[oliverarodriguez]

Chinese Martial Arts are living systems, thats is why they evolve from master to master, from generation to generation. I want to know your opinion about how should this process be?????? Which should be the limit point of changes where we should consider a style as traditional, or as the same style and not as a new one?????

[Ta-ts'in Centurion]

oliverarodriguez, on Apr 26 2006, 12:27 PM, said:

Chinese Martial Arts are living systems, thats is why they evolve from master to master, from generation to generation. I want to know your opinion about how should this process be?????? Which should be the limit point of changes where we should consider a style as traditional, or as the same style and not as a new one?????

Given the current state of most Chinese methods, perhaps we should be talking about devolution...

[Wujiang]

Traditional techniques have remained largely unchanged since the early republican period.
To claim that CMA have devolved is borderline flame baiting based on gross generalization.

[Ta-ts'in Centurion]

Wujiang, on May 9 2006, 09:22 PM, said:

Traditional techniques have remained largely unchanged since the early republican period.
To claim that CMA have devolved is borderline flame baiting based on gross generalization.

No flaming or gross generalizations here, my friend.

Do you actually deny the facts, regarding the current state of most Chinese arts?

[Wujiang]

Ta-ts, on May 10 2006, 08:02 AM, said:

Do you actually deny the facts, regarding the current state of most Chinese arts?

I am not going to debate the matter as it is both groundless and baseless.

Return to topic.

[Ta-ts'in Centurion]

Wujiang, on May 10 2006, 11:20 AM, said:

I am not going to debate the matter as it is both groundless and baseless.

Return to topic.

I am very much on-topic, sir.

And no, the matter is not "groundless" or "baseless"--on the contrary, it's quite self-evident.

[Wujiang]

One-liners that draw a conclusion without discussion or backing it with evidence or even logical deduction does not constitute to being 'self evident'. Such behaviours are not welcomed here.
If you want to continue dicussing the approprietness of your behaviour, we can do so over PM. But please do not hijack this thread.

if your next post does not answer the original question with some degree of support, I will consider it as trolling.

[Ta-ts'in Centurion]

oliverarodriguez, on Apr 26 2006, 12:27 PM, said:

Chinese Martial Arts are living systems, thats is why they evolve from master to master, from generation to generation. I want to know your opinion about how should this process be?????? Which should be the limit point of changes where we should consider a style as traditional, or as the same style and not as a new one?????

The vast majority of current Chinese systems appear to have lost touch with functionality, which is why I suggested "devolution" as being more accurate.

Oliver then asked how the "process" of "evolution" should "be". I would suggest that there should be a return to a better training methodology. Martial arts (yes, even Chinese ones) CHANGE over TIME, which is something that cannot be ignored.

This post has been edited by Wujiang: 10 May 2006 - 08:14 PM

[Wujiang]

Ta-ts, on May 10 2006, 01:07 PM, said:

The vast majority of current Chinese systems appear to have lost touch with functionality, which is why I suggested "devolution" as being more accurate.

On the contrary, there is no loss of functionality. I honestly do not see any reason why would make such a claim as every single technique in Chinese Martial Arts are designed for combat. The question is often whether people understand the meaning behind what looks like useless techniques.

I would admit though, that there are less and less people who actually understand the techniques or interpret them wrongly. Hence, when exposed such practitioners, a third person can often mistakenly judge the system as being impractical. It is like looking at a blind drunk shooting and determining a gun can never hit its mark. Still, there are a good number of people who does understand the system. And the system have been preserved through them.

Quote

Oliver then asked how the "process" of "evolution" should "be". I would suggest that there should be a return to a better training methodology. Martial arts (yes, even Chinese ones) CHANGE over TIME, which is something that cannot be ignored.

On the whole, CMA has been relatively unchanged since the republican era as the need to change (street fighting, jianghu conflicts, etc) have disappeared. With the rise of a more effective means of law enforcement, there is no long the intensive competitive environment needed to drive a system forward. Hence, the taolus you see today are generally the same as those during the republican era.

[General_Zhaoyun]

Ta-ts, on May 11 2006, 03:07 AM, said:

The vast majority of current Chinese systems appear to have lost touch with functionality, which is why I suggested "devolution" as being more accurate.

Oliver then asked how the "process" of "evolution" should "be". I would suggest that there should be a return to a better training methodology. Martial arts (yes, even Chinese ones) CHANGE over TIME, which is something that cannot be ignored.

