Grappling & Kung-Fu--Myth & Reality

[Kaijet]

Ok, once again

Hello all,

I don´t know how many time we or I have to clear up few things.
We are not saying we are the best fighters of the world and we can beat up each!
But we have training methodes not to be surpriced of any attack. Thats our intension, to show that Shaolin Kung Fu is a complete art.

If somebody is saying I have no idea about Grappling or BJJ I just start to smile from my heart. My list of masters I learned from are Gene LeBelle, Gokor "the armenian assasin" unbeaten in over 400 fights, Jean Jaque Machado, .

My old students in Grappling and BJJ won last year International German Champion in no Gi and with Gi as white belts the blue belt category also Grappling tournaments and get also Pokals for the best team in tournaments, best technique submission and fastes submission 20 sec in the final of the tournament. I think the list shows I know how to train shoots and to counter them.
Of course my time of tournaments are over but I still can beat my students who won the tournaments.
Once again, to look at training methodes videos and saying "no way to win with this kind of technique" shows only no depth of commentator, to compare a teaching video with real situation what should I say about?.

[Kaitain]

I dont think you're being a smart alec - one of my earlier posts made clear that the ideal is to use "he moves, I arrive first" - so ideally the jab is all he gets off. Nothing wrong with that thinking at all - especially when using a system like taijiquan that glories in stand-up grappling. Close so they cant shoot

[Kaitain]

Kai - to clarify, I said the article posted did not say you knew anything about grappling. I didnt actually read the bit at the start that said you were a JJ grandmaster - (an interesting title, how do you get to be grandmaster of a JJ system?) but the body of what you wrote was not related to grappling.

Anyway - I obviously have no depth of commentary to say that the shoot in the training video was bad . Is that how you shoot in on someone? Or how you would teach someone to shoot?

To put it another way Kai - do you ever use a standing sprawl when someone shoots in on you? I'm not taking an absolute position that a sprawl is the only thing that works, but against a good shoot that has set you up, it's pretty effective no?

Last point - if the only video available is a teaching one, then that is what I have to draw my conclusions from. By all means post up a video showing it working 'live' and I'll discuss that. A Wahnam student posted the video, not me.

Regards,

Paul

[yeniseri]

round

Kaitan,

Taijiquan has never been known as "standup grappling". AT least I am not aware of that representation of it!
The morality of neijiquan is often underestimated since one should never have to jab at an opponent because there is no such thing. If one is in the Dao, then extricate oneself carefully from the conflict. The exaxt opposite scenario is that many taijiquan players do not know about nor care about its martial impact.

Most people know that at most encounters, the opponent will grab or push so that in itself requires a grappling (judo, BJJ, shuaijiao) mindset. Anything less is useless and pitifil! BUT, it may be obvious that the person who thought he could was/is a legend in his own mind!

[Mark A]

Understanding of techniques and skills alingned

Hey Paul (Sifu or not )
Just a couple of things.

1) If the Wahnam Family are coming across as quite strong, please dont take it personaly, it is just that we do believe in what we are taught etc.

We are also not daft enough to believe that just learning a technique is enough, we are aware that there has to be some real solid training methodolgy behind it.

2) Also this is just a quick reminder that many of the particpants on the forum are from different countries and while their English is good, it may not be their first language. But there english is better than my finnish, spanish and german, you get the idea.

One thing you have spoken a lot about is the sprawl and shoot. Again if someone has a good understanding of this and the tactics behind it then it is a great entry.

By tactics I mean they never should try the shoot on it own, it should come behind something such as a striking tehcnique, such as jab cross etc.

In our system there are some techniques I would use to counter to the shoot
. This would actually be quite similiar to the "check"

This is were you would move your legs out of danger and place your forearm and the person "shooting " on there shoulder/neck i.e. trapezius. If the person countering is good they will turn their biody away and this will set them up for some very good striking opportunities.


In Shaolin Wahnam I would use a variation on the technique Big Boss.

Again if I am down in Brighton I would live to come and train and likewise if you are up in Edinburgh then I would love to show you what I mean.

Take Care

Mark

Also I really like what you are doing on this thread

[Kaitain]

yeniseri - what i mean is, taiji's preferred fighting range is the standup grappling range. It just happens to strike and such things as well as grapple - dont get locked into a fixed understanding of grappling = strength. A good BJJ guy is as soft and pliable and sensitive on the deck as a good taiji guy is standing up. I wouldnt study it if it any way conflicted with my taiji principles. Grappling range for me just means the range where hands can reach the body.

