one possible interpretation, though somewhat awkward. Another interpretation is that this sequence trains the force of downward strike and upward strike to ward off blows coming from respective directions… another possible interpretation. Yet still there are some who maintain that this sequence should not be taken literally together but are, in fact, simply two techniques strung conveniently together which should be taken apart and treated as unique entities… yet an additional acceptable interpretation. And there are those, and I am among them, who believe this sequence can both be taken apart to be two separate techniques (a hanging back fist as well as a rising forearm/fist strike)… AS WELL AS training a type of scissor technique. It doesn’t matter if you can’t imagine it… just realize what I have just done. I took a pair of movements in a popular form, and everyone essentially trains the form in a similar manner, and introduced to you four possible ways/interpretations of what that one pair is meant to do. There is a saying which roughly translates to “One Thousand Transformations, Ten Thousand Expressions”. This refers to, among other things, the notion that one idea can be expressed in so many different ways and, from these different expressions, so many more differences and flavours arise.

“Saan Sik” speaks directly to the heart of Gung Fu evolution. If people simply practiced the forms and did the lien gung, the art form would be preserved quite nicely in whatever present state it was transferred. It is by the exploration of the many permutations of these individual techniques, combining and reinterpreting and experimenting with what works for the individual, that the art is allowed to breathe and survive. However, it must be made abundantly clear that knowledge of “Saan Sik” alone does not a good Gung Fu practitioner make. All the techniques in the world don’t amount to a whit if the body is too weak to use. For those that like fantasy video games, “I don’t care how powerful your spells are, if you don’t have the magic points to cast then it’s as good as not having the spell.” If we had to pick from the three categories of “Lien Gung”, “Lien Kuen” and “Saan Sik”, Lien Gung would prove to be the most important of the three. Lien Gung, all by itself, makes a powerful individual who, by default, would be a formidable adversary, or a splendidly healthy individual. Forms collectors may look impressive, but they are weak and empty, what we call “fah kuen sau teui” or “flowery fists and embroidered kicks”. That means it is all for show and nothing is substantive in the way of application or practicality. Saan Sik aficionados are equally weak, but stand a slightly better chance in that if you know a plethora of techniques and fight very smart and conservatively, there may be a chance of victory. But the most sure fire way of success in TCMA, in any form of martial arts for that matter, is the Lien Gung aspect, the fortifying of the body. Absent techniques and form, a strong clumsy swing is still a strong swing… despite being clumsy.

Train Hard. Talk Less.
~Thunder Palms

POST #7: PART 1 “The Gung Fu Form”

2009-10-25T22:40:00.000-07:00

This post is taking the place of the original filler post which detailed my next three posts. They will simply be entitled PART 1, PART2, and PART 3 with a more specific heading next to it. We will be working from largest group to smallest. This first post will be devoted to the Gung Fu Form.

At the very heart of Gung Fu are the forms, the intricate movements and postures and patterns and shapes which make Gung Fu such a character within the classification of fighting arts. Though most of the classical arts have forms or patterns or katas (the terminology shifts with the system but they point to a general notion), the reasoning behind the actual practicing of forms takes on different meanings for different people. A study of the Gung Fu form might seem a bit redundant to the ardent practitioner. But to NOT at least briefly analyze this integral part of the system would do the art form as a whole an extreme injustice. Many of the criticisms leveled at TCMA (substitute any classical art for TCMA) seems to revolve around the extreme focus on learning forms. They even have a derogatory label for individuals who seem primarily keen on learning forms: Forms Collector. It sounds exactly like what it denotes; an individual who never actually studies the forms, but simply learns enough to copy the general shape, leaving at that, then quickly moving onto the next one to copy. There is no rhyme or reason to this want, save a pathological need to know as many as possible and perhaps inflate their self-worth with shallow demonstrations. But more on that later. Now allow me to progress into the analysis of the Gung Fu forms.

(There are many ways which I can approach this. The way I will choose to analyze the Gung Fu form is by no means a codified and exact approach. It is purely an independent preference and exercise)

There are many reasons and purposes for the Gung Fu Form:

FIRST AND FOREMOST is the functional purpose it played in its historical settings. Despite the romanticized stories and the novels and the movies and the television shows, Gung Fu was a thing of the masses… and the masses were illiterate. Even though there were manuals with hand drawn diagrams and descriptions of certain motions, these things would be next to useless for the average hooligan, farmer, coolie, butcher etc that decided to learn Gung Fu simply because they lacked the ability to read. Thus the Gung Fu Form was developed in such a way as to have postures flow beautifully from one motion to the next, in a methodical manner, while punctuating these motions with poetic names; names like “Mai Yun Jiu Geng” (Beauty Reflects Upon the Mirror) and “Ngo Fu Kam Yeung” (Hungry Tiger Catches the Goat). The names themselves obviously could mean many things. But if one learned the names and saw the motion associated, a mental connection would be established and even the most illiterate individual would have an intimate grasp of the ordering of shapes, the basic applications, and a rudimentary methodology for dissemination.

THE SECOND PURPOSE of the Gung Fu Form is to establish a baseline of purpose and intent regarding the system being practiced. Anyone who has even limited observational skills will realize that, barring some grotesque deviance or some anatomical evolutionary pioneering, people have a set number of arms, legs, fingers, extremities etc. You can only punch in so many ways, block in so many ways, step in so many ways and angle in so many ways before you simply RUN OUT OF WAYS due to physiological barriers. Thus movements found in one style can very likely be found either exactly, OR SIMILARLY, in a completely different system. The reason is simple: Human physiology provides a closed set of possibilities.

A particular Gung Fu Form is, therefore, a re-sequencing and a re-emphasizing of particular elements that a particular school wishes to devote attention.

This is done to better express unique fight philosophies pioneered by the masters of distinct schools and systems. Every system has threading techniques and simultaneous strikes and simultaneous block strikes etc. But the frequency of occurrences, and the variety of certain strikes compared to others, is meant to emphasize particular skill-sets that the system wishes to specialize. For example, and forgive the shallowness of the examples, Tai Chi emphasizes a lot of threading techniques because it is a “soft” and “internal” style, whereas Hung Gar has a lot of direct “hard” techniques because there is a stronger focus on power, while Wing Chun has “hard” techniques, but also many angle/ structure manipulation techniques because it is meant for the small to sort out the large in a scrap. But within Tai Chi there are also explosive punches, within Hung Gar there are threading techniques, and within Wing Chun you have direct contact blocks. Each art is known for something because each progenitor of the style thought a particular approach to fighting was superior for a situation/individual. It is therefore understandable and expected that each art has more types of a particular technique to emphasize that ideology.

THE THIRD PURPOSE of a Gung Fu Form is to train both body and mind. The body training is self explanatory, but will be addressed tangentially in a different paragraph. Right now, however, I wish to focus on the mind. When people say martial arts teaches discipline, respect, loyalty, patience etc… that might be construed as a training of the mind. I’m not going to poo-poo on this notion entirely, but I’m going to say that I disagree with those things as being the mental training that TCMA wishes to provide. They are by-products of culture and personality, BUT THIS WILL BE A SEPARATE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION ON A LATER DATE. The mental training I believe TCMA to possess is one of personal discovery.

Sounds very deep, but really it is quite simple.

The mystique of TCMA was generated not only by secrecy to outsiders, but also secrecy within the school itself. People could be training side by side, almost at the very same time, for the same amount of time, but somehow come out with minor or drastic interpretation differences. Why is that? There are many reasons as to the WHY… but I will only focus on ONE PARTICULAR REASON for the purpose of this piece. The Master, back in the day, was supposed to be a second father figure to the student. Advice and commands dispensed would be acknowledged and acted out unquestioningly… unless it violated some deep seated moral code. But for all things legal and reasonable, the student obeyed the Master, and in exchange the Master became a source of INSIGHT. Note that I say INSIGHT rather than INSTRUCTION. INSTRUCTION would be the very basic level of commitment, where a student came in knowing nothing and, therefore, the Master would have to provide instructional foundation for progress to even begin (how to throw a punch, how to stand, where to move, how to breathe etc). AFTER INITIAL INSTRUCTION, the Master would simply be an observer. The student would then come in to practice, practice, practice, and practice some more the same movements, forms, and fundamental exercises until they felt too fatigued to go on. The education would then end there unless the student began to exercise their mental faculties. It was up to the student to ask questions of the Master. Questions were either Good or Bad. Bad questions were simply answered with no revelations while Good questions were rewarded with an answer, and a little extra something else. Allow me to provide a very rough example.

