Grappling & Kung-Fu--Myth & Reality

[Mark A]

Paul's Reply

Hey Folks,
There are a few things I would like to say.

First I would like to thank Momo for finding the material on the empty flower forum. Then bringing it to light on our forum.

I would also like to thank Momo and Chris for what they have said in defence of Robin and our family.

Before we all start defending our school and becoming forceful in that defence. I would like to point out a few things.

Yes Paul did make some very"hard" comments about Robin and our school. He also did not make any direct contact with Robin to find out what his background was. Paul has made some assumptions about us without meeting any of us.

There is one thing that Momo does point out.

He said that Paul joined our Forum on the day that he started writing about the Tai Chi Fight.Maybe Paul came here to find out what we are about? Paul has spent some time here on our forum and communicated with us, so hopefully his assumptions and opinions may have been changed.

Before we start becoming to vigorous in our defence, Let Paul have a chance to address the remarks he made on the emptyflower forum.

Someone's actions speak a lot louder than their words.


Mark

[Kaitain]

Gosh - an interesting little flurry of posts . Reading my responses to a Wahnam Taiji guy on the main emptyflower forum is hardly 'investigation' is it? I thought it was one of you guys that posted the original thread anyway?

JamieR - not worth my time replying to that. I questioned some of his claims, he replied to me, it's now in PM. End of story. Just so it's clear - I'll write what I like in the manner I choose, whether it affects your Chi Kung or not. If Kai thinks I was impolite, then I'll talk to Kai about it.

With regards to the Taijiquan that Wahnam teaches. I havent raised my opinion of it here, I've kept it to myself as I did not consider it constructive to have a discussion about legitimacy of an art that you are studying - that does not mean I am not going to discuss it elsewhere. Aside from that, the majority of my discussion has been with the Shaolin guys on the Shaolin forum about grappling - I have deliberately shied away from discussing the taijiquan in your system.

Regarding Dan Doherty - I have no problem with his opinion of Yang style whatsoever. He hasn't seen me or John or Ip, and if he had, his opinion wouldn't matter to me anyway. I also make allowances for the fact that Dan likes to market himself in a particular way - he is running a business. Chu was stupid for going to his school and calling him out on comments he'd made. When I first read that article I went and looked for a Wudang school to train at to see what they were doing - I drew my own opinion of it. I have subsequently met and trained with a couple of other DD guys and have been impressed with their skills, they in turn liked what they saw in me.

Regarding Robin - I saw him teaching and pushing hands at the Brighton Taiji day, so my opinions are not based on the .gif alone. Combine that with the fact that someone came to the emptyflower forum and started spouting off about "Taiji in a full contact fight", when the accounts of people that were there differ entirely from Robin's account, I felt it appropriate to add my opinion. I live and teach in Brighton, should Robin or his students wish to discuss it with me, I will happily explain why I think what I do, and show him/them if they are interested. This in an entirely friendly manner - they may well surprise me and if that is the case, I will post a retraction. I do not go in for entrenched positions - if Im wrong, I will say so.

Mo - Im amused that you think I've wasted my time training. I'm amused that you think that taijiquan used in fighting must look like the form in taijiquan when the whole point is to become formless - you work to principles, not shapes. I'm amused that you think I dont know how to use my taijiquan. I'm amused that you think "Internal Force" is going to save you. I'm amused that you find solace in an external artist telling the internal artists that they don't get taijiquan. I'm deeply amused that you think it a weakness to train another art to fill a gap (ground-fighting). You might want to go see some Sun style practitioners and tell them it's weakness to have put Bagua and XingYi into their art. Or maybe tell Tim Cartmell that you feel sorry for him. My opinions of Wahnam taiji are based on videos of your Sifu demonstrating it, not of students. I suggest you read the thread on emptyflower again and read wutan's report on the event - he was there (I dont know him and he wasnt one of my sources) and his opinion matches what I was told.

Chris - just to make it clear, Ive studied ground-fighting to fill the gap in taijiquan's groundwork. My stand-up grappling is all taijiquan - including sprawling. Once you understand the art as principles rather than shapes, you might realise that as long as your movement follows the principles, it's all good. Regarding Internal Force - Im happy for Robin to come and show me his Internal Force. I'll even sign a disclaimer promising not to sue if he injures me.

