Kung fu bashers only have our interest at heart

[Iron_Eagle_76]

Or perhaps truth and the consequent enlightenment hurt those who are "caught by surprise"?

It must have sucked for you back in high school as the guy who always got beat up and never got laid.

[Hardwork108]

It must have sucked for you back in high school as the guy who always got beat up and never got laid.

Actually, the highschool I attended was a very civilized institution. I only have fond memories of the place.

As for getting laid, let me tell you that I have been working in nightclubs for over 22 years. That is in London, Rio de Janeiro and here in Cali. Basically, what I am trying to tell you is that I have gotten laid more times than you have had dinners.

So, it seems that not only I know more about authentic kung fu practice than you do, but also I have more fun and know more about the ladies too.

[Dragonzbane76]

Or perhaps truth and the consequent enlightenment hurt those who are "caught by surprise"?

Nope usually its your abrasive demeanor.

[Taixuquan99]

Would you two like the rest of us to leave you alone?

[Hardwork108]

Would you two like the rest of us to leave you alone?

Sorry about that. It is just that Dragonzbane here likes to stalk me across this forum and "provoke situations". Apparently, every time I speak pro-TCMA in relation to his beloved MMA (I still don't know why him - and others of "MMA is best" persuasion - post in this kung fu forum), he sees it as "abrassiveness" on my part, hence the stalking.

Sign of the times, I say....

[David Jamieson]

HW108- You do all these things you complain about.

You continue to badger and bait people and continue to taunt with "clueless idiots" and so on and so forth.

You don't so much talk with people as you do talk at them.

So, be warned, if you continue down this path again the former result of that behaviour from you will be permanent.
So mind your P's and Q's I won't ask you again and it's not up for debate.

Be civil or be gone. Tired of it already.

[Dragonzbane76]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taixuquan99

Would you two like the rest of us to leave you alone?
Sorry about that. It is just that Dragonzbane here likes to stalk me across this forum and "provoke situations". Apparently, every time I speak pro-TCMA in relation to his beloved MMA (I still don't know why him - and others of "MMA is best" persuasion - post in this kung fu forum), he sees it as "abrassiveness" on my part, hence the stalking.


Sign of the times, I say....

Me posting in multiple threads does not mean anything. In all truth most times i choose to skip conversations with u in them because it usually ends with a meaningless debate of the same crap. You think too highly of yourself for me to care in all events concerning u. Because you hate my opinions so much usually its u that illicits the conversations. Leave me alone and ill return the curtesy.

[Hardwork108]

Me posting in multiple threads does not mean anything. In all truth most times i choose to skip conversations with u in them because it usually ends with a meaningless debate of the same crap. You think too highly of yourself for me to care in all events concerning u. Because you hate my opinions so much usually its u that illicits the conversations. Leave me alone and ill return the curtesy.

If you look at this very thread, you will see that it was you who started to "converse" with me, but yes, just ignore me!

As for my part, I should not have implied that I get laid a lot, it seems that the moderator got jealous.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I would politely ask you not to call me a liar!

If you are not aware of the fact that some TCMAs address the ground scenario, then that is fine too, as you are in the majority who claim to train "Kung fu". Also, keep in mind that most kung fu out there is taught in an incompete manner, so there is no reason to think that your training has been otherwise - based on the point view you have just put across!

I will repeat again, the Mainland Chinese lineage of Wing Chun that I train has ground fighting training as part of its traditional curriculum. So, take that to the bank!

Sifu Mike Patterson, in another thread has stated that during his time of training Hsing I in Taiwan, he did ground fighting. He also said that this type of training was the norm in those days and in that part of the world.

I have posted a Tiger Claw style video which also shows ground fighting aspects.

So, it is a LIE to say that the TCMAs do not address the ground!

You really need to re-read what Sifu Patterson said, really.

[pateticorecords]

thanks for sharing

My first TCMA teachers were three brothers who all cross-trained, and were all street fighters. Each cross trained at least three styles. The eldest of the brothers did both Dai-Shing Pek Gwa (with Chan Sau Chung) and, Japanese Judo, as well as SPM. The middle brother did Lion's Roar with Shuia-Chiao and Chin Na incorporated, plus Wing Chun, and Western Boxing. The youngest brother did Lion's Roar with Muay-Thai and Tai-Chi. The middle brother told me in no uncertain terms that if a fight went to the ground and I couldn't handle it, I'd be finished. He broke my arm by way of explanation. As well as their own styles, they regularly cross-trained with each other, and with invited people from outside. They made us fight full contact which was rare in 1973 in the UK. Did I ever compete in combat sporets? Nope. Did what I did in those early years help me defend myself/test myself? Yep, in 13 years of frontline law enforecment. Would I have been any good as a combat sports athlete? I doubt it. Did what I trained help me in my chosen area of pressure testing? Yep, absolutely (see above). Did what I did in groundwork match up to BJJ? Nope. Did I continue with TCMA? Yep, for the past 38 out of 44 years of my MA training. What did I start my own son on? Judo and Muay-Thai, before getting him some experience with BJJ and MMA. What's he doing now after that base? TCMA. Why? Coz it's what he wants to do. Is TCMA 'complete'? Unto itself, yep. Can it evolve? Yep. Should it evolve? IMHO, yeah.