Bad Question: You throw a punch and ask “where am I aiming for?” The Master comes over and shows you the punch is leveled at the face, but can also be aimed at the stomach. You nod, leaving it at that, and continue punching, varying between face level and stomach level.

Good Question: You throw a punch and say “when I throw this punch, the power comes from X, and I feel off balanced/exposed at Y and Z. Won’t it be better to do [insert technique] instead?” This question shows contemplation and active listening to your body. The Master would then come over and proceed to explain, through movement and demonstration, why the opening might be necessary, how the opening might be a false opening, or why the sacrifice is small in comparison to the advantage gained in certain situations etc.

The Good Question allows for growth in understanding the art and the unveiling of movement and technique potential. It provides fertile soil for growth of the art passed the Master’s generation, into the student’s generation.

The Bad Question simply explains a dead movement, and leaves the movement dead.

You might ask why the Master simply does not explain everything. There are two reasons. THE FIRST is the whole “give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime” adage. Simply giving away secrets and know-how will do more bad than good. The small good would obviously be that the student gains brief understanding at a quicker pace. The Bad, however, is two-fold. The first would be that telling him the answer solves THAT initial problem, but it does not train him to confront the many different problems that will arise during training. Thus he will only ‘eat for a day’ rather than a lifetime. The second would be that the act of telling the student resulted in very little effort on the student’s part. Things gained through effort are more readily retained. Thus if there was little work involved in acquiring, then there is little value in the thing attained. Making the student ask the right questions over a period of time to learn the answer is a feat of accomplishment that they will remember for a longer period of time; the answers received by that process will be harder to forget. THE SECOND BAD REASON regarding simply telling a student how to do something is that the teacher TELLING the student what to think about a situation makes the student NO BETTER than the teacher. In rare circumstances, a student surpasses the teacher. But if the student only listens to teacher and does not learn to exercise his mental faculties to discover potential on his own, then the student will NEVER become better than teacher. The best that will happen is Teacher-Light. The art will become stagnant. Each successive generation of teachers and pupils will only become worse than the previous, barring some lucky strike… but lucky strikes happen too rarely to preserve and advance the integrity of the art form. The absolute best case scenario would be that the lucky strike will branch off and become a separate family of the same style. The worst case, and most likely scenario, is that the large amount of sub-par teachers become the orthodox way of doing things, since they are the majority within that school, and the singular good teacher gets drowned out by the sheer volume of the majority.

The Final purpose of the Gung Fu Form which I will be mentioning is the fact that it provides a skeleton of a training schedule. Forms are set up such that each one attempts to develop a particular skill set. People use words like “beginner” and “intermediate” and “advance” to describe the forms they learn. I call that NONSENSE. Certain forms focus on certain things, and each theme is as important to the whole of the art as any other associated theme. Let me give you a rough example of my point by using the Wing Chun system as my illustrative tool.

(Note that I am primarily a Hung Gar practitioner and have been for nearly 14 years. However I use Wing Chun because it seems to be the most clear cut regarding the point I wish to make… Hung Gar is a close second, but due to controversy surrounding the actual number of forms that constitute Hung Gar, I choose Wing Chun which has a rather solid agreed upon number). <<<<< I will not entertain the small controversy revolving around the number of forms which constitute true Hung Gar. This has been addressed unsuccessfully before by many individuals of both high and low skill and, though a general consensus has been reached by many, there is still much room for contention.

Wing Chun has three empty hand forms. They are the “Siu Lum Tao”, “Chum Kiu” and “Biu Ji”

(forgive the Romanization… I work instinctively rather than based on whatever rules Yale or Jyutping etc may have attempted to establish as orthodox)

The Siu Lum Tao is always taught first. It is translated as the “Little Idea”. The primary purpose of training this form is to establish the ideal posture and positioning of limbs and joints during the fundamental motions at the heart of Wing Chun. That means Siu Lum Tao teaches you the correct way to stand and direct linear force in the most ideal way, even if you are moving. It stresses that even if you side step, back pedal, move forward etc… the structure taught in Siu Lum Tao is the most ideal and should be compromised as little as possible. The next form taught is Chum Kiu, translated as “Seeking Bridge”. This form adds a few additional hand motions, as well as slightly more mobile footwork, to teach the individual basic skills on how to close a gap and create a connection with opponents. It also trains pliability of the waist for pivots and incorporates the basic kicks. This may sound more advanced, but bear in mind that the Chum Kiu form is practically meaningless without first learning the proper structure present in the Siu Lum Tao. Without the structure of Siu Lum Tao, Chum Kiu becomes a mess of disordered, improperly focused limbs, sloppy footing, and even sloppier rooting. The final form is Biu Ji, translated as “Thrusting Fingers” or “Dart Fingers”. This is the last empty hand form taught in Wing Chun, and it emphasizes the use of finger jabs and violent thrusts, along with more rapid pivots and foot work to generate the power necessary for the speed and power of finger strikes. But… and here’s the kicker… Biu Ji may be the last form, but it is not the most advanced. The next point I am about to make MIGHT BE CONTROVERSIAL as I have only heard it expressed by the Wong Shun Leung branch of Yip Man Wing Chun and never any other lineage. I have, however, heard many individual practitioners say things to the contrary of what I am about to say… hence my disclaimer at controversy.

::AHEM:: It is commonly believed that Biu Ji form trains deadly secret finger strikes that are the most powerful tools within the Wing Chun system. So advanced and powerful are these techniques that the Wing Chun clan kept it closed to all but the most inner disciples, and even they could only learn after many years of sequestered training of the Siu Lum Tao and the Chum Kiu. However, and here comes the claim…

the Biu Ji form, by itself, is more useless than the Chum Kiu or the Siu Lum Tao form.

The late Master Wong Shun Leung stated that the Siu Lum Tao and the Chum Kiu formed the very essence of Wing Chun. If you walked away with just those two forms THOROUGHLY under your belt, you could properly represent Wing Chun in most situations. However, sometimes the odds are turned against you, either by sheer numbers, the size of your opponent, or the fact that you miscalculated during a fight, and placed yourself in a threatening dilemma. That is where Biu Ji comes in. The Biu Ji form is sometimes referred to as an Emergency Form, because it embodies a collection of techniques which should be used when the application of Siu Lum Tao/Chum Kiu principles fail to beat the odds. By itself it is an average set with none-too-spectacular movements. However, the point is that Biu ji was to be applied in very specific, unfavourable situations; times where one lost the centerline, if the opponent is too overbearing, if you slipped up on a technique and lost your advantage etc. In the following way, perhaps, Biu Ji could be said to be an advanced form: Biu Ji shows the potential weaknesses within the core of Wing Chun and, therefore, is a contingency plan created to dam up the cracks and holes that might be exploited. [END OF CONTROVERSIAL DIALOGUE]

Minus the controversy though, one can plainly see how the Gung Fu Form serves as a very organized system of training very specific elements within a style. No one form is better than the other. Each form is simply focused on a particular skill set. In this way the body is slowly built up, from the foundation up, to be fully engaged within a particular art form.

I will end with this summary. The take home message of this piece regarding the Gung Fu Form is simply this: It is an archaic practice which has more purpose than what the modern times gives credit. Whether or not it is essential is another story. However, it cannot be denied that forms are a unique experience within the Fighting Arts and, though it runs the risk of creating form-factories for those that simply do not wish to put in the hard work to delve deeply and learn, let me tell you a rough translation of a saying from the Mainland (that being China).

“Anyone can learn to punch and kick. However, if you put in the time to learn something more advanced, then the opponents you meet will have to put in just as much time in order to figure out and defeat your efforts. 1 year of training to beat 1 year of skill. 10 years of training to beat 10 years of skill.”

Train Hard. Talk Less.

~Thunder Palms

POST #6: Bridges

2009-10-12T20:56:00.000-07:00

We will be taking a break from the series "Of MMA and TCMA" to discuss an extremely important concept in the utilization of TCMA. Those of you reading who have been taught by me should be at least familiar with the concept of "BRIDGING". Though integral in many of the traditional styles, there seems to be particularly heavy emphasis placed on this concept in Southern Chinese Martial Arts (SCMA), most likely due to the geographical influences that underlay the major developments of this particular sub-system of TCMA. The influences for regional specifications will be discussed in a different piece. This piece is all about BRIDGING.

