You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
General Martial ArtsDiscuss General Martial Arts here
I love to see the arguements about martial arts being an "art" but no one expressing it as an art because they are using formula passed on by others. I think that many people forget that the training of the formula...the concepts and phylosophies of martial arts are necessary to achieving the artist part of it. Much like a musician, painter, or sculptor must study the basics and sciences of thier prefered art form before they are capable of producing great works on thier own, so must a martial artist do the same. However, many, many, martial artist want to skip this step or believe they have a much greater understanding of the medium than they actually do. Then you get instances akin to a painter producing kinder garden quality finger paintings and thinking they are master quality works.
I'm glad you made this comment as it facilitates my position on the subject. The martial arts do not exhibit any such sciences before allowing the student to be capable of producing their own art. The majority of traditional martial arts exist as a founder's truth, and as such it would be tantamount to entering Pacasso's school of painting, or Michelangelo's school of sculpture. All the students would become masters of painting sunflowers in the Picasso style, or sculpturing human figure's named David in the Michelangelo style. A low percentage of those who graduate from those schools would have the ability to express themselves. They would be expressing their teacher.
This being said, understanding the body of knowledge which already exists is important for finding one's own path, and also creates a much needed standard - as is required of any subject.
Although I do agree that the majority of martial artist head for the surface knowledge rather than the root, or the truth substance, thereby missing the point entirely. Afterall, there is a reason of the name "Gong Fu".
__________________ "Tradition comes from when a master realises a truth, then teaches it to others; his source was the world around him. The tradition begins when students follow the doctrine but fail to see the truth it teaches. Martial Arts, like religion, are now the gospel.
So I assert; Seek not to follow in the footsteps of great men, but seek that which they themselves had sought." Magister, on the Eskirmological Law of Institutionalisation
I love to see the arguements about martial arts being an "art" but no one expressing it as an art because they are using formula passed on by others. I think that many people forget that the training of the formula...the concepts and phylosophies of martial arts are necessary to achieving the artist part of it. Much like a musician, painter, or sculptor must study the basics and sciences of thier prefered art form before they are capable of producing great works on thier own, so must a martial artist do the same. However, many, many, martial artist want to skip this step or believe they have a much greater understanding of the medium than they actually do. Then you get instances akin to a painter producing kinder garden quality finger paintings and thinking they are master quality works.
See I love this arguement, not because I agree with it but because I've heard it so many times. The flaw is that the formula is a concept and thought and as long as our thoughts are allowed to grow, and adapt to the changing world. So while I agree that you have to study the core of the art you have also look at the spirit and intent of the art as well.
There is a difference between repeating the formula, which you can not do because linear thought process for things such as mathematics, mechanics and chemestry does translate well to things when all variables can not be known. An art is as much about exploration of self then as much as it is about the formula. When you focus on the formula, you become trapped by that linear thought process.
The greatest Chess players are not the ones who can remember multiple stategies, but the one's who can manipulate their opponents and see opennings where ever needed. The same is true of martial arts, a martial art should be "a finger pointing to the moon" its serves to direct you but it is not what you should be focused on. A martial art should be medium for individual growth, point us in a direction and allow us to walk in that direction on our own.
__________________
My Personal Mantra:
Where I walk, I walk alone...
Given unto the winds, I am free...
And yet a slave to my own soul...
Styles: Ninjutsu, Tae Kwon Do, Modern Army Combatives
Posts: 1,252
Home Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magister
TMA do not innovate, they imitate. How much of the martial art is actually your own expression? When you watch martial artists holding "crane stances" and "tiger postures", whose expression are they demonstrating? It is certainly not their own...
Many people on this forum will know that I am very much the advocate of self-teaching - but this does not mean simply reading books about martial arts. Kant once declared that real learning is from organic experience, through sensual experience of the outside world. What martial arts represent is formalised expression in which practitioners become indoctrinated into a pre-existing doctine of imitatin rather than liberating themselves to learn organically.
By far, Lee was against being stuck in a subjectivist world and it was for that reason that he beleived that martial artists should not have their personal expression dictated by the teachings of a martial art.
Moreover, far from being ignorant, his "shocking" or "ahead of his time" considerations (as part of his own process) were based upon study of philosphy and science; much more besides the closed and inward looking world of martial arts.