Can you tell me more about what 'devolution' you're referring to?

You mention 'vast majority of current chinese system" has appeared to lost touch with functionality. Please explain what do you mean by 'lost touch with functionality'. Which current chinese system (kungfu) are you referring to? And are you sure it's 'majority'? Please elaborate.

[sinkpoint]

I agree that Chinese martial arts have devolved, but the devolution did not just start recently, it started in the beginning of Qing dynasty, where martial art practices were banned, and people went underground. It's during this time that public exchange of knowledge stopped, and actual combat training rarely happened. Instead focus has been heavily into forms. Stylistic differences grew because of the lack of contact with each other, and the systems became more and more ritualized and strange in apperance.

As a lot of the practitioners either became disillutioned with the political situation at the time, and abandoned their martial training, or turned underground into anti-Qing movements, the arts' history were either lost, or intentionally changed to hide their origins. This made the arts seemingly mythical and mysterious, the WuDang and ShaoLin connections are all examples of this.

There are many many examples of the devolutions Chinese martial arts. One of them is of Yang Taiji.
The original Chen taiji that was created by ChenWangTing was greatly influenced by QiJiGuang's 32 fist methods. Chen himself was an army officer at the end of Ming dynasty, and created taji after he retired to his home village. The style however was never even called "taiji" at that time, let along its "WuDang" connection. The name was tacked to it later, as did the "fact" that it is an internal style created by ZhangSanFeng. That is another whole can of worms, I'm not going delve into it here.

The push hand in Chen taiji was originally a supplimental training method for sensitively and balance control. It contained strike, lock and throws as well. Do we see any of that today? Not outside of Chen taji of course. Taiji today have become nothing more than two guys touching hands and rock back and forth, and they consider this "fighting". Even in Chen taiji, push hands is considered as the de facto standard for fighting training. It has completely lost its long striking ability. Without it, there is no way for someone to enter from striking to trapping, where most of CMA's combat strategy lies.

Even Long Fist today no longer contain properly long range techniques. Look at any long fist techniques, how many can you find is actually working at long range? Most of them are short range techniques working after an arm is trapped.

What's a good example of long range fighting? Kick-boxing. It's unfortunate, but kick-boxing is actually very close to the long range strikes of Ming dynasty. What makes CMA a treasure is in its mesmerizing varieties of strategies in close range fighting. However all of these strategies are moot if one cannot get past the opponents flurry of punches and kicks.

By the end of Qing dynasty, Chinese martial art is but a shadow of its former self. Although the constant conflicts in last 100 years probably helped Chinese martial arts quite a bit, as it probably highlighted what worked and what doesn't as any conflicts would do. However its effects were most likely to be limited as we are no longer in the era of swords and spears.

This post may sound grim, but I think the future of Chinese martial arts is bright. We are finally able to freely exchange ideas again, and with a larger resource pool than ever. We can now learn from what the rest of the world has to offer. That is, if we can get past the mythical nonsense and the prevalent holier-than-thou attitude everywhere.

[Ta-ts'in Centurion]

General_Zhaoyun, on May 10 2006, 11:50 PM, said:

Can you tell me more about what 'devolution' you're referring to?

You mention 'vast majority of current chinese system" has appeared to lost touch with functionality. Please explain what do you mean by 'lost touch with functionality'. Which current chinese system (kungfu) are you referring to? And are you sure it's 'majority'? Please elaborate.

The "devolution" I'm referring to is the lack of functionality which appears to be manifest in the majority of current Chinese systems.

By "lack of functionality", I mean just that--most Chinese fighting methods have become diluted and/or bastardized in one way or another. Some examples would include:

1. Modern wushu, which is not a martial art--it is performance art.

2. So many kung-fu schools today do not seem to engage in full-contact free-sparring, so how can effective fighters come out of these institutions?

3. Many kung-fu styles today emphasize mystical nonsense, like the supposed combative application of chi and whatnot. Instead of real fighting effectiveness, the naive martial arts public is fed all sorts of larger-than-life chicanery, which has nothing to do with fighting.

4. If Chinese systems were still truly functional in the combative sense, then we would see kung-fu well represented in modern combat sports--Kickboxing, MMA/NHB competition, etc. As it stands, Chinese methods are barely represented at all. There is clearly an attempt within current CMA circles to correct this problem through events like san shou competition, but let's face it--"traditional" Chinese styles (i.e., what many practitioners fancy as "real" kung-fu) don't look like anything we see in san shou bouts.