BRIDGING is exactly as it sounds; a connection from one point to another. In a fight, this refers to connections made between opponents. I do not know if the following is a common adage in TCMA, but I will iterate something imparted do me during my earlier years. If you don't finish reading this piece, though I suggest that you finish everything of all my pieces, let the following statement be the take home message above all else:

"IF THERE IS NO BRIDGE, BUILD IT. WHEN THERE IS A BRIDGE, CROSS IT. IF YOUR OPPONENT MAKES A BRIDGE, DESTROY IT."

Further explanation of the above adage toward the bottom. For now, some background information as to what a BRIDGE must constitute.

BRIDGES are created by limbs. Thus contact with the arm, and sometimes the legs, are your very typical bridges. In SCMA, we even have certain exercises exclusively for "training the BRIDGE ARMS" or "Lien Kiu Sao". The training emphasizes three equally important components. In no particular order, they are HARDNESS, DYNAMIC FORCE, and STATIC FORCE. If you miss one, then you are incomplete. If you miss two, then you better fight smart. If you have none of the above, take a different art or don't fight at all.

HARDNESS: This refers to the durability of the bridge to withstand punishment. If you ever see Gung Fu people banging their arms against tree trunks, poles, other arms etc, they are developing physiological hardness (none of this qi/ki bullcrap remember?). These exercises are intended to toughen the skin and stregnthen the bones. Skin becomes tougher and more durable due to constant rubbing contact with hard, rough surfaces. Rhythmic dynamic pounding applied to a boney area creates what are called microfractures. These fractures are, as the name implies, far too tiny to feel like anything at all. They do appear though and, when they heal, the area becomes slightly denser. Conditioning over the course of many years makes that particular area of the bone harder and stronger. The purpose of this is to fully utilize any part of your body as a striking or blocking implement (rather than JUST the hands) without being slowed down by injury or shock.

(it is a common misconception that conditioning deadens the nerves. Proper and safe conditioning does not deaden nerves. It is typically advised that if anything more than a faint bruise develops that liniments and rest be employed to reduce swelling/bruising before conditioning resumes)

Why do people claim that it deadens nerves?

This is entirely due to improper conditioning. Gung Fu refers to merits gained through hard work over time. PROPER conditioning takes a long time. IMPROPER conditioning takes a relatively shorter amount of time, and the benefits arrive that much quicker.......but you also keep them for a far shorter period of time in your life. Karate has a reputation for very hard hands. Muay Thai has a reputation for very strong shins. Many Karateka develop arthritis later in life because they pound incessantly at wood/stone etc with very little regard. Thai Kickboxers are the same with their aggressive kicking of trees with their shins. The hands and shins will harden far quicker. But the chance of age related discomforts is also increased many fold. Likewise many Gung Fu people suffer from the same circumstances. Perhaps in their later years they realize that time is also an essential component to training, but most people who start their training at a very young age fall under two categories......

THE FIRST quit early due to pain, and sometimes pick it back up after age wises them up. They typically go about things the right way, though sometimes external pressures still lead them to rush the process.

THE SECOND, and possibly more common group, are zealous because they are young and do not appreciate the concept of time. They think hitting harder, faster and more frequently will make them stronger quicker. This group develops the growing issue of joint paints, muscle trauma and possibly nerve damage.

The human body is an amazing piece of machinery which has the ability to recover from almost anything, given the time. The emphasis I wish to point out is on the word 'almost' and the phrase 'given the time'. Though resilient, the body is slow at recovery. It only stands to reason that when you condition, you also condition slowly to allow the body to adjust accordingly.

(In case you people are wondering, I was part of the "young boy that gave up early due to pain" group because I played the piano for many years in my youth. Playing well was hard when hands were throbbing. I more recently picked it back up and spent about 2 years developing Iron Palm. After having my fill of breaking bricks, I gave that up since I saw no continued purpose. Arm conditioning continues, but at a far slowly pace. People get very scared and raise lots of questions when they see patterns of bruises on arms)

DYNAMIC FORCE: Dynamic refers to something explosive, sudden, a burst. You have a tough and ready arm to use. You need to develop the power and balance to throw that arm properly in a fight in order to gain the benefits of having such a weapon. This requires training the many types of types and skills of strikes i.e. accuracy, speed, vertical swings, forward thrusts, underhand, overhand, diagonal etc. No point in having a weapon of any type unless you know how to use it. You could be given the most durable, perfectly balanced and sharpest sword in the history of ever, but if you lack the proper swing and technique, it becomes a wasted piece of metal...lucky shots notwithstanding. This becomes palpably apparent with the BRIDGE ARM as they are not only used to attack, but to fend off an attack. When I say 'fend off', I do not mean block or parry. I mean attacking the attacker's weapon. So if you have a hard arm and hand, and your opponent is swinging in or making a grab, and you do not feel safe getting in close to attack the person, you can opt to use your arms and hand to strike his incoming hand/arm, to break or numb your opponents weapon. Phoenix eye fists are excellent for this, as are Monkey paw... but these are technical disputes which will be saved for later occassions. Suffice to say that this is very different from a simple block or parry.

STATIC FORCE: To be static is to be still, unmoving, perhaps even unyielding. If you want to apply a more electrical theme, static is interference from another source. YOU are that other source. YOU ARE THE INTERFERENCE: You are interfering with his fist traveling to your face. BRIDGE ARM training for static force is geared primarily toward control. If a person punches or swings their arm, but you have good reflexes and excellent static power, you can block that arm, and keep it wherever you want, at any given angle, due to your superior control and unyielding force. If contact is made, you can shift and pin their arms against their body. You can apply and maintain a lock or grab. If you are the aggressor, a mix of good DYNAMIC and good STATIC power will ensure that your fist/arm will fly true to the target despite a block or parry. Static force training gives you both the ability to block effectively, and the ability to hold and subdue, to apply a slow and steady stream of pressure onto, your opponent.

The three elements of HARDNESS, DYNAMIC, and STATIC FORCE are crucial attributes in the BRIDGING techniques and strategies. Lack of hardness will lead to a damages and useless arm in a fight. Lack of dynamic power will lead to an inefficient fighting scheme as you will lack the strength to do any real damage. Unless you land a few lucky shots, you will end up spending most of the time ducking, weaving, parrying and bouncing away. To relate it to a boxing match, the only way you would win is by points... never by TKO or KO. Lack of static power creates a huge hole in your defense and leads to a waste of energy as, since you cannot maintain centred and firm, you have a need to always be lashing out. They say that the best defense is a good offense, but in some cases that simply leads to so much wasted energy.

As I said earlier, miss one of these and you become incomplete. If you miss two, you better make sure you can fight smart. But if you miss three, pick a different discipline or simply keep away from anything to do with fighting.

We will close this piece with a break-down of the adage mentioned above.

"IF THERE IS NO BRIDGE, BUILD IT"

Sometimes fights start with some distance. There's circling. There's bobbing and weaving. There are light steps and bouncy footwork. There are feints and false lunges. You can't seem to make the other person stand still and, being no fool, you refuse to stand still yourself.

HOW DO YOU GET TO THE PERSON?

There are two ways:

Most people might feint a kick or a punch in order to force a reaction from their opponent. The goal is to make the other person react with a block for the non-existent attack. This will then create an opening elsewhere which might be targeted. For example, a person may fake a punch to the head. This makes the other party raise their guard to block... exposing the lower body/sides.

But what happens if the person you are fighting isn't prone to these reflexive mistakes? What if they keep a rather neutral guard that seems to cover all sides equally well, and refuses to budge for feints. EASY. BUILD A BRIDGE. Unlike a feint, which is really just a half-assed light pretend hit to scare a person, BRIDGE-BUILDING strikes are actual attacks. The idea is that if you actually land the strike, the fight would either be over or, at the very least, be in your favour from then on out. However, you psychologically prepare yourself to not succeed as this strike is telegraphed from a mile away and quite foreseeable. The goal is to make the person block. Once they block, their arm making contact with your arm, you have successfully made the bridge. You are now free to apply static and dynamic forces to press the attack, to "CROSS THE BRIDGE".

"IF THERE IS A BRIDGE, CROSS IT"

This is important. Once you build a bridge, it is important that you not only gain and maintain control, called 'sticking', but you must also cross the bridge, completing the attack by closing the distance and dealing pain. Visualize with me if you will, the building and crossing of this bridge......