[Hardwork108]

You really need to re-read what Sifu Patterson said, really.

I might just do that, but I remember reading it with a smile on my face. He did say that ground fighting was practiced during his time in Taiwan, and not just in his school. He also confirmed the Internal approach, hence its validity. On top of that he said that in his school, 50% of the training involves the forms practice.

All of the above and their validity have been discussed to death in this forum, and often with valid points on both sides, but what sifu Patterson said validates what me and people like me have been saying here for years - that the Internals exist; forms training is an important tool, and that the TCMAs do address the ground scenario.

If you remember, I have for a long time referred to my Mainland Chinese Wing Chun syllabus, where ground training is part of the curriculum.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I might just do that, but I remember reading it with a smile on my face. He did say that ground fighting was practiced during his time in Taiwan, and not just in his school. He also confirmed the Internal approach, hence its validity. On top of that he said that in his school, 50% of the training involves the forms practice.

All of the above and their validity have been discussed to death in this forum, and often with valid points on both sides, but what sifu Patterson said validates what me and people like me have been saying here for years - that the Internals exist; forms training is an important tool, and that the TCMAs do address the ground scenario.

If you remember, I have for a long time referred to my Mainland Chinese Wing Chun syllabus, where ground training is part of the curriculum.

Sifu Patterson made it clear that other practionmers and teachers of other systems were brought in and that is, presumably, where His system developed the skills to deal with them.
Sifu Patterson's views on "internals" don't seem to mesh with your though.

[Hardwork108]

Sifu Patterson made it clear that other practionmers and teachers of other systems were brought in and that is, presumably, where His system developed the skills to deal with them.
Sifu Patterson's views on "internals" don't seem to mesh with your though.

These are a few quotes from Sifu Patterson:

The internal arts as they were taught to me are complete. We do conditioning. We sweat. We bleed. We are not elitist snobs who are uinwilling to get dirty or roll around on the ground (ever heard of the three basin theory?).

We do mostly body weight strengthening exercises. But some are device driven. We hit things... lots of things.. in various ways. We fight. We do scenario training. We grapple. I will grant that I have encountered many in the USA who think this blasphemy but I have always just shrugged, smiled and then proven to them why they are misguided.

Here, sifu Patterson answers Dragonzbane76's question as to wether he had to go "elsewhere" to learn grappling:

"Chin Na", as taught to me from the three "internal" disciplines, contains the elements of locking, throwing and partial restraint/submission.

It is said of the "three basin theory" that all techinques can be perfomed upright, in a half crouch, or on the ground (obvious mechanical variants notwithstanding). It is also said that sometimes the hands must become the feet and the feet must become the hands.

With that said; as a combat philosophy we do not believe in staying on the ground. One must be willing to go there, yes. But our perspective is to do what is necessary to get back up on our feet as quickly as possible.

So if you're thinking modern perspectives of ring grappling, we can, but we prefer not to stay there. It's not our way.

But no, I did not have to go "elsewhere".

See, I did not misread Sifu Patterson. It is all there, and of course, and as always, ground fighting is still part of the traditional curriculum of the Mainland Chinese lineage of Wing Chun which I study.

[Hardwork108]

More quotes from Sifu Patterson:

In Taiwan, at least in my day, all styles trained to fight. Very few exceptions to this. As such, all practioners understood that the ground was just another range/venue/transition of combative potential. So we all did it.. I never met anyone of any stylistic persuasion there that did not practice ground technique. Although we all had our differences in terms of emphasis.

It is only in the USA that I have seen such seemingly insurmountable differences of opinion over what qualifies as this or that or what defines this or that. Silly if you ask me. I have already stated that there are only so many things that can be done with a hand or foot. The rest is stylistic persuasion via tactical overlay or perspective of efficiency of combat

It would seem that outside of the China/Taiwan, etc. the TCMAs are trained somewhat differently, for the most part, hence people's erroneous views and assumptions as regards what they contain and don't.

And this says it all:

So, I guess to elaborate... all old styles are complete. They need no outside help. It's all been done before. The bickering comes from mistaken perspectives, missing information or just plain obstinance in most cases I reckon.

[brothernumber9]

At face value, there are a number of standing applications that one can extrapolate for possible use on the ground. But theoretical extrapolation doesn't equate to styles that actively had or have practice and training in such scenarios.
I shake my head to the majority of what was on the videos that were posted as evidence of TCMA/Shaolin "ground fighting".

Those of us that train and have trained in a CMA, need to be honest with ourselves. The vast, vast majority of CMA does not include fighting on the ground outside of excapes and techniques designed to get back up.

The more than a little bit of "vs MMA" or "vs grappler" type videos and demonstrations I've seen are really not that practical. There are millions of guys and now a growing number of gals out there that have wrestled in highschool, or local club, or amateur athletics. And I'm sure many of them that watch so many of these vids showing how a "grappler" attempts a takedown against a kung fu stylist roll thier eyes at such ignorance.
I study a CMA, have for over twenty years now, but like a buch of other people on these boards, I also wrestled in highschool. I enjoy my training and have learned a lot. But we really need to get past this "vs MMA" mentality. If what we study doesn't have a practical method in a certain scenario or fighting range, well, it just doesn't have it. It doesn't invalidate everything else you train and learn.