Lee was not one to ignore spiritualism - he actually stated that his main goal was to become an "Artist of Life", in otherwords, martial arts was a vehicle in which he could master his life, and in the process master life itself. In this way, he is a lasting memory and an icon; not just for his films, but the essence he cultured. The fact that the martial arts world chooses to ignore this point and proclaim him (superficially) as the father of Mixed Martial Arts proves that his "vehicle" has been well and truly mis-understood.
I agree with this entirely. The Tao Te Ching is important to understanding the Tao of Jeet Kune Do, but more so to understand Jeet Kune Do itself - and more so to understand reality, in which both we and Jeet Kune Do exist...
I have never seen this quote before - do you have a reference for it? Feel free to PM me since this particular quote would be particularly useful to me.
True TMA imitate...but not All styles of TMA to make a blanket generalization on All TMA is in error
theres people who were around before Bruce was even born that say similar statements he made regarding the arts and training
and people who did the same thing he did with Jeet Kune Do in the 1800s at least.
Bruce's Philosophy was influenced by others. and his Jeet Kune Do is little more than repackaged Wing Chun.....whats so new an innovative about the "style that is no style?"
__________________
“You could do this same technique with a knife. Just keep it hidden. Don’t go swinging it around. We’re not yakuza here.”
“Don’t make the other person your opponent. If you do that, you lose your awareness to other people. Taijutsu is not just one on one.”
Styles: Western Boxing, Tai Chi, Animal Form Kung Fu, and Wing Chun
Posts: 1,974
Home Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draven
See I love this arguement, not because I agree with it but because I've heard it so many times. The flaw is that the formula is a concept and thought and as long as our thoughts are allowed to grow, and adapt to the changing world. So while I agree that you have to study the core of the art you have also look at the spirit and intent of the art as well.
There is a difference between repeating the formula, which you can not do because linear thought process for things such as mathematics, mechanics and chemestry does translate well to things when all variables can not be known. An art is as much about exploration of self then as much as it is about the formula. When you focus on the formula, you become trapped by that linear thought process.
The greatest Chess players are not the ones who can remember multiple stategies, but the one's who can manipulate their opponents and see opennings where ever needed. The same is true of martial arts, a martial art should be "a finger pointing to the moon" its serves to direct you but it is not what you should be focused on. A martial art should be medium for individual growth, point us in a direction and allow us to walk in that direction on our own.
Repeating a formula or concept and understanding a formula or concept is not the same thing. Too many martial artist can play the game of "Simon Says" very well, but they have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. Add to that mix that martial arts also have so many "teachers" who have very little actual knowledge of what they teach. They are just passing down the movements thier teacher showed them and parroting what they were told. This does not encourage artistic expression in any way, it retards it.
Martial arts is one of those rare fields that is a combination of both science and art. For the self expression art part of it to come out in any true form, the science part must be understood. Without the science part being solid, the artistist part ends up crumpled and bleeding on the ground.
Repeating a formula or concept and understanding a formula or concept is not the same thing. Too many martial artist can play the game of "Simon Says" very well, but they have no idea why they are doing what they are doing. Add to that mix that martial arts also have so many "teachers" who have very little actual knowledge of what they teach. They are just passing down the movements thier teacher showed them and parroting what they were told. This does not encourage artistic expression in any way, it retards it.
Martial arts is one of those rare fields that is a combination of both science and art. For the self expression art part of it to come out in any true form, the science part must be understood. Without the science part being solid, the artistist part ends up crumpled and bleeding on the ground.
I agree but thats where the issues abound. While I agree that you need to grasp a scientific priniple if a fighting tehnique. It ultimately comes down to the difference between knowing theory and knowing how to apply theory and following a formula without knowing how to apply it.
A martial art becomes rigid when for example the drills become the act instead of expressing the thoery you are trying to teach. I think basically we are saying the same thing, but in a nut shell; when an idea becomes an institution the idea is often lost.
__________________
My Personal Mantra:
Where I walk, I walk alone...
Given unto the winds, I am free...
And yet a slave to my own soul...
Styles: Western Boxing, Tai Chi, Animal Form Kung Fu, and Wing Chun
Posts: 1,974
Home Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draven
I agree but thats where the issues abound. While I agree that you need to grasp a scientific priniple if a fighting tehnique. It ultimately comes down to the difference between knowing theory and knowing how to apply theory and following a formula without knowing how to apply it.