Two individuals circle each other, throwing feints and false lunges. The Gung Fu guy is sick of the bobbing and weaving and wants the person to stand still. He throws a very heavy hanging back fist (attack comes from the top down with the back of the fist). Enough power is put into the attack such that if it makes contact, at the very least the nose would be broken. But he is fully aware that the attack probably won't make it through since his Opponent has very good reflexes. The Opponent proves him right and promptly raises his arm just enough to block the attack, his forearm meeting the Gung Fu guy's forearm/wrist. A bridge has been made. As with real life bridges, there are two possible ways to cross:

OVER: Crossing over the bridge simply means a direct line of attack. If you feel that you can overpower the individual, then that back fist which was just blocked can be used to quickly apply pressure, forcing the blocking arm down, thereby subduing the defense and creating an opening for an immediate crossing, in this case to the plexus or perhaps upward to the throat/chin/nose.

UNDER: Crossing under comes about when you feel that you cannot overpower the individual. In the above situation, the Gung Fu guy is applying a downward force with his hanging back fist while his Opponent is applying an upward force with the block. If upon contact the Gung Fu guy feels he cannot press down or even statically hold the other person's arm in place, another option is to go under. Since the blocking arm is already expending energy upwards, the Gung Fu guy moves in quickly, maintaining his connection just long enough to lift the person's arm higher, thereby bypassing and creating an opening for a strike. In some cases, even lifting may not be an option as the Opponent's arm may be heavy, or perhaps the Opponent has very good static force. In this case, the Gung Fu guy must compromise by having his arm continuously stick, roll, and finally slide under, all in a split second. UNDER CROSSINGS are obviously more technical to employ.

"IF YOUR OPPONENT MAKES A BRIDGE, DESTROY IT"

Obviously the best case scenario would be make a bridge, cross it, and end the fight. However, bridges are two way streets. The Opponent can either manipulate the bridge you made, or he can create one. Thus if there is ever any doubt about any bridge... disengage. Usually if you are the builder, than you would have the advantage as the bridge was built on your ters and, therefore, you are the most ready to utilize said bridge. However, the same can be said of the Opponent. If you Opponent creates the bridge, chances are that he will have the advantage, no matter how slight. It therefore becomes a judgment call on your part as to whether you think you can take the bridge from him (keep the connection but work the angles to your favour) and cross it first, or if perhaps you should forcibly destroy the connection and retreat a bit to start round 2. We will be using the same situation as described before. The time we will take the perspective of the Opponent.

The Gung Fu guy throws a hanging back fist and his Opponent immediately angles his own arm to block the shot. Sensing that the bridge has been made on the terms of the Gung Fu guy, but still confident in himself, the Opponent angles his blocking arm to maintain contact (stick), while having it slide off at an angle, simultaneously swinging his other arm to counter attack. The Gung Fu guy reacts by stepping forward, thus closing the gap slightly, and blocking the arm. Effectively, both have an inside arm and an outside arm. However, the Opponent decides that the stepping in act by the other party has put him in an unfavourable position. He therefore musters up additional power to force the connection apart, quickly flinging both arms away with a burst and returning to a guarded position several steps back. Now begins round 2.

The situation I described is obviously somewhat stylized. however, I hope it was simply enough, as well as vivid enough, to create a visual image. Bridging is at the heart of many Southern Chinese Martial Arts styles. It is therefore an extremely important concept to grasp, as well as a very extensive topic of debate and constant tweaking. What I have provided in this piece is a comprehensive, but still nutshell, account of why Bridging is important, and the basic components on what Bridging entails.

Train Hard. Talk Less.
~Thunder Palms

POST #5: DISCLAIMER ADDENDUM

2009-10-04T22:04:00.000-07:00

This should have been placed between Post 1 and Post 2, or perhaps even before Post 1. However, what is done is done, so bear in mind that this is not a CONCEPT or TEACHING post but a DISCLAIMER post.

Chinese Martial Arts has a rather deeply ingrained mystical component. You would be hard pressed to find true and diligent practitioners of the art who deny this component entirely. It is deeply involved in the culture as a whole, predominantly within Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and religious mystical practices. Small wonder that the martial arts developed would also place a heavy emphasis on this metaphysical force. I am, of course, talking about the concept of Qi (Mandarin), Hei (Cantonese), Ki (Japanese), Gi (Korean) and Khi (Vietnamese). The concept is distinctly Chinese but obviously evolved as it spread throughout East Asia, adapting and evolving accordingly throughout the times.

Let me first give you a brief run through as to what Qi is supposed to be. Qi is supposed to be the life breath, the inner energy that flows in all living things. The concept itself is immediately simply enough to grasp in order to gain a conversational level of familiarity. However, there are entire volumes devoted to the study of this presence. The complicated nature of this supposed energy is almost boundless. There is Heaven Qi and Earth Qi as well as Pre-Heaven Qi. Qi can be focused in certain points of the body, compressed, fostered, and guided for the purposes of health and longevity. There are movements which help regular the flow of this power to cure illnesses and to strengthen the physical durability of the human body, making it impervious to pain and injury. It can empower a practitioner to stand firmly planted in the face of a great weight charging against them, and this same force ben be applied to launch larger foes through the air. It is said that you can transfer this power into others to aid in their healing process, or to cause injury and havoc to the internal organs. Some are said to be able to project this power at inanimate objects, causing them to fly away as if thrown a great distance, or to shatter as if struck by a mighty blow. This force is governed by the foods we eat, the exercises we do, specific breathing patterns, the sounds make, the thoughts we think, the position of the planets and the stars along with an assortment of other variables which we must either gain control or or work compromises with. All things rely on this Qi to subsist, and it is through specific sounds, breaths, movements dietary habits that we are able to better channel and strengthen this invisible power within us for all sorts of semi-astounding feats of passive/aggressive interaction.

I want to make it very...VERY clear that I am DENYING the presence of this energy.

I am a sceptic at heart, but very open minded to having my opinions changed. In my years of training and traveling, I have personally seen and played participant to numerous demonstrations of remarkable feats attributed to Qi. I have seen people break bricks, concrete slabs, wooden poles and bend steel pipes with their hands, finger tips, head, feet, shoulder, arm, shin, back, stomach etc.

(I myself have broken no few bricks and concrete slabs in my earlier days but have since stopped training in that particular skill).

I have seen people throw needles through glass and frail balsa wood chopsticks (those cheap splintery ones in restaurants) into hard wooden boards. I have been physical struck (voluntarily mind you. Don't get the idea that I was assaulted) in ways which made me feel severely odd painful sensations; not the mundane pain of a bruise or a break, but sometimes a traveling pain, a distinct shock sensation or other such unpleasant sensations. I have also seen the more esoteric practices where people can sustain great blows to their testicles with ZERO effect. These same people demonstrate this ability by either tying massive weights, several hundred pounds worth, to their testicles via a piece of cloth, or tying their testicles to the cloth, and having it attached to a car/van/truck/etc and pulling said vehicle forward. I have also been privy to a more esoteric meditational exercise where a practitioner is able to RETRACT their testicles back into their abdomen, taking them out of harm's way entirely. These feats of martial ability range from the mundane to the ridiculous. However, though remarkable in appearance, they are very measurable and natural to explain without resorting to accusations of witchcraft, voodoo, magic potions, or the inclusion of a "Qi" premise (hint... lots and lots of training and hard work!!) And please don't give me the whole "Qi is a completely non-supernatural force" spiel. There is no established science to measure, gauge, or mark the pure effects of Qi.

(Note that I am saying PURE effects... like supposed projection and manipulation of Qi... not the PHYSICAL FEATS attributed to Qi)

The methods of measurements shift from discipline to discipline, and the results obtained are often times proven to be placebo effects. The few times things have come up inconclusive is because the rubric for judging was so vague that the results could not possibly be properly tabulated and explained.

All the amazing feats of strength, endurance and health attributed to the mystical energy is the by-product of regular, disciplined, rigorous, bloody, sweaty, painful training.

There is no magic.

Gung Fu, merit gained through hard work, is not simply an EMPTY TITLE for a set of activities. It is a description for HOW TO obtain the skills.

I will grant this much for Qi. It is a good visualization technique. The concept gives a certain illustrative element to explanations, and a point of focus for ruminations. When I give pointers or am asked to teach, depending on the circumstances, I sometimes sparingly use the term. I am always careful to say that I myself am not a proponent of the concept. I only use it to guide during certain exercises. TCMA, being such a culturally specific thing, sometimes requires culturally specific explanations as a short cut explanation. If it so happens that people DO believe the concept, then by all means go ahead. My purpose for spreading and teaching TCMA is as much to keep the culture alive as it is to open the eyes of people to the martial ability of TCMA.