The fact that a guy defended against your made-up takedown is not evidence of anything is it? I can surmise from that one of two things:
1) your takedown is really bad and so he was able to strike (unlikely that it would have hurt you given the position, but anyway)
2) his takedown defence is so good that your highly proficient takedown method was defeated.
A simple application of Occam's razor would suggest that since neither of you train in ground-fighting, 1) is the most likely. However, I'll countenance the possibility of 2) since Ive never trained with you or seen what you're on about.

You said "It seems that people nowadays are too ignorant to look back in history. Didnt past Masters "make up" new techniques and stances. Even if Sifu Wong had made up every Tai Chi Chuan pattern in Wahnam Taijiquan, he has tested it. Its combat effectiveness has been proven. Is there anything wrong with that?"

How has it been tested? Aside from that, I will not discuss the taijiquan here, for the reasons stated above. If you wish to discuss it, do it on emptyflower.

"As for what you all claim to practice. Id say you didnt practice Taijiquan. If none of the people on that forum believe in internal force, they arent practicing an internal art."

I would suggest that there are a wide variety of practitioners on emptyflower who would disagree with you - not least on the belief in internal force. I wont even try and speak for the hundreds of different people there - I suggest that you talk to them about it. I also suggest that you ask 'what makes a style internal'? and then hide from the ensuing argument - noone agrees. Maybe everyone else doesnt practice an internal art, if we're using your definition of 'internal'.

Lastly - a little on why I decided to post here. I read the taijiquan stuff and decided there was nothing to gain in commenting on it - people like what study (otherwise they wouldnt do it), there's no point trying to tell them otherwise. Aside from anything else, it'd be pretty conceited to think that it would achieve anything. I had a quick flick on the other forums and saw a thread on grappling - there seemed to be some misconceptions about a few things so I jumped in to offer my experience and opinion. It was pretty amicable for the most part - I found the discussion useful in expressing my ideas, and it was good to see the different views expressed by the Wahnam guys.

In hindsight, perhaps I should have said "by the way, we're discussing the taijiquan of your system here.". In honesty, do you think this discussion on grappling would have been as open if I had? Perhaps that is irrelevant.

Anyway - Im on the road working for a few days so will not be about to respond until Thursday. So don't think I'm hiding

Regards

Paul

[George]

Just so it's clear - I'll write what I like in the manner I choose, whether it affects your Chi Kung or not.

That’s fine, but you can do that somewhere else. Please don't forget that you are a guest here.

Combine that with the fact that someone came to the emptyflower forum and started spouting off about "Taiji in a full contact fight", when the accounts of people that were there differ entirely from Robin's account, I felt it appropriate to add my opinion.

I can't help but wonder if your reaction was a little on the defensive side?

As far as I am concerned, Sifu Robin demonstrated that genuine Tai Chi Chuan can be used in a contact fight (despite being hindered by having to wear the silly gloves,) which is what the whole excercise was about.

I am surprised that someone who claims to practice and teach Tai Chi Chuan is not happy that someone is trying to do something (however small) to reverse the public perception that Tai Chi Chuan is something that is done by old people, in groups, on large bits of grass (no offence intended to those old people who actually do practice Tai Chi Chuan, in groups, on large bits of grass.)

I'm amused that you think I dont know how to use my taijiquan. I'm amused that you think "Internal Force" is going to save you. I'm amused that you find solace in an external artist telling the internal artists that they don't get taijiquan.

I'm deeply amused that you think it a weakness to train another art to fill a gap (ground-fighting).

That's fine. If your art has gaps then it would be foolish not to fill them.

As for your suggestion to discuss this on the "emptyflower" forum, no thanks. I've had a read and it is not a place where I would like to spend any more of my time (personal preference, of course.)

Best wishes,

[Kaitain]

" On the one hand it's good that he's doing full contact, but he beat another clueless taiji guy. Someone with 6 months of kickboxing would have killed him. He seems to recognise that he has work to do though so he may progress."

Was one of my comments on EF. I think it's great that he's testing what he has studied.

I'll leave the rest of your comments alone as they fall into the passive-aggressive bin.

Paul

[Jeffrey Segal]

didn't even see the fight

Hello Paul,

Also from the post you quoted above:

Someone who was there told me that he was lucky that he got paired with someone who couldnt box

So you weren't even there!! I find your comments about Robin quite patronising and rather funny.

Time to take a step back and be honest with yourself about your motives for posting here and anywhere else.