A martial art becomes rigid when for example the drills become the act instead of expressing the thoery you are trying to teach. I think basically we are saying the same thing, but in a nut shell; when an idea becomes an institution the idea is often lost.
I don't think you can really understand something without doing it, so I agree that you would need to be able to apply the knowledge. If you can't apply it, you don't really know it.
I do think technique is overated in most schools. Technique should be the result of understanding the science and concepts, and a doorway to that understanding. It should not be a replacement or mask of that understanding. I think this is one thing that Bruce Lee has implied a lot in what he taught, but doesn't seem to get understood a lot. Did you see how I circled it back to on topic?!
Location: My location is so secret, I don't even know where I am.
Styles: My style is so deadly that even to read its name would kill you!
Posts: 1,009
Home Country:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WC_Lun
I don't think you can really understand something without doing it, so I agree that you would need to be able to apply the knowledge. If you can't apply it, you don't really know it.
I do think technique is overated in most schools. Technique should be the result of understanding the science and concepts, and a doorway to that understanding. It should not be a replacement or mask of that understanding. I think this is one thing that Bruce Lee has implied a lot in what he taught, but doesn't seem to get understood a lot. Did you see how I circled it back to on topic?!
Yay, someone remembered what the original thread was about.
Seriously though, the majority of my buds bag Bruce Lee like it was going out of fashion. I personally respect the guy. He managed to continue training and innovating throughout his acting career. Whether or not his ideas were taken from his teachers or were come through by his own inquiries, we have to thank him for bringing them to the larger martial arts community.
Lun, I watched a British MA show called Mind, Body and Kick Ass Moves, where the presenter was talking to somebody from Yip Man's school(In Yip Man's gym I think), and the guy said that Bruce Lee's muscles would have hindered his Wing Chun (or something like that), I'll try get a clip.
My bad, it wasn't a Yip Man guy, it was a Wing Tsun instructor.
Styles: Western Boxing, Tai Chi, Animal Form Kung Fu, and Wing Chun
Posts: 1,974
Home Country:
To take one of your British words...rubbish. If he was all bulk and had no fluidity, then perhaps this is true, but anyone who has ever seen Bruce Lee move knows that isn't the case. I train with someone that has an issue of too much bulk. It makes it difficult for him to keep his arms in and do straight techniques. Bruce Lee came no where near having that issue.
True TMA imitate...but not All styles of TMA to make a blanket generalization on All TMA is in error
Tradition comes from the Latin word "traditio" meaning "to pass on" and therefore it means to pass knowledge from one person to another, not strictly to passing knowledge from one generation to another. To say that traditional martial arts do not imitate is to require a different definition of what a traditional martial art is - and in doing so assume that they are not tradition, and hence defeating your point entirely. If they do not comply with the definition of Traditional martial arts, then they are not traditional, and therefore is outside of this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinobi_Kokujin
theres people who were around before Bruce was even born that say similar statements he made regarding the arts and training
and people who did the same thing he did with Jeet Kune Do in the 1800s at least.
I agree, I have spent many years contrasting and comparing opinions of martial arts masters to trace an underlying theme - but to strip Lee's efforts as being equal to those of his predessors would be to render his message impotent - and the possible result of heeding his message non-existent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinobi_Kokujin
Bruce's Philosophy was influenced by others. and his Jeet Kune Do is little more than repackaged Wing Chun.....whats so new an innovative about the "style that is no style?"
Lee was not interested in labels - he was interested in Function. It is therefore no surprise that he used wing chun parries - possibly the most spatially logical defensive techniques known to man - then coupled them with the most logically powerful and fastest offence known to man - the fencer's lunge, then coupled these with adequate techniques which are natural and also increase natural strength with torque by using boxing blows.
All these were coupled with Fencing stepping (with the necessity of entering and flying out) and many other logical innovations to create a FUNCTION.
So whereas you see simply modified Wing Chun - I see scientific function. Where you may like to label "wing chun blocks", "fencing lunges", "boxing punches", I see functional methods of applying the human body in combat. The aim is to use the body in combat to the maximum - which of course is outside any labels of "style".