There is no proper way to end this DISCLAIMER, so I will say this: As mentioned earlier, I am open to the possibility of being shown wrong. If science one day comes out conclusively

(by conclusive,I understand that there will always be individuals contrary to scientific facts i.e. moon landing disbelievers, creation 'scientists' etc)

saying that they have managed to markedly demonstrated the presence of Qi, then I of course will study the materials for myself and re-draw my conclusion then. But until that time,

I stand a firm and ardent sceptic of this culturally rich, but scientifically indefensible, phenomenon.

Train Hard. Talk Less.
~Thunder Palms

POST #4: Of MMA and TCMA Part 2

2009-09-30T22:55:00.000-07:00

Part 1 was dedicated to a critique of the notion “Mixed Martial Arts” and all things modern which fall in that category. In order to show that I am not biased and above “brand loyalty”, this post will be a critique of certain elements prevalent among many Traditional Chinese Martial Artists. This applies to classical arts in general, but as my focus is TCMA, just substitute, at your discretion, whatever ‘X’ art you think relevant.

There are many issues I have with the contemporary practice and dissemination of TCMA (don’t think it’s just the one I will be mentioning in this post), but for the sake of maintaining a theme, I will only be tackling one at a time.

This post will be directed at those who train in TCMA, but misrepresent the art form. Misrepresentation includes such statements as “my art is too deadly to use in competition”, “it is a secret that I cannot show people”, “our art is meant to kill so we cannot demonstrate it practically” and other such related nonsense phrases. Misrepresentation also includes the claiming of knowledge and training in TCMA, but come show time, absolute horseshit.

(Look! A bad word. Clearly no bias on my part!)

Allow me to briefly clarify something. Depending on the goals set by the individual learning TCMA, there will obviously be different categories and levels of judgment. For instance, a person who wishes to learn TCMA primarily for health reasons is not expected to become an expert fighter; that individual will instead be judged on health improvements. If they learn to fight on the side, kudos to them. Likewise a person who wishes to study TCMA in order to gather cultural information will not be expected to become an expert fighter; that individual will be judged on the amount of relevant cultural material learned and understood. This post, and the subsequent criticisms, is aimed at the individuals who claim to learn TCMA for the purpose of fighting; individuals who SHOULD be judged on their ability to engage in physical contests.

For this particular category, there are, in my opinion, essentially five different types of TCMA fighters. I will list them in (my personal) decreasing order of respect. They are:

The Traditionalist Fighter
The Hybrid Fighter
The Self Defense Fighter
The “Kick Boxer” (notice how it’s in quotes. More on that soon enough)
The Internet Warrior

The TRADITIONALIST FIGHTER is something of a myth, wrapped in a fairy tale, placed in a dream. TFs are those that can utilize the skills in a textbook fashion with little to no deviance in structure or general shape, despite the modern variables involved in fights. If the form he learned requires a 45 degree bend and two hands held parallel while swiveling on a center, then in a fight he will do exactly that, PERFECTLY and EFFECTIVELY, in any given context which the movement would be deemed appropriate. Essentially, watch a 70s/80s Hong Kong Gung Fu movie and watch how they fight. Excellent choreography. Spectacular fight scenes. Natural grace. Mind boggling speed and precision. Authentic patterns and movements abound. That is the Traditionalist Fighter (obviously a movie is dramatized skill, but I hope you get the picture). I’m sure there are a few out there; emphasis on the word FEW

(I've never seen one. However, since I'm not a fan of absolutes, I always leave a 1% margin of error. Hence FEW).

Everyone who started learning Gung Fu at some point wanted to reach this level of fantastical skill. Most people realize soon that unless you have absolutely nothing else to do other than learn Gung Fu, this vision is harder to hold than water in a broken bottle.

(the video clip came from a 1981 movie choreographed by Lau Kar Leung, an absolute Legend in martial arts choreography and a real life master of enviable renown. He's the old man in the brown who fights the villain in white.)

The Hybrid Fighter is the classification those who train for combat should aim. The HF MAY not readily adopt classical ready stances I.e. very erect side horse stance, Ji Ng Ma, Diu Ma etc. There are exceptions obviously, but usually in non-demonstration/uncontrolled environments, the HF would probably opt to stand like any kick boxer or disciplined combatant in the modern era: erect, slight curvature of the back, hands up to protect head and upper body, or perhaps head and a lower guard for the middle, possibly a side stance to decrease exposed surface area blah blah blah. From here, he seems like any other fighter in a ring. Even the initial punch/kick might seem indistinguishable from the modern kick boxer. However, that is where the similarity ends. Once the initial attack is given/received, the HF will pressure, maneuver, and fight primarily with the techniques he trained so hard i.e. claws into joint cavities, tripping with horse stance, double fists, finger strikes, swinging forearms, retreat and attack using Tau Ma stance. He only falls back onto the simple jab-kick phase when the distance is too great and the caution too high. The HF is, at most, 10% ‘kick boxing’, with the other 90% being the classical patterns and skills of his chosen discipline.

(the video clip used portrays the Buk Sing Choy Li Fut group, a sub set of the Choy Li Fut system. The Lacey's are very well known and of excellent martial pedigree due to their intensive training, with actual tangible results, and admirable devotion to the art)

The Self Defense fighter is in the middle of my range of acceptability. I will talk about those who engage in TCMA for the purpose of self defense IN A DIFFERENT POST as this is another issue I have with TCMA . However, as I said, one criticism at a time. Suffice to say that I am OFFICIALLY neutral, but UNofficially leaning toward discouragement regarding learning TCMA for self defense purposes (as a primary aim TCMA training).

Now we get into the real thick and murky business of wading through the sludge and scum which abounds within the world of people who train in TCMA (I used moderately distinct imagery to create a sense of disgust while distancing myself from actual profanity. Just as effective no?)

I have very little respect for “Kickboxers” (note the quotation marks). I do not mean those who practice the myriad of disciplines that fall under the purview of kickboxing I.e. Muay Thai, Sanda, Savate, American Kickboxing, Shoot Boxing etc. Individuals who practice those disciplines are good athletes and usually a credit to their discipline simply due to the fact that those who practice it use it. “Kickboxers” refer to, and hence the quotes, those that spend the time to train in TCMA… but fall back onto what could only be described as a pale shadow of an imitation of kickboxing. Let me paint you a picture:

Everyday, for several years, you train yourself hours at a time. You plant yourself in stances to strengthen your standing and rooting power. You kick 1000 times the many different types of kicks you know. You practice an assortment of punches and hand strikes coming from every conceivable angle. You slap sand, gravel and metal beads to toughen your hands. You condition the tips of your fingers the same way, spending hours jabbing them into sand, gravel and metal beads. You spend hours using nothing but the tips to grip onto jugs of water. You now possess fingers that can easily slide in between joints and damage soft tissue and muscle. You learn how to properly angle yourself so that with minimal force, you can topple people larger than yourself. You strike trees with your forearms to harden the bone in the wrist, forearm, and toughen the skin and flesh of your muscles so that they, on top of your fists, may be used as effective bludgeoning tools. You learn how to lead with a simple jab, but rush in close to seal off the opponents arms while being able to position your elbow right at his plexus, effectively being able to knock your opponent down in one strike ad nauseum… … … …

You now get into a fight (either for competition, self defense, or because you‘re an undisciplined asshole), and the first thing you do is throw a jab. So far so good. You throw a sloppy kick… maybe you simply lost balance. Then you lose your head and everything goes out the window. You are reduced to flailing. No stance. No root. No calculated maneuvering. No legs-hip-torso-arm union. Just erratic shiftings along an imaginary line, hopping in imperfect circles, jumping and swinging your arms in hopes of an opening. THAT, my friends, is PURE embarrassment.

In the above described situation, it would be BETTER to LOSE attempting to use real TCMA techniques.

Some might question why.

Why would you rather lose attempting to use techniques you might not be prepared to utilize?

It would be better because, though defeated, people will simply say that HIS Gung Fu was no good. He would simply need to train harder, smarter, and educate himself better regarding the ins and outs of different fight strategies. He would need to spar more and study different styles to become better versed and tailoring his chosen skill sets to best others.

However, in the above situation, his Gung Fu isn’t simply no good. It’s not present at all. So you claim to know TCMA and they challenge you. Instead of attempting to show TCMA in combat, you fall back on something you never really learned and therefore cannot even properly imitate.

What does that say?

That says that even though you spent the time, suffered the bruises, cuts and breaks, dripped the blood and sweat and tears… you have no confidence in what you train.

There is no pride.