Daoism was shoehorned into taijiquan in the late 19th century - there is no necessity whatsoever to follow Daoist philosophy when studying taijiquan. "Taiji quan" was a label applied to the art by scholars who saw it and were impressed by it's extremes of softness and hardness (emptiness and fullness). Previously it was known as cotton boxing (amongst other terms). If someone does not study the martial, then they are not studying taijquan - they're just moving around slowly waving their arms and getting moderate health benefit. They'd be better off doing qigoing and yoga.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a grappling mindset" - if someone pushes me I let them, if they pull me I let them. Let them have whatever they want, and then add a bit. Judoka and JJ guys train for this result as well, it just doesnt come out of the neutrality principle of taiji.

I think you're interpretation that Daoism = no such thing as an opponent is a bit off the mark. However,your Dao isn't mine.

Here's a response that sums up my way.
"
Daoism is, IMO, a passage and witness of what will come about anyway. Violence is as a part of life as stillness. Why not integrate violence into your life? it will happen. Why not know about it, so when it does happen, you will be ready for it?
Whether you react to violence with more violence is seperate from knowing how to react to violence in such a fashion. Though having the knowledge may even allow you to avoid it. For instance, the better you are at combat, the faster you can disable your opponant without disfiguring him -possibly reducing the overall amount of violence you must create to achieve your goal. Maybe any of this guy's friend will decide not to fight you, because they see how fast you remove guy #1 from the fight?

Usually, violence does not solve problems, but sometimes, violence is the only way to stop a current action. It will certainly incur further violence, but that may be better than allowing the first action to take place.

Not to mention that learning how to fight also requires that learn about your own body, your own mind-it is a method, just like any other, to know yourself better, and to keep healthy at the same time.

Ignoring violence will not eliminate it."

I think to continue discussion you would have to define what you understand by 'opponent' - I define it as a person who is seeking to be unpeaceful with me.

Here's another quote that sums my approach up nicely:
"If there is no resistance to the unpeaceful, then you will be allowing the unpeaceful to happen. You have to use unpeaceful means, against the unpeaceful to cause peace. This doesn't necessarily mean to use violence."

Mark
Cheers for the post:
1) It's fine - I understand that some people have only trained the one art and so have a bit of "starry-eyed reverence" for their system. Criticism is therefore perceived as insult. I've been a bit prickly at times as well, which wasn't the right way to go about getting my point across. I got a little frustrated but a day in the sun looking at pretty girls lightened my mood no end
2) I hadnt noticed the language thing as an issue - as you say, their english is a lot better than my attempts at their language.
3) "This is were you would move your legs out of danger and place your forearm and the person "shooting " on there shoulder/neck i.e. trapezius. If the person countering is good they will turn their biody away and this will set them up for some very good striking opportunities." That's basically what Im talking about - I rarely use a full sprawl aside from pure grappling training.

Cheers

Paul

[Kaitain]

Just to show Im not taking an absolute position on this - here's a pretty smooth way to deal with a shoot.

http://download.yousendit.com/194EAB731B204628

To me it highlights the grappler's weakpoint - he'll go for a throw when he should be striking. It's like he cant believe his luck that the guy is just coming at him, drops height and goes for the easiest takedown of his career. Or not

Anyway - I wouldnt recommend using this defensively against a shoot, but it's a great example of knowing your opponent.

[grammatoncleric]

Dear Kaitan,

I say this to you not simply in defence of Shaolin Wahnam but because I see this kind of discussion regarding alot things that can only truly understood through direct experience, and not intellectual conversation.

The best thing would be to attend a class at the summer Camp in Kent, just one class, and to experience what is being said by the instructors here directly.

Noone obviously is telling you to give up learning from you other instructors, I know that Sifu loves doing Kung Fu, and I'm sure he'd love to answer your questions. There is also a money back offer if your not satisfied.

[Kaitain]

Thank you for the offer, but I really have no interest in training with your Sifu - it is not appropriate. It would be like me telling you guys to go and train with John Ding to validate things that I'm telling you about Yang taijiquan. If I can't do something, I don't talk about it or make claims about it. If I can do something, then I happily show it to people who want to see it. I would never send someone to John to prove/disprove something I've said.

I've had a couple of offers from people within this discussion to hook up and chat/train/exchange ideas - I am much happier working on that basis. Hopefully something will come together and we'll all be happy

There have been some good responses on this thread and Im not an MMA nutrider trying to convince you all that your art is shite. I enjoy talking with TCMA people about solutions to grappling problems.

Here's something to take the conversation elsewhere - one of the reasons I have been given by a respected Chinese SC master for the lack of ground-fighting methods within the CMA as a whole (there is very little of it about) is that traditionally if you knocked or threw your opponent to the floor, it was considered bad manners to dive in and keep going. He would recognise and acknowledge that he had lost, so there was no need to continue. My only problem with this is that if someone is trying to kill you, they arent going to just leave you on the floor. What do you think?