Quote:
Originally Posted by WC_Lun
Martial arts is one of those rare fields that is a combination of both science and art. For the self expression art part of it to come out in any true form, the science part must be understood. Without the science part being solid, the artistist part ends up crumpled and bleeding on the ground.
The innovative philopsher Mary Midgeley stated (in Beast & Man) that any science practiced properly may be called an Art. However, I would ask you; What kind of science does the martial arts use? Has it been verified using a scientific method? How do you know (emphasis on you know) that the martial art you practice works? Stating that because it is "time-tested", "battle-field tested" hundreds of years ago will not suffice. So how do you know the science the martial art is based upon is valid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draven
It ultimately comes down to the difference between knowing theory and knowing how to apply theory and following a formula without knowing how to apply it.
It is not an issue of knowing the theory and knowing how to apply the theory. The two may not be separated. A theory is an intellectualisation of practice. In the school of pragmatic science, we must "do" inorder to form a theory, then we may use the theory to inform the "doing". Essentially, it comes down to trusting in the theory, rather than experiencing the theory. Trusting in others rather than trusting the self - trusting what you imitate rather than what you originate.
Animals fight with their instincts (with what they originate), yet humans (who are animals themselves) trust in what they learn from others....It is martial arts propaganda to assume that humans are naturally incapable of fighting without instruction from other human beings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draven
when an idea becomes an institution the idea is often lost.
Are not ALL martial arts an institutionalisation of this idea? This is what I am talking about - The truth is outside of all set patterns. The martial arts ARE set patterns, a frame.
An original master taught himself to fight via experience and pragmatic questioning. That is what made him great and what attracted others to his path. Instead of teaching them his path, his will to experience combat and to learn fighting, he teaches them the actual method. He gives them the fish, but never teaches them how to fish!
You get one founder and many followers rather than lots of equally talented individuals like the founder - of course where would the founder's power reside if his skills were equal with everyone else?
__________________ "Tradition comes from when a master realises a truth, then teaches it to others; his source was the world around him. The tradition begins when students follow the doctrine but fail to see the truth it teaches. Martial Arts, like religion, are now the gospel.
So I assert; Seek not to follow in the footsteps of great men, but seek that which they themselves had sought." Magister, on the Eskirmological Law of Institutionalisation
Lee was a great movie star that happened to be a martial artist.
We have no idea of his true level of skill. In his movies he would kick 20 guys in 2 minutes and none of them would get up again.
In real life I've seen guys go for a take down with all their force only to be met with a perfectly timed knee, and they are almost unfazed. Look at the amount of ground and pound Forrest Griffin took in the first fight with Tito (I'm not sure if there was a second). He was eaten alive by fists and elbows but got up when the bell rang like it was nothing.
Those one kick wonders wont work on good fighters. Also blocking kicks with just a slap of your hands wont work either. There are lots of movie things you just cant do both offensively and defensively.
None of the things in the Tao of JKD have I ever seen Bruce do against a known martial artist in real life.
If you dont compete then do you really exist? Saying Bruce Lee is the best or even among the best martial artists is like saying the guy that broke the record for consecutive free throws is the best free throw shooter in the world. Its unrealistic.
On another point...to say TMA martial artists dont express themselves is retarded. I never do what my master instructor would do in a sparring match. And no one ever does long stance, horse riding stance, or walking stance when sparring. Also no ones sparring stance is the exact same either. Hell I've watched every black belt at my TKD school very closely and none of them even do a back kick the same. To say we dont express ourselves is ignorant, plain and simple. We learn how to strike properly. Which doesnt mean form it means striking so as to cause damage without injuring yourself. How it looks is for forms not for actual fighting, and yes when performing a form its pretty hard to express yourself.
In a match is where TMA express themselves. Your art isnt going to make you an aggressive fighter or reactionaty fighter. Its not going to dictate for you which kicks you like to use in certain positions. Those are personal preferences and most of the time decisions made in a split second.
Its not math where you have only one way to do long division. I have many ways I can accomplish my objective.
__________________ The name means...No matter how many times you cut him, he will never fall. My soul cutter has no name, it is merely a tool.
I'll Still Kill!
Even the best of men are capable of the most disgusting evil. Just as the most evil man is capable of showing kindness.