Not only is your Gung Fu absent. Your fighting spirit is absent. It is no longer ‘HIS Gung Fu is no good’. It becomes ‘Gung Fu IN GENERAL is no good’. A chef that does not eat his own recipes cannot be trusted. Corporate leaders hesitant to invest in their own company cannot expect the public to believe in the company either. Such is the case with TCMA practitioners, who train for combat, but fall back on something entirely different. “Kickboxers” (note the quotes) are detrimental to the fighting pride and heritage of TCMA.

(I would like to make a note that the above description and criticisms are leveled at TCMA people that train to fight in competitions or for general scuffling purposes. In the event of surprise attacks in dark alleys, I don't think it matters what you do so long as you come out alive. If it turns out that flailing saved your life, then gosh darn it who am I/you to complain in that situation? The anger and resentment is not aimed at those attempting to get home safe to their families, but at those who parade the fact they learn TCMA... but have squat to show. THOSE people are my intended targets).

The final category of TCMA fighters are those whom are dubbed as Internet Warriors. In the truest sense, I believe most of them are not fighters, but that is merely an assumption on my part based on the colloquial label assigned to them. As the title implies, I.W. do not frequently voice themselves in a true public forum but rather hide behind their cyber walls and interact on forum boards. They are inflammatory speakers who watch competitions and demonstrations and have little to no useful critique of the happenings. They come in two varieties:

Those critical of TCMA practitioners as being shit

Those that defend TCMA practitioners with an assortment of excuses, much like those made in the beginning of this post.

The latter group is usually composed of TCMA practitioners or, even more depressing, starry-eyed NON-EXPONENTS who have been pulled into the world of classical gung fu movies and wonderful displays of martial strength via demos etc WITHOUT EVER HAVING EXPERIENCED the bitter training and the ‘eating of the late night congee’.

(the latter statement is a Chinese colloquialism translated into English. It is equivalent to ‘burning the midnight oil‘. Back in the day, you stayed late to train late with fellow older martial brothers to help flesh out what you have learned over a period. In the end, you had a light snack/meal of congee.)

Regarding the first group, they will be addressed in a different post. The reason is that they fall under a more specific topic which will be later addressed and TAGGED as “GAMES”. Suffice to say that the first group either criticizes groundlessly, due to having no skills themselves, or criticizes on faulty premises, which is what that future post will address.

The second group is the real danger to TCMA. Regarding the defense statements, I have this to say:

Why join a competition if you did not prepare to fight according to their rules?

If you have the intent to join a specific competition that has specific rules I.e. no eye gouges, no groin kicks, no punching the back of the head, then it is the responsibility of the fighter to train according to those rules and attempt to excel according to those rules. If you want to test your skills based on a different rubric, perhaps one which allows eye gouging and groin kicking, then join that type of competition. It is simply ridiculous how many comments there are online saying things like

“oh if he didn’t have gloves on he’d kick his ass”

or

“this is bullshit. That Shaolin monk/Gung Fu fighter/karate kid would whoop that jiu jitsu guy/mma guy etc if they didn’t have gloves/allowed him to use his deadly techniques”.

All of these points are POTENTIALLY valid. However, the success of those two points hinge on two important factors:

that they didn’t have gloves

that they were not in THAT particular type of competition with THOSE explicit rules.

The jist of this is that you entered a competition unprepared. Don't cry about losing at something you knew the rules for but refused to prepare accordingly.

We move onto the second subgroup of the Internet Warriors: The individuals who have had little to no training the martial arts and have their sources of references as movies, books, hearsay stories (My friend knew a guy who heard a story from his brother who trains with a man that was in the Army/Special Forces/Shaolin Temple/Taoist Sage............ you get the picture I'm sure)

These people are idiots. Plain and simple. It is a shame to consider them part of the martial community but, like any other type of community, there are elements that the majority would rather not acknowledge or deal with. These people, by popular opinion, should not belong, but they belong nonetheless because they are insistent in stepping foot into territories that would rather them not be present. This can be somewhat equated to ethnic minorities in a somewhat hostile country; the major ethnic group in charge of the country would rather they just move on out, but they have to let them stay or else the majority will be accused of racial prejudices.

(For the record, I am NOT endorsing ethnic cleansing. Just the first example I could think of. Ethnic minorities enrich an area they reside in by simply bringing variety and distinctness. I am not a racist. Please don't accuse me of being one. Like I said, first moderately well fitted example for the situation I could think of. Remember, Me=NOT A RACIST.)

These individuals, these Internet Warriors, just shit all over the place and leave nothing but bitterness and embarrassment. Their great disservice is injecting themselves in conversations that they know nothing about and, therefore, force people who might sincerely want to learn something, to muck their way through the garbage. Most people just throw up their hands and surrender, coming to premature conclusions that, more often than not, cast a negative light on TCMA. This is the great disservice these starry-eyed Internet Warriors engage… they take up room and valuable time and distract people from the genuine knowledge attempting to be disseminated. Sure they might even have read a few books on martial theory and combat philosophy. They might even have seen a few videos and listened in on a few demos and martial seminars/conventions. This all amounts to about less than a thimbles worth of experience and they, as individuals who perpetuate the nonsense and illusion of experience, amount to even less because of their intentional misleading of others and general irresponsible and assholish behaviours.

...In the above section I realize that I come off sounding rather belligerent. Under normal circumstances I am a very passive and nice guy... pussy cat like in fact. And I know writing in blog format seems to, at least superficially, point a shy trembling finger in my direction in accusation of being an Internet Warrior myself.

You know what I have to say to that?

I've already acknowledged that the internet is not the way to teach... and text only formats are not the way to go when learning something that is so definitely physical. I mentioned this in... my first post I believe. However, as I also mentioned in that post, and perhaps the second post, I would be remiss to the promise I made if I did not utilize a little bit of everything in order to fulfill my charge. So, in the words often ATTRIBUTED to Voltaire (though incorrectly so) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." You are perfectly free to draw your own conclusions based on what little bit/moderate amount/all you have read. If I end up doing a bad job, that's why I made an open invitation for constructive criticism, questions and debate.

So what is the take home message of this rather lengthy post?

TCMA practitioners are abundant. However, the bad reputation TCMA has recently received is justified by the nonsense that seems to be prevalent in most circles. Misrepresentation is a major issue within the community and, sadly enough, there might be an equal number of genuine as well as disingenuous representatives. Those who do dish out judgment must bear in mind that not all people learn TCMA for the purpose of combat as it is rich in cultural information as well as an all around good work out. Thus before an individual decides to judge, it must be first made abundantly clear that you are judging according to the right mind set and utilizing the proper rubric i.e. don't judge the historian by the standards of a fighter. Judgment must be reserved for the appropriate categories.

Train Hard. Talk Less
~Thunder Palms

POST #3: Of MMA and TCMA PART 1

2009-09-21T12:06:00.001-07:00

There is a lot of nonsense surrounding the whole phenomena of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). A lot of it is promoted by MMA establishments, possibly due to ignorance or possibly due to a particular redefining of the word ‘mixed’. There is also a lot of nonsense coming from the Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. People hide behind certain phrases like “our art is meant to kill” or “we don’t fight because it’s too deadly to use in competition” etc. This post will be one of several, and it will be tagged for easy search, dealing with the concept of Mixed Martial Arts and the concept of Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. To maintain a sincere air of balance, I will alternate between posts, critiquing both MMA and TCMA regarding their own specific issues. This particular post will focus primarily on the incorrect notion and definition of Mixed Martial Arts.

Mixed Martial Arts is a term applied to modern day fighters, in and out of the ring, who train in several distinct disciplines in order to become a well rounded fighting machine. Thus we have arts such as jiu-jitsu being utilized by an individual who also trains in Muay Thai, Shoot Wrestling, Western Boxing etc. That is what people consider to be Mixed Martial Arts today. Bruce Lee is considered, by a large majority, to be the father of Mixed Martial Arts because Lee, though trained mostly in a classical Chinese art, decided to broaden his horizons and would eventually add western fencing, western boxing, karate, tae kwon do etc to his training regiment, and create the now ever so popular martial philosophy of Jeet Kune Do. Though the recognizable core of his fight philosophy is heavily the Chinese martial art of Wing Chun, it was considered a milestone in the combat arts for championing the idea of learning from many different sources and taking the good while leaving what you consider personally unhelpful. The take home message I suppose is the idea of Mixed Martial Arts being a mix of different styles and forms of combat to make yourself more efficient at fighting. However, Lee certainly was the not first, nor the last, to have conceived of this notion. This has been done for thousands of years.