Regards,

[chris3212]

Dear Sifu Paul,

The fact that a guy defended against your made-up takedown is not evidence of anything is it? I can surmise from that one of two things:
1) your takedown is really bad and so he was able to strike (unlikely that it would have hurt you given the position, but anyway)
2) his takedown defence is so good that your highly proficient takedown method was defeated.
A simple application of Occam's razor would suggest that since neither of you train in ground-fighting, 1) is the most likely. However, I'll countenance the possibility of 2) since Ive never trained with you or seen what you're on about.

A few things;

1. My takedown isnt bad, im not saying its very good though. I know this from multiple applications of the technique. I had external training after I began using the technique. This reinforced it and improved it.

2. It definitely would have hurt.

3. I am not able to train in a class anymore, but still practice with friends from Wudang Kung Fu and Wing Tsun. They both practice takedown work and ground fighting.

How has it been tested?

Would it be wise to teach it as being combat effective if it wasnt? Do you think people would train in it if it wasnt? Warrior projects are probably a good example.

I would suggest that there are a wide variety of practitioners on emptyflower who would disagree with you - not least on the belief in internal force. I wont even try and speak for the hundreds of different people there - I suggest that you talk to them about it. I also suggest that you ask 'what makes a style internal'? and then hide from the ensuing argument - noone agrees. Maybe everyone else doesnt practice an internal art, if we're using your definition of 'internal'.

I agree with this point in a sense. It depends what you believe. It depends on how it was originally taught. And why would I hide?

Best wishes,

Chris

[Daniel]

Dear sifu Paul,
Maybe you´re embarrassed and surprised to see that someone else can use Kungfu and Taichichuan stances and forms in combat?
and maybe you´re even more offended to see that someone else can use kungfu internal force?
Well, that´s a bit ironic for a chinese internal martial arts master, isn´t it?
Unfortunately, this is the norm today...

Greetings,

[Ronan]

Well it's different strokes for different folks. Paul is intitled to his opinions and so are we. There's no set art for everyone. I'm sure Paul is happy doing what he does and I'm definately happy doing what I do.

I train what I do because of what I think, not because of what others think and no amount of slabbering on internet forums is gonna change that.

So I hope no one takes offence at other people's views on what they do. Whether you're the champion of the world or Mother Theresa there's always someone waiting to criticise you. As long as you're happy in your goals and aspirations it doesn't matter, because quite frankly, you can't please everyone

Best wishes

Ronan

[Jonny Say]

Dear All

I like Ronans post, thats Dan Tien for us.

Id just like to direct Paul to my thread on Kung Fu and Tai Chi Form. Im sure your very busy but just to let you know there is a couple of friendly questions there when you get a chance.

All the best

[MoMoJuice]

Hello everyone

Thank you for the kind and informative responses. There was really no investigation going on by me. When Paul posted his website address I checked it out, at the links section I noticed the emptyflower link. I clicked it thinking it would take me to the nice Xingyi Chuan index that I had read some time back. Instead I was taken to the emptyflower forum which I have never been to before.

I've posted a reply in a new thread as this has moved away from the topic of Grappling, below is the thread:

Wahnam Tai Chi Chuan discussion.

Respectfully,

[Mark Blohm]

Sifu Paul,

It's evident to me from your posts that you have never experienced Internal force. If you were to experience Internal force, I believe that you would understand why Kung Fu(including Taijiquan) forms can be used effectively in combat. As Sifu Daniel has said, it's not surprising that you haven't experienced internal force, as this is the norm today.

So, for you, internal force may be Myth(or just an abstract idea), but for members of Shaolin Wahnam(or other genuine kung fu) it is certainly Reality and a huge reason why we don't want or need to incorporate Grappling into Kung Fu(including Taijiquan).

Mark

[Simon]

Dear Mark,

Paul has never denied 'internal force', just saying that in his experience the power can be explained in more conventional ways. To tackle this subject I started the 'one finger shooting physics' thread.

You say 'we' don't want or need to incorporate grappling? Speak for yourself.

Please could people stop dragging this thread off topic and into petty arguments.

Simon

[Mark A]

evolvement of arts

Hey folks,
Now that we are back on track I would like to say a few things on the evolvement of arts and grappling.

There are a lot of arts out there that dont have a suitable ground work system or component to it. In fact I would say that pretty much most of Kung Fu systems dont.

Let me clarify this I use the term groundwork and not grappling. Many systems have a stand up grappling/throwing/locking system to it.

In chinese Kung fu they have their own wrestling systems and chin na. In fillipino martial arts there is dumog etc.