Do not be fooled into thinking your enemy's sin is worse than yours, or that your's is better than his.
It is not an issue of knowing the theory and knowing how to apply the theory. The two may not be separated. A theory is an intellectualisation of practice. In the school of pragmatic science, we must "do" inorder to form a theory, then we may use the theory to inform the "doing". Essentially, it comes down to trusting in the theory, rather than experiencing the theory. Trusting in others rather than trusting the self - trusting what you imitate rather than what you originate.
Animals fight with their instincts (with what they originate), yet humans (who are animals themselves) trust in what they learn from others....It is martial arts propaganda to assume that humans are naturally incapable of fighting without instruction from other human beings.
But, I always consider martial arts a way of honing the instincts. also we are not the only animals who learn from other animals. I have a cat who immitates my bag work, momkeies have been taught karate techniques.
I agree that fighting does not need to be taught to be learned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magister
Are not ALL martial arts an institutionalisation of this idea? This is what I am talking about - The truth is outside of all set patterns. The martial arts ARE set patterns, a frame.
An original master taught himself to fight via experience and pragmatic questioning. That is what made him great and what attracted others to his path. Instead of teaching them his path, his will to experience combat and to learn fighting, he teaches them the actual method. He gives them the fish, but never teaches them how to fish!
You get one founder and many followers rather than lots of equally talented individuals like the founder - of course where would the founder's power reside if his skills were equal with everyone else?
But thats the thing, martial arts should be about teaching someone to fish not handing them a fish. Some martial arts do, you think back to Okinawan Karate their were provence styles, family styles and even individual styles. Much the same as Japanese Kenpo & jujutsu, they method was a tool, a road sign along the path.
__________________
My Personal Mantra:
Where I walk, I walk alone...
Given unto the winds, I am free...
And yet a slave to my own soul...
We'll never know whether Bruce Lee was a true fighter or not. He never competed in any kickboxing matches, judo competitions, boxing matches, jujitsu competitions, etc., so we can only judge him from his writings, film, and stories of his younger years in Hong Kong.
What we do know is that Lee innovated martial arts by breaking down barriers between traditional Western and Eastern styles. He may not have been the first to do so, but he was the first to mix martial arts and make it popular in the world culture. Personally, I think MMA today owes a lot to what Lee did in his short but incredible life.
__________________ "An eye for an eye only blinds the world." - Ghandi
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
"Without deviation from the norm progress is not possible." - Frank Zappa
We'll never know whether Bruce Lee was a true fighter or not. He never competed in any kickboxing matches, judo competitions, boxing matches, jujitsu competitions, etc., so we can only judge him from his writings, film, and stories of his younger years in Hong Kong.
What we do know is that Lee innovated martial arts by breaking down barriers between traditional Western and Eastern styles. He may not have been the first to do so, but he was the first to mix martial arts and make it popular in the world culture. Personally, I think MMA today owes a lot to what Lee did in his short but incredible life.
Personally I find it funny, Lee made the idea of erasing form and simplifying things to scientic methods popular. John Keehan was the first to popularize full contact karate and now they are bashed. Its almost entertaining lol
__________________
My Personal Mantra:
Where I walk, I walk alone...
Given unto the winds, I am free...
And yet a slave to my own soul...
Styles: Western Boxing, Tai Chi, Animal Form Kung Fu, and Wing Chun
Posts: 1,974
Home Country:
[quote=Magister;87490]
The innovative philopsher Mary Midgeley stated (in Beast & Man) that any science practiced properly may be called an Art. However, I would ask you; What kind of science does the martial arts use? Has it been verified using a scientific method? How do you know (emphasis on you know) that the martial art you practice works? Stating that because it is "time-tested", "battle-field tested" hundreds of years ago will not suffice. So how do you know the science the martial art is based upon is valid?
QUOTE]
Some of the sciences involved are human anatomy, physics, and kinetics. Each class is somewhat like a labratory, where we prove and disprove martial arts "theory." The sciences that Wing Chun are built upon are just as valid for any other art. I know Wing Chun works because I've used it under full contact both in the kwoon and in the street.
While it is interesting to talk theories about martial arts, unless you test that knowledge, it is just theory. Theory needs to be tested and proved to mean much more than an intelectual spewing of words.
Opinions on Bruce Lee
I'll Still Kill!