Traditional Chinese Martial Arts has a history spanning thousands of years. It goes past the popular Shaolin Temple and has its roots in the most basic of martial combat employed during warfare. Thus it can be said that any country that has ever waged war has a type of martial art. From how a shield should be worn and used, to where a bayonet should be aimed, these are all forms of martial combat. TCMA is essentially a slow crystallization of knowledge, passed through generations, being added and subtracted from, in order to arrive at what we have in the modern day. Any two TCMA styles are no more than half alike in either fight philosophy or fight techniques employed. I say half because, when all is said and done, barring accidents and mutations, we all have the exact number of limbs, joints and digits. Someone, somewhere, is going to arrive at the conclusion that a certain way of punching is ideal for a certain situation and, without consultation, someone else will arrive at the same conclusion, though perhaps through a different process. Thus, as I said, half alike due to the limitation and semi-uniformity of the human body, but so very different in other aspects.

Unless we travel back to the very Genesis of martial combat, all modern forms of fighting, even what we consider to be classical styles such as Japanese Karate, TCMA etc are mixed martial arts. Karate is both indigenous to Okinawa as much as it is heavily influenced by Chinese Martial Arts. The foundation of Okinawan unarmed combat, as well as weapons combat, can all be traced back to the Mainland. However, the past masters took what they thought relevant to their situation, made it distinctly Okinawan, and trained with the express purpose in mind of making it their tradition, their lore, their form of combat. And it is true. Under the eyes of a casual observer, Karate and certain styles of Gung Fu are very different. Outside of the occasional punch and kick, the structure, stepping, breathing, tempo etc are all very different. But those that have made it even a casual open-minded study will note the many similarities in the movements, techniques employed etc. How can Karate NOW not be considered a mixed martial arts system when already, many hundreds of years ago, Karate THEN was already a rich container of different philosophies, foreign as well as indigenous techniques, and a separate mindset which allowed the art to evolve in a very different manner than its sibling/cousin arts elsewhere in Asia?

When asked what makes MMA MMA, many fighters will point that they incorporate striking and grappling into their fighting styles. Thus they have a good “stand up” as well as “ground fight” game, two crucial elements which they say are ‘mixed‘ into a single training mindset. If we were to break it down to just bare bones elements, then any style of TCMA would have to be considered an MMA. At the very least, all TCMA styles have a stand up striking plan. In fact, this is a major criticism most classical arts must suffer from the more modern fighters; that the focus is too narrow on only a stand up game and there is no alternative fight plan. TCMA also have distinct joint and limb locking techniques; techniques that do not revolve around striking at all, but on subduing an individual through a very dynamic movement followed by a firm static force. They also have a plethora of weapons (ranging from the typical sword, spear and staff, to the less typical chain whip, rope dart, cane, needles etc) that are wielded differently and, though usable in all situations, have certain cases where they would be more effective than others.

(A well made spear is almost categorically better than an equally well made staff if only in the fact that the spear can be used as a staff while also as a stabbing implement).

Ground fighting… I will address that in a separate post; not because I have nothing to say, but because I have something inflammatory to say which will tie in better with a separate theme. But nixing the ground fighting, TCMA has three elements to “MMA’s” two.

Why is TCMA not considered a mixed martial arts? A possible argument would be that Modern MMA is a mixture of very distinct styles of combat from various regions around the world that focus on different strategies and techniques. This I call bullshit for two reasons, and I will include a short and a long explanation. The first short reason is that any person who watches any MMA competition will see that it almost always boils down to a semi-homoerotic punch and grapple fest (let the author now note that he has no issue with homosexuality. It is perfectly natural in my opinion and is nothing to be negatively excited about). To aid in this terse description, allow me to link you over to the web comic “Penny-Arcade” which, though simplifying to a degree… isn’t actually that far off:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/7/15/

The second short reason is that TCMA has been combining distinct styles of combat to form new theories, techniques and schools for centuries.

There isn’t a very long explanation required for the first short reason. It is almost self-explanatory. But to elucidate briefly (I will be touching on this topic in a different post), what the hell is the point of learning such disparate forms of combat and discipline if, when utilized, it boils down to nearly identical tactics, techniques and counters? It is a game of rock, paper, scissors where everyone takes the rock from the same mountain, the paper from the same tree, and the scissors from the same store. The only difference is who has the bigger rock, the thicker sheet of paper, and the better brand of scissors. How they use the tools, however, are all the same. This only works in a game. I will leave off explaining THAT particularly inflammatory bit in another post as well.

Regarding the second short point, there are several hundred distinct, documented styles, of Chinese Martial Arts. The emphasis is on the word documented, as it is hypothesized that throughout history, there have been some which have died off for various reasons, or are simply undocumented due to continued secrecy in practice

(the latter is mostly due to family styles which are strictly within the family).

But there are very real examples of how classical mixings created the more contemporary arts.

(I use contemporary loosely, as something with a history of several thousand years can be said to be more contemporary when dealing only within the span of a 100 or so years).

A very real example would be the Northern Mantis style. The Northern Mantis style (and within this branch there are several distinct sub-branches as well which differ quite broadly regarding focus i.e. Eight Step Mantis [Baat Bo Tong Long], Seven Star Mantis [Chaat Sing Tong Long], Six Unity/Harmony Mantis [Lok Hap Tong Long] etc) was created by a Buddhist martial monk who, after being incapable of defeating his older martial brother, went off to the forest to train. He gained deep insight after seeing a mantis kill and devour a larger insect. He spent months prodding the mantis with bits of straw to see how it would react to aggression from different angles and speeds. From that he developed particular hand techniques he found impressive. Thus we already have a mixture of two distinct styles. One is the core knowledge of the traditional Shaolin Buddhist martial arts. The second is the distinct handwork of the Mantis (and if you have ever seen Northern Mantis, you will agree that it is very distinct in handwork). And the third is the footwork; the method of advancing, retreating, side stepping, jumping, kicking, and blocking with legs. Those elements were borrowed, and of course slightly modified, from the Monkey style. Three distinct elements, borrowed from three distinct arts, were combined to create a new fight philosophy, new techniques, and new training schemes intentionally to develop a different type of fighting style and fighter. How is this not mixed martial arts?

After such a drawn out exposition, what is the take home message? As I said, under the headline “Of MMA and TCMA”, I plan to write several posts directly addressing the interaction of these two. Each post will have its own point. This one was geared at expressing my opinion that the scoffing and low opinion of TCMA by MMA practitioners is not one properly fueled by a definitional difference. For in truth, I think I have made it at least 80% clear that, by definition, TCMA should be considered MMA in both a classical as well as modern light. The conflict comes from somewhere else, and that will be addressed in a different post.

Train Hard. Talk Less.
~Thunder Palms

POST #2: Of History and Lineage

2009-09-04T23:05:00.000-07:00

I will take this occasion to mount a defense of my character and 'mission'. For the casual reader, they will perhaps be confused as to why such a defense is necessary. For the veteran traditionalist, even the ones who claim to rise about conventions, they will understand why a defense might be required, though I am prepared for criticisms despite my defense. Every post I make will be geared toward dissemination of some aspect of the art, and this post will be no different. However, at the same time, this is to be a defense of my actions; my Apologia for those that are students of philosophy and familiar with Plato.

History is very important to Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. It was popularly believed that since Traditional Chinese Martial Arts (henceforth abbreviated as TCMA) is so enmeshed with the cultural history of the country and its people, only the Chinese could possibly learn it properly; "the spirit of gung fu", as my uncle said, "lies intrinsically within every Chinese person." Just as how it is very hard for deep seated foreigners to learn and care about the history of distant countries, their goals, values, habits etc... so it is the same with TCMA which, until the present, was very localized in development and practice, and therefore possessing a very strong ethnic flavour. This is quite evident in many of the naming schemes utilized for certain patterns, forms, and various martial theories. Examples would be martial philosophies based on Yin and Yang, forms of combat and exercises focusing on particular animals, and names for certain movements like the posture "One Finger Stabilizing the Heavens."

