Tweet
Why train one thing but use another?
I’d like to point out that Baguamonk's comments in his last post (and it will be his last on our forum) once again reveal his ignorance about internal arts. Actually, I think that the sarcasm is even more revealing. For example, the fact that he mocks the idea that a high-level master could kill with a soft strike reveals his lack of experience with high-level masters. The people I’ve met outside of Shaolin Wahnam who have experience with high-level masters would never mock such a thing. They know from experience that such things are very real.
Similarly, mocking picture-perfect stances is another indication of a lack of internal development. Of course, internal force can be applied without stances, but those who have some internal development know that using stances offer countless advantages, including the powerful discharge of internal force.
The argument that Kung Fu stances are just for training, and that they aren’t used in real combat is further indication of a shallow understanding. This argument, which is quite common today even among masters, was one of the main catalysts for the thread.
People sometimes accuse us of making fun of other schools, but this isn't true. What we are doing is defending the long tradition of Kung Fu stances that is obvious if you watch any traditional Kung Fu set. And we are doing this not just to defend a tradition, but because our own experience has shown us the wisdom of that tradition.
Even relative beginners can see this. I often receive emails from people who, after practicing Kung Fu forms for some time, are disappointed when they first watch a Kung Fu tournament. They see that the forms are not used in sparring, and they become confused. It makes no sense to them. Why train one thing and then use another thing for sparring?
Ironically, people with years or decades of "experience" in internal martial arts often convolute the issue. They talk about body alignment, and about using Kung Fu principles (not form) in combat, and about being formless. But these evasions never address the beginner’s question: Why train stances if we don’t use them in combat? Why train elaborate Kung Fu patterns if we're going to spar with kickboxing?
Anyone who has learned the combat application of a Kung Fu weapon like the Straight Sword (Jian) can appreciate that the form is there for a reason. Past masters had no time for flowery movements. If you've ever swung a real blade, you can imagine what it would be like to face an opponent with a similar weapon. Life or death is decided in an instant. What you train in solo practice will determine whether you live or die.
If you watch a video of our Travelling Dragon Sword, or videos of Jian sets from other styles (including Taijiquan), you can see that the patterns look beautiful and sophisticated. It would be tempting to dismiss them as impractical. But if you understand the history of the Jian, you know how powerful a weapon it proved to be over literally thousands of years. You also know that, over the years, the sophistication of the techniques grew, and that impractical techniques were discarded. The sword is held in a particular way not because it's pretty, but because it may literally save your life by enabling you to angle or maneuver in a way that not only enables you to cut your opponent, but keeps you safe from his weapon at the same time.
What we have today is an inheritance. Sets like our Travelling Dragon Sword contain the wisdom of thousands of years of life-or-death trials. Every move is a deadly masterpiece. And every movement is meant to be used, even in life-or-death combat, with picture-perfect form. You don't discard the stances in combat just as you don't discard the Jianjue (sword finger). Both have their functions, both in solo practice and in combat.
The same philosophy applies to empty-handed sets. The movements may look elaborate, but they are functional. Moves that were not functional were discarded over the years. Unlike a blade, which has built-in force, many of the empty-handed movements require force (internal or external) in order to be effective. They also require a solid methodology in order to train the skills. These two factors -- force training and sparring methodology -- are what are commonly missing from Kung Fu. Ironically, they happen to be the twin pillars of internal Kung Fu.
I’d like to point out that Baguamonk's comments in his last post (and it will be his last on our forum) once again reveal his ignorance about internal arts. Actually, I think that the sarcasm is even more revealing. For example, the fact that he mocks the idea that a high-level master could kill with a soft strike reveals his lack of experience with high-level masters. The people I’ve met outside of Shaolin Wahnam who have experience with high-level masters would never mock such a thing. They know from experience that such things are very real.
Similarly, mocking picture-perfect stances is another indication of a lack of internal development. Of course, internal force can be applied without stances, but those who have some internal development know that using stances offer countless advantages, including the powerful discharge of internal force.
The argument that Kung Fu stances are just for training, and that they aren’t used in real combat is further indication of a shallow understanding. This argument, which is quite common today even among masters, was one of the main catalysts for the thread.
People sometimes accuse us of making fun of other schools, but this isn't true. What we are doing is defending the long tradition of Kung Fu stances that is obvious if you watch any traditional Kung Fu set. And we are doing this not just to defend a tradition, but because our own experience has shown us the wisdom of that tradition.
Even relative beginners can see this. I often receive emails from people who, after practicing Kung Fu forms for some time, are disappointed when they first watch a Kung Fu tournament. They see that the forms are not used in sparring, and they become confused. It makes no sense to them. Why train one thing and then use another thing for sparring?
Ironically, people with years or decades of "experience" in internal martial arts often convolute the issue. They talk about body alignment, and about using Kung Fu principles (not form) in combat, and about being formless. But these evasions never address the beginner’s question: Why train stances if we don’t use them in combat? Why train elaborate Kung Fu patterns if we're going to spar with kickboxing?
Anyone who has learned the combat application of a Kung Fu weapon like the Straight Sword (Jian) can appreciate that the form is there for a reason. Past masters had no time for flowery movements. If you've ever swung a real blade, you can imagine what it would be like to face an opponent with a similar weapon. Life or death is decided in an instant. What you train in solo practice will determine whether you live or die.
If you watch a video of our Travelling Dragon Sword, or videos of Jian sets from other styles (including Taijiquan), you can see that the patterns look beautiful and sophisticated. It would be tempting to dismiss them as impractical. But if you understand the history of the Jian, you know how powerful a weapon it proved to be over literally thousands of years. You also know that, over the years, the sophistication of the techniques grew, and that impractical techniques were discarded. The sword is held in a particular way not because it's pretty, but because it may literally save your life by enabling you to angle or maneuver in a way that not only enables you to cut your opponent, but keeps you safe from his weapon at the same time.
What we have today is an inheritance. Sets like our Travelling Dragon Sword contain the wisdom of thousands of years of life-or-death trials. Every move is a deadly masterpiece. And every movement is meant to be used, even in life-or-death combat, with picture-perfect form. You don't discard the stances in combat just as you don't discard the Jianjue (sword finger). Both have their functions, both in solo practice and in combat.
The same philosophy applies to empty-handed sets. The movements may look elaborate, but they are functional. Moves that were not functional were discarded over the years. Unlike a blade, which has built-in force, many of the empty-handed movements require force (internal or external) in order to be effective. They also require a solid methodology in order to train the skills. These two factors -- force training and sparring methodology -- are what are commonly missing from Kung Fu. Ironically, they happen to be the twin pillars of internal Kung Fu.
Comment