concepts:- reeling silk
- stances
- entries
- American kung fu
american kung fu
we spent some time discussing the results of the lei tai tournament in Baltimore, and the impressions of both Sifu and Art (both were judges). it appears the tournament went well, with Jonathan getting a record of 1-1 against more experienced competition (it was his first in the full-contact fighting matches). everyone else had a positive time in their presentations. Art got sick, but made it through his judging.
i asked Art about his experience judging, and he said he had some mixed feelings. he said that he's of the firm conviction that much of American kung fu has become quite diluted and diverted from its origins. in terms of specifics, he said that the judging seemed to be encouraging movements which were non-combat related, in that judges were awarding more points for movements which are detrimental (or even dangerous) in combat and removing points for movements which were relevant to combat. the result is that kung fu is being made less a combat art (its original purpose) and more a show art.
Art noted that the fault lies with everyone: spectators for calling for showmanship, practitioners for meeting such calls, and judges for rewarding it all. he said the issue was not the judging, but rather that the judging was for the wrong things. right now, he commented, American kung fu is falling along the lines of wu shu, which he believes has very little combat application. for him, this is something that he finds disturbing, since it moves away from the original purpose of kung fu as a martial art.
Sifu concurred, saying that he sees a great difference between what he sees now in the U.S. and what he saw in the past in Taiwan. but this, he added, is a problem occurring with martial arts in general, noting that even those arts often seen as combat-applicable like karate and tae kwon do are seeing intense internal debates as to whether tournament judging has diluted them as combat arts.
and the judging isn't the only issue, according to Sifu. he pointed out that tournament rules often preclude movements (i.e., no blows to the head, no hits to the groin, no strikes to the joints, etc.) which are in reality the main targets in hand-to-hand combat situations. as a result, tournaments do not actually teach practitioners fighting--or at least, the kind of fighting that would be more relevant for military or street encounters. such encounters are life-and-death, and there are no rules.
Sifu and Art gave us an example of what they meant, demonstrating the differences between tai chi push-hands as it is done in Taiwan versus what they saw at the tournament. the tournament rules require opponents to keep their feet stationary and to not step across a dividing line, as well as to not display any use of force. both said that historically, push hands was a training tool akin to bagua's free-form moving 2-person drill (i.e., it helped acclimate pracitioners to close-in physical combat and the nature of constantly changing fighting conditions), and hence involved active footwork free of dividing lines or borders along with realistic, combat-relevant techniques.
Sifu repeated a point he's made before: tournaments have a purpose, but they should not be seen as the ultimate purpose of a martial art. tournaments give students a chance to apply their martial art in a relatively safe, but hostile setting, and so improve their mastery. however, because of the nature of judging and the existence of rules, tournaments are not the equivalent of actual fighting, and it is dangerous to think that success in a tournament translates into success in fighting. as a result, he still espouses participation and support for tournaments as educational tools, but insists that it is only a step on the path to learning kung fu.
this seems to echo a lot of controversy i've observed elsewhere on the internet. in regards to push hands, reference the comments of the following sources:
- http://wujimon.com/2006/comparison-of-push-hands-in-china-and-america/
- http://www.patiencetaichi.com/public/103.cfm
- http://www.taichili.com/American%20Push%20Hands.htm
- http://www.pushingtheissue.com/
- http://www.fred.net/injiyong/sportvscombat.htm
- http://www.e-budokai.com/articles/combat.htm
- http://www.aiki-ju-jitsu.com/sportvsselfdefensearticle.htm
- http://www.yachigusaryu.com/blog/2007/01/martial-art-versus-combat-sport.html
- http://dojorat.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-tae-kwon-do-sucks.html
- http://www.budokaratehouse.com/honbu/worldtournament3x.htm
finishing notes about today's schedule, Sifu instructed us to focus on practicing the 4 entries we had learned earlier (reference: day 46: review, 2-person drills). he then left Art in charge while he went to work with the baji students.
Art, however, was still sick enough to be likely contagious, and so begged off anything involving physical contact like the entries. he did, however, say that he was going to observe and correct us. this meant the rest of us (today it was only me, John, and Laura) got the benefit of extra practice time.
we ended up taking turns working in pairs, working in the 2-person moving drills along a line. we decided to take things carefully today, and really focus on our technique and refine some of the nuances involved in applying them. Art, for his part, provided constant commentary as to what we were doing--right and wrong.
Art noted 2 points regarding what i was doing:
- i wasn't lowering into my stances enough in moving within the drill. he said that i tended to rise as i stepped forward, which only served to raise my center of gravity. he advised me that this is problematic, since it removes power from the techniques.
- i was not applying enough reeling silk energy. he suggested i actually try to exaggerate the twisting corkscrew motion, since what i thought was an exaggeration was very likely what was necessary. by not extending the motion, i was suppressing the full power of the techniques.
after we finished the 4 entries, John and i decided to try a 5th one--the fireman's carry. Sifu had referenced this in talking about the tournament, saying that one of the few people he saw with good technique displayed an excellent grasp of this. when he had asked the man about his skill at this technique, he found out the man had been a wrestler, and that wrestling had the exact same technique as kung fu. Sifu said it was identical (or near identical) to the tai chi and bagua entries into the fireman's carry.
the fireman's carry is initiated by the under-arm entry, with the practitioner going under an opponent's strike. it involves holding the opponent's strike with the rear arm, going under the strike by extending the front leg and reaching to the opponent's rear leg with the front arm as the practitioner goes down. once the front arm goes behind the knee of the opponent's rear leg, the practitioner rises to lift the opponent off the ground. in bagua, the entire process of the technique is contained within hawk chasing sparrow.
John and i had some difficulty making this work. ultimately, we had to ask Sifu, who by this time had returned to observe us. he said there are a number of crucial points to make this work:
- the rear arm holding the opponent's strike is important. it must go down as the practitioner rises, so that it pulls the opponent's center of gravity over the practitioner's center, balancing the weight
- the front arm must rise upwards as the practitioner rises
- the practitioner must not lean or reach too far forward, but must keep their own center of gravity towards their rear leg rather than following the front leg
- the lifting motion comes from the rear leg, which acts as a jack ratcheting upwards to lift the weight centered atop it (i.e., the practitioner and the opponent)
we ended class with this, since it was now 10:30 and Sifu and John had to go to the seminar in San Diego.
No comments:
Post a Comment