The difference being is that these arts in my opinion have evolved there stand up grappling components to throw or fell an opponent to the ground and then be dealt with from a position of strength. ( this could be ending the conflict by stamping on somones bones or joints............if that is what it took )

Traditionally these arts were battlefield or skirmish arts. So going to the ground in those situations would not be the best tactics. In fact many self defence systems and instructors advocate not going to the ground in that situation. There is also the counter that 9/10 fights to go to the ground. So who knows.

Taking a look at Ju Jitsu these was traditionally a battlefield art that the Samurai used when they lost their weapons and it was specifically designed for the battlefield. If you look at some of the traditional throws, they actually work better when the opponent is wearing a traditional 17th century suit of samurai armour. This because some of the thows use the armour as lever points, such as grabbing the helmet, breastplate etc

Coming to our grappling in the Wahnam Syllabus. We do have stand up grappling systems and one that is I like. This is in combat sequences 13-16.

Then you have all the chin na components to it as well that add another dimension to it.

Then there is also the sweeps, leg traps, joint striking etc.

It is fair to say that we dont have an advanced ground work system such as BJJ or Wrestling. That is there specialisation and that is what they do. I would not wrestle a wrestler or BJJ practitioner.

For me there is some groundwork in our system but I would not get on the ground and start rolling with someone looking for a lock or choke or some kind of submissioin I would be looking go get up out of the ground work range.

I would probably do this by, biting, tearing............well you get the idea.

One example of our grappling method is the change of height in stances. Let take the change of height from goat stance to something like bow or horse stance. This generates huge opportunities for throwing and felling, but I will let you figure that one out .

In my experience there are certain stances that are very good for being on the ground. If I did have to follow an opponent down to the ground. I would probaby use the stance single shield or half kneel. I would place the knee on the opponents stomach. This is actually very similiar to the shoot/vale tudo/MMA position knee on belly. This part of my understanding of the groundwork in our system.

One of the best "hold" that I have seen is when someone kept a person on the ground by using there thumb. They basically put their thumb on someone's eyeball and that person chose not to move or even get up.


My last comment is that a lot of systems do have grappling component to their arts but it comes down to the focus on that particular field. Then after that it comes down to the understanding and training methodolgy behind.

We have our grappling component in our art and it is important to remember that. Like wise we also have our own training methodolgy and particlar focus on it to as well.


Mark

[yeniseri]

Mark,

I would say that the jujitsu era was a repsonse to the rise in the creation of police force and tactics to restrain individuals. It was not battlefield since sword, spears and the equibalent of firearms performed most of the killing.
Even Judo was a 'modern era' art!

In the modern era, grappling with the enemy is a wasteof time so the enemy must be dealt with immediately. In WWII, I was told, heard that the Filipino escrimadores never grappled with their Japanese occupiers. When they charged, they would use their bladed weapons to cut/sever arteries in the first wave and the second wave would finish the invaders. Otherwies, they used weapon (guns) when they were available.

Taijitsu or some pre-judo/jutsu art was still valid but the sword was the main weapon of the battlefield.

[Mark A]

Arts

Hey Yensiri,
Thanks for the info. I agree about the evolvement of ju jitsu. But if you look at some of Dave Lowrys work, he talks about the development of the empty hand arts in feudal japan.

Yes I do agree that sword, spears and weapons were used to the most damage in battles. That is why I mentioned that these were generally used as a last resort. The art may have not been jujitsu. In fact did not stem from Aiki Jitsu. I am really bad at names and terms so please forgive me.

Check out Dave Lowry book called Autumn Lighting, it is semi fictional but it is very good. I am not using this as a historical reference more as good read.

Coming to the FMA (filipino martial arts). Yes I do agree they would have used the tactics you described. But as I was saying there is a whole sub art in Escrima/Kali/Arnis about grappling. This goes right through all the variations such as single stick/double stick/knife/double knife/staff/throwing, projectile weapons/ empty hand etc

To say that they did not grapple with their opponents in WW2 could be quite a sweeping statement.

Again it comes down the focus of the art. FMA is a blade/weapon based art so part of there focus would be to disable the opponent as quickly as possible. Coming into contact and grappling with a weapon for a disarm is just another context of grappling, with a different focus.

To say that an arts does not grapple depends on the perception of the person and how they look at the arts.

FYI I have trained in FMA for a while (not that it means anything)


Mark