I don't want to come across as if I'm simply "bashing" Chinese methods. I'm basing this on what is out there. If there is still some really effective "traditional" kung-fu, then those guys should fire their current PR people!

Clearly, this wasn't always the case. China went through many dynasties and powerful empires, so obviously they had effective fighting methods at one time. The question is, what happened?

My guess is that native martial arts in China suffered from severe dilution during China's years of abuse by the Western Colonial Powers during the 19th and early 20th centuries. This state of affairs likely grew even worse during the Cultural Revolution.

It's really quite sad, because who knows what was ultimately lost?

This post has been edited by Ta-ts'in Centurion: 11 May 2006 - 11:18 AM

[Wujiang]

sinkpoint, on May 11 2006, 07:08 AM, said:

I agree that Chinese martial arts have devolved, but the devolution did not just start recently, it started in the beginning of Qing dynasty, where martial art practices were banned, and people went underground. It's during this time that public exchange of knowledge stopped, and actual combat training rarely happened. Instead focus has been heavily into forms. Stylistic differences grew because of the lack of contact with each other, and the systems became more and more ritualized and strange in apperance.

Actually, going by your logic, the 'devolution' of CMA started during the Southern Song when martial prowess were frowned upon. While the Qing did have an effect, there is no reason to believe that it devolved. What it did do to it was slowed it down and changed the format of developement. Military aside, civilian martial artists continued to practice due to the constant village raids by local bandits. Practicing martial arts allowed them to protect their livelihood. They kept a low profile, but to say they stopped is incorrect.

Others such as the biaoshi pretty much completely ignored the martial arts ban. More importantly, governmental influence rarely if ever affects jianghu. They are good are specific things such as smashing a village of martial artists, but on the whole their ability to maintain centralized govern anything on the outskirts of the cities and anything beyond is close to zero. They simply don't have the resources.

Another interesting point is that contacts between fighters are made even at the height of the ban. The matter is just that the system and ID of the opponents are unheard of. Such would be the case of a village of fighters vs bandit gang. Village of fighters who's system survived to this day can be recognized. but bandits (who are commonly also great martial artist) are never known through history and likely their system does not survive. This means that the A vs B argument are never mentioned as 'B' are unknown and thus it would be just seeing A in isolation. These engagements are conflicts that has never stopped since the dawn of time. Neither the Qing or the Yuan could ever hope to stop these.

Quote

As a lot of the practitioners either became disillutioned with the political situation at the time, and abandoned their martial training, or turned underground into anti-Qing movements, the arts' history were either lost, or intentionally changed to hide their origins. This made the arts seemingly mythical and mysterious, the WuDang and ShaoLin connections are all examples of this.

Actually, underground resistant movement stepped up their training. What the Qing actually did was that due to many martial artists joining the resistance, it provided a channel for exchange and interaction to take place. One of the more obvious influenced systems would be Meihuaquan where you can see tactics and techniques of other systems integrated into it.

Quote

The original Chen taiji that was created by ChenWangTing was greatly influenced by QiJiGuang's 32 fist methods. Chen himself was an army officer at the end of Ming dynasty, and created taji after he retired to his home village.

Chen Wangting was never an army officer. The house of Chen was so famous as a fighter's village that they were designated as the local 'police-militia' type thing. This was during the Qing era which was well pass Chen's time. The source that claims that Chen was a army officer was his poem stating

嘆當年，披堅執銳，掃蕩群氛，幾次顛險!蒙恩賜，枉徒然，

This however only proves that he once wore armour and fought on the field. Civilians had their own version of armour and the house of Chen have been known to repell local bandits. Even martial artists does not go into battle with just their bare hands. They grab their weapon and put on protective gear. The 蒙恩賜，枉徒然 is more likely to mean 'I was blessed by the gods and survived'. Not that he was rewarded for military merits.

Quote

The push hand in Chen taiji was originally a supplimental training method for sensitively and balance control. It contained strike, lock and throws as well. Do we see any of that today? Not outside of Chen taji of course. Taiji today have become nothing more than two guys touching hands and rock back and forth, and they consider this "fighting". Even in Chen taiji, push hands is considered as the de facto standard for fighting training. It has completely lost its long striking ability. Without it, there is no way for someone to enter from striking to trapping, where most of CMA's combat strategy lies.