Because cultural/social history is so ingrained with the practice of TCMA, it is only logical that lineages be a very important concept as well. Lineages stretch back for generations, sometimes a bit tenuously and sometimes quite bold and exact. There is an unspoken, or perhaps occasionally expressed, notion that the further back your line extends, the more prominent/authentic/noteworthy/'powerful' your system must be. This connection, from present day back to a point in time far removed from what we contemporarily experience, is a note of pride and distinction in many martial arts circles and individual practitioners. People can hearken back to an age of heroes, revolutionaries, invincible fighters and vigilantism, pointing to those individuals found within their school, their lineages, all but lost to history and say, "I am directly linked to that man/woman through the art I practice/teach." In this way, it is quite similar to those that adhere to any sort of discipline ranging from distinct forms of achitecture to secret family recipes. And, much like guilds during the Middle-Ages and the Renaissance period, fraternities started forming around these perceived distinctions; people joined together in brotherhoods, and families began keeping secrets to ensure only those accepted through proper trials would be allowed access to their distinct methods. From this a sense of prominence arose just for being a part of a certain group of high esteem and renown. Thus strong lineage adherences are not a concept to simply wave off as irrelevant. They are an integral part to the study of TCMA systems. Though arguably detrimental to an efficient promulgation of an art, such concepts served, and still serves in many areas of the modern day Gong Wu, as a binding agent within families. Such a model promotes a certain retention of distinct elements even between similar schools.

After that somewhat lengthy introduction, I will now bluntly state the issue I must defend. My history is very much in line with the system(s) I practice. I do not adhere and teach what would be considered controversial claims regarding the history of different systems of TCMA I study and/or train. However, my lineage is extremely debatable. My family members knew this (particularly my uncle) when they decided to teach me. I will mention "my uncle" a lot as he was the primary teacher that I chose to identify and learn from after selecting to train under his speciality; that being the Hung Family Fist aka Hung Gar Kuen. I have NO defensible lineage, and it is because of this that some traditionalists have formed negative preconceptions, and have voiced annoyance, at my efforts and status. Thus begins my Apologia.

I mentioned in my first post that my uncle wanted me to rise above the politics and commercialism that runs through the heart of modern day CMA. When he taught me, he made it expressly clear that he would not mention lineages, names or other possibly contemporary individuals whom he may have taught. All he mentioned was that he learned from his father. I never met the man and my uncle never told me his name. Since my uncle has since passed several years ago, I will never know and I must accept this as a fact of life. However, during a particular instance where I pressed him for certain names, he gave me a rather long lecture. The following will be the bulk of his words to me. He spoke mostly Cantonese and some very broken English. This, coupled with the fact that it was about 5 years ago, makes the exact wording questionable. However, the ideas expressed are 100% true to that moment:

[Uncle] "What good is it to know a name? So you can try to gain credit for other people's efforts? The only reason why you should know a name is to let people know you did not CREATE. And even then, just mentioning a title like 'brother' or 'my master from -insert country/city-' would be enough. It is important to give credit where credit is due. However, outside of that, dropping names should be avoided. Listen. Gung Fu is about hard work. There is no short cut. There is no secret. Even the Chinese characters for 'Gung Fu' translates to 'Man with merit gained through effort'. What other people did will be their credit, and make sure you give them that credit. What YOU do will be your credit, and your hard work will guarantee that you will get that credit. If people case so much about names and lineage, making it AS IMPORTANT, or MORE IMPORTANT, than training, then they do not really have the best interest in mind for the art. My father trained me and a few others. I train you and a few others. You may train your children and a few others. As long as YOU PRACTICE and have QUALITY to show for the training, then people have to shut up. There are a lot of people out there who possess quality but cannot teach because they do not have a strong lineage, or they are not cunning enough to work a business system. There is too bad because there are a lot of shit teachers who are cunning and cling to names. They are why Chinese Martial Arts today are laughed at by karate people and white people in general.

[PAUSE...Uncle looks down and then looks at me with fiery eyes]

Why was Lam Sai Wing famous? Because he learned from a famous master? Maybe. But DEFINITELY because he was a righteous man, an excellent fighter, and a producer of many famous fighters. Why was Wong Fei Hung famous? Because he learned from his famous father? Maybe. But DEFINITELY becase he was a righteous man and doctor who paid attention to the common people and defended them from local gangs, corrupt officials and general violence. DEFINITELY because he produced such great fighters like Lam Sai Wing, Tang Fong, and many others. Take away the fact that these two learned from a famous master, and they would still be considered admirable folk heroes for the deeds they did. Let me ask you [insert my name]: Why is Hung Hey Gwun famous?"

[Me] "Because he created the Hung Gar Kuen system, the art that Wong Fei Hung and Lam Sai Wing practiced. He was also a famous revolutionary that fought against the corrupt foreign government and went to spread his fighting system to the common people so they could better fight for themselves."

[Uncle] "Right. He CREATED the art. Yes he was influenced by his training, but he still took what he learned and created something relatively distinct. At some point in time, someone has to create something for it to be passed on. As you can probably see, you can be famous for three reasons. The first is to create something... something worthwhile. The second is to be skilled... good at what you claim to do. The third is to belong to a famous group. Out of the three, only the first two are hallmarks of true Gung Fu. The third is an accident. You might claim that it takes a lot of work to find a famous school. But it would be better to use that effort to train. Do you want to be famous simply because of an accident?"

[Uncle puts his hand on my shoulder and speaks gently]

"Remember this. Train hard and talk less. That way when you show in the future, people cannot talk bad at all about your skills. They may pick on something else, but they have to shut up about your skills."

And that concluded that lecture. Afterward he turned around and just yelled some instructions at me. It was from that conversation, some five years ago, that I have my favourite saying and little signature at the bottom of every post.

So ends my defense of my lack of lineage; my lack of textual qualification to do what I do. Surely I must have a lineage, but if asked for proof, I must confess to have absolutely none. I have been criticized before, but that has yet to stop me from trying my best to teach with credibility and responsibility.

Train Hard. Talk Less
~Thunder Palms

POST #1: The WHO, the WHAT, and the WHY

2009-09-02T11:54:00.000-07:00

To remain somewhat anonymous on the interwebs, the WHO will remain partially ambiguous. Suffice to say that I am a 23 year old male who graduated from the University of California, Riverside with a BA in Philosophy minoring in Creative Writing and Religious Studies. My professional aspiration is to become a lawyer (father's idea but I soon jumped aboard), but retire as a teacher/professor of Philosophy. I have studied and trained in traditional Chinese Martial Arts for most of my life and have made it a personal mission to seek out not only other forms of Chinese Martial Arts, but to also inundate myself with as many other forms of martial combat as well. I have therefore amassed an extensive collection of practical knowledge regarding Japanese martial arts, western boxing, Thai kick boxing and a few other more contemporary schools of practice.

WHAT this will be is a semi-formal gathering point of my experiences with traditional Chinese Martial Arts. I have been family trained since the age of 4 in various distinct styles; I have picked one to focus my efforts since the age of 10. The training not only centered on the physical, but on the history and martial theories involved. My Uncle once said that I was more of a natural scholar than that of a natural fighter since I always asked questions galore before doing anything. That's why he affectionately called me "Scholar Warrior". It might also have something to do with my ear. The cartilage pattern for my ears are different from each other. My Grandmother told me that one shape emphasized book learning and the other shape emphasized a fighting nature. So I suppose Scholar Warrior is a nice nickname. The title of this blog is "The Modern Day Gong Wu". Gong Wu is a Cantonese phrase which literally translates to "Rivers and Lakes". It was the poetic designation of the Martial Arts Society that was so integral to the cultural history of the Chinese people. Thus I name this page the modern day Gong Wu; a contemporary gathering of the traditional.

The WHY of this page is somewhat personal. This blog, though not my preferred method of transmission, is to be one of my many efforts to fulfill a promise I made to my uncle before he died. The promise I made was -to promote true traditional Chinese Martial Arts, by any viable format, in a society which misunderstands and misrepresents the richness and efficacy of one of the oldest systems of armed and unarmed combat.- He wanted me to rise above, to complete forego, the politics and commercialism that dictates the mainstream form of dissemination today. Thus I have always trained for free, taught for free, and now I type and post for free.

Some extraneous information that would explain my future posts would be that my speciality lies in southern styles. I also deal a lot with practical theory and the exploration and integration of "foreign" concepts to better the traditional Chinese system. Also, to clarify, I understand the limitations of transferring knowledge over textual posts is limited for something as physical as Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. That is why the majority of these posts will be aimed primarily at disseminating practical theories with a smattering of physical examples. I also want to point out that I do not suffer any level of delusion that I should be called anything remotely like a Master. Master/Sifu is an Honorific that is granted by OTHER PEOPLE who think you deserve the designation. Even then, a truly secure person wouldn't insist on being called that. You are called a Master because you live and act like one, not because you insist on being called One. Besides, 23-24 is too young. You need life experience as well as martial knowledge to be considered a Master. So bear in mind, I have no false beliefs that I am an authority. Other than that... I believe the rest will be revealed in time.

Train Hard. Talk Less.
~Thunder Palms