[chris3212]

Dear Sifu "Kaitain" (Sorry I dont know your name )

My only problem with this is that if someone is trying to kill you, they arent going to just leave you on the floor. What do you think?

This is a valid point that I have thought about in the past. I suppose it depends on the situation as to how much force is used. Sifu Anthony has mentioned on other threads that some of his seniors have an extremely powerful amout of force. I guess they could then use alot more force if their lives were in danger.

As far as "on the floor fighting" (and please note that I am not very experienced in this field) I think that after the throw, being able to stay upright would give a good warrior (of say Shaolin Wahnam or another good traditional school) an advantage.

I suppose it depends on what you feel the opponent is best at.

[Mark A]

Groundwork in TCMA

Hey Folks,
It is interesting to here people say that there is no known groundwork in Traditional Chinese Martial Arts. I think there is, it just has a different context.

There are some systems of Kung Fu that will actually use the ground as a trap for an unsuspecting opponent. Dog boxing is one system that I have heard about that uses this tactic.

There is also all of the chinese wrestling systems. Even in some versions of Bagua there is throwing/felling and some ground work.

It has a different focus than modern wrestling/grappling. My limited understanding is that is more striking orientated than grappling. And when the opponent is on the ground you would be looking to neutralise them as soon as possible in case they are not alone.


There are so many different Kung Fu systems out there who know what could be availabe.

Also if you are looking at the different ranges of grappling then you would have to look at the Chin Na systems, that use locking and breaking.

Again there focus can be used to subdue an opponent by using locks etc., But it would be easy to it that step forward and use breaks in a lock.

An example would be that in an "encounter' you could grab someones hand when you are all in motion, it may not be deliberate but it just happens.

Because you have trained it you may just "pop" when your training takes over.

Fights are very messy and not like the movies. So who knows what could happen.

Just to say I hope no one here gets involved in a fight.

Mark

[Kaitain]

What I mean is - if you're on the floor having been thrown, and someone is still trying to nail you, surely your system would reflect that? Yet most CMA does not address ground-fighting in a comprehensive manner - there are some techniques against a standing opponent in some systems, but it's still rudimentary. It just seems that people fought differently - CMA has great stand-up styles, but nothing to write home about on the floor.

If you look at the Japanese arts, nearly all of them have a ne waza component - so something was different. Especially when you consider that the Japanese arts are rooted in Chinese arts - so either the Japanese developed their own method, or the Chinese discarded it.

Mark - yes there are a few bits and pieces here and there, but for the most part it isn't addressed in the classical styles. If you look at the development of classical martial styles since 1990, you can see how the BJJ/UFC scene has influenced what everyone is doing - all of us were shocked when we first saw what was happening. Prior to that, noone focussed on groundwork at all - take someone down and pin them, yes, but noone really covered the "when you throw them they take you with them - now what?"

I think it's a good thing because it's taught a lot of martial artists that someone charging into you with the intent of knocking you down is a) quite common b) something we ought to be able to deal with. Combined with the advent of internet video and so on, everyone is forced to assess themselves in a different, harsher light.

Paul

Paul

[yeniseri]

testing is best

Kaitan,

Correctomundo!

Shuaijiao ethical background is far more realistic while saying the psychological state of practitioners maybe different today. In the past, based on the cultural milieu the one who 'fell' had a few options.
a. Not say a word and go his own way. (shut up or put up)
b. Praise the superiority of the other art and study or incorporate
c. Get up and be put down again.
All though not harmonious the solutionss always sought to maintain harmony within coexistance.

Today's practitioners either do not understand or refuse to understand this aforementioned dynamic and instead of proving through application, many resort to "mouthfu", which only creates discord and nothing is solved.

just a few shillings!

[chris3212]

Looks like working the counters to throws will be very useful

Dear Sifu Mark,

You mentioned Chin Na, and about "breaking". Surely dislocation and breaking of bones isnt particularly compassionate?

I am not saying that any Wahnam students lack compassion though

This is a very interesting thread.

Best wishes,

Chris

[Jonny Say]

Dear Kaitain,

Just to say again I have enjoyed the discussions so far, and it has been great to get your perspective.

From my limited knowledge I agree there appears to be far less ground fighting in traditional chineese martial arts.

If you scan down this list however you will see traditional Shaolin Groundwork:

http://www.shaolin.org/video-clips/w.../overview.html

Just in case you hadn't caught this page!

All the best

Jonny