True Taiji practitioners does not consider push hands as fighting or mock fighting. They are sparring practices at best. It is just the misunderstanding of the system in most of today's practitioners. There are still plenty of practitioners that does actually practice fighting although as far as Taiji is concerned, I have yet to find one that can really fight without integrating some level of other systems. In modern times, a good Taiji user are normally proficient in a number of systems and they transfer their wealth of knowledge into action via the taiji arsenal of techniques. But if one looks closely, it is pretty obvious that some of their tactics are not taiji oriented. I don't blame them really. Taiji is simply too difficuit to use (not impractical) for ametuers to employ effectively.

Quote

Even Long Fist today no longer contain properly long range techniques. Look at any long fist techniques, how many can you find is actually working at long range? Most of them are short range techniques working after an arm is trapped.

This is only misconceptions that arise from a lack of understanding of the techniques. Secrecy in CMA is very popular even today. And I can say with confidence that the techniques of systems such as Bei Shaolin does work quite well at long range (of course, I am assuming we are refering to the same thing meaning arms-length)

Quote

By the end of Qing dynasty, Chinese martial art is but a shadow of its former self. Although the constant conflicts in last 100 years probably helped Chinese martial arts quite a bit, as it probably highlighted what worked and what doesn't as any conflicts would do. However its effects were most likely to be limited as we are no longer in the era of swords and spears.

I beg to differ. Late Qing martial arts have evolved since early ming. It adapted to its surrounding and environment. During the early republican years, CMA is as strong as ever. The stagnation (not devolution) of martial arts started with the coming of the age of modern guns. After which, the need for martial arts plummered and the number of people who actually practice a system long enough to understand its meaning dropped like a rock. Depire this though, there are still a number of those who truely understand the system who remains. I admit that they are few and far between and most 'grandmasters' are novice at best. Still, look harder, they are there.

Honestly, I have yet to see a single piece of primary evidence that suggest that martial arts devolved during the Qing. What we can say is that it became more secretive and less people practice the systems. But the systems themselves, in the hands of those who do know how to use it have not went backwards. The situation is no different as it is today. The CMA community today are loaded with people who really don't understand their system enough. They practice the forms but have little comprehension of what the techniques and tactics involve. This is not a martial art devolution. It is social matter.

[Wujiang]

Ta-ts, on May 11 2006, 10:15 AM, said:

2. So many kung-fu schools today do not seem to engage in full-contact free-sparring, so how can effective fighters come out of these institutions?

3. Many kung-fu styles today emphasize mystical nonsense, like the supposed combative application of chi and whatnot. Instead of real fighting effectiveness, the naive martial arts public is fed all sorts of larger-than-life chicanery, which has nothing to do with fighting.

You seem to confusing the quality of an institution with the thing that they are supposed to teach.
If I studied the theories of General Relativity with my high school teacher, I would probably come out incompotent and never be able to apply the theory in solving astro-physics problems. Does that mean that the General Relativity lack 'functinality' ? The thing is, you are simply yet to meet Prof Hawkings. When I have met one of the few remaining Mr Hawkings of CMA, I was humbled.

Quote

4. If Chinese systems were still truly functional in the combative sense, then we would see kung-fu well represented in modern combat sports--Kickboxing, MMA/NHB competition, etc. As it stands, Chinese methods are barely represented at all. There is clearly an attempt within current CMA circles to correct this problem through events like san shou competition, but let's face it--"traditional" Chinese styles (i.e., what many practitioners fancy as "real" kung-fu) don't look like anything we see in san shou bouts.

Please note that MMB/NHB are combative SPORTS. And it is Sanshou is what has 'bastardized' CMA. Going by your logic, military knife fighting is ineffective because you never see them. Obviously, using a knife is never as effective as BJJ because they are never seen winning in these matches. Traditional systems is about fighting. Not sport. There is a world of difference.

Last warning, any more references to sport fighting would be removed more prudent actions taken. If you want to reply to this post, do it at the Inn. Read the TCMA Reform 2006 again. You will not ignore the regulations of this forum

Quote

If there is still some really effective "traditional" kung-fu, then those guys should fire their current PR people!

No, the question is a whole lot more complicated than having bad PR. Maybe walking in the shoes of a CMA teacher for a couple of years would help you understand.