Formosa Neijia

33 responses so far ↓

• 1 meow // Jun 9, 2008 at 11:35 am

  i agree to an extent, you can test vs other styles, but not be largely popular

• 2 Matt Whyndham // Jun 9, 2008 at 9:18 pm

  Ha ha, reminds me of the famous heretic joke!

• 3 Roel // Jun 9, 2008 at 10:00 pm

  Well, I think you are plainly mistaken. The styles that nowadays are widely spread have hardly any experience against other styles: most of them only fight their own styles, not others. The time of battlefield experience is since long gone.

  Tai Chi: widely spread, but I have never heard of Tai Chi masters pitting themselves against Thai boxing or Karate or whatever (and actually winning); at least not that there exist proven records of it. Ergo by your own reasoning Tai Chi belongs to the group of “these more exotic styles (that) are totally worthless in terms of martial utility because they don’t have a large enough pool of practicioners to fully develop their martial usage“. They have a large enough pool of practitioners, but not many of them fight and of the fighters nobody fights another style.

  So… does that make Tai Chi “totally worthless in terms of martial utility“?

  Then the MMA-styles. They are more or less a style on its own, with many variations and specializations but nevertheless with a set of rules within which they lock themselves up.
  You could claim that e.g. BJJ, the MMA-style par excellence, is ‘the best’ because they have a lot of proven experience against other styles, but in a ‘battlefield fight’ (whatever that might be) -which is almost always against multiple opponents- grabbing and pulling one opponent to the ground only results in getting your head bashed in by his standing, and freely moving, friends. And then we are not even discussing the use of weapons, which is non-existent in BJJ.
  Against one puncher-/kicker the BJJ-specialist has the advantage, but he is nowhere as soon as there are even only two equally leveled, experienced puncher-/kickers. The puncher-/kicker-specialist, on the other hand, stands a reasonable chance against multiple opponents as long as he keeps his cool, his distance and uses his feet only when the range of all opponents allows it.

  Although I agree with you that the risk in a ’secret style’ is that it is fairly think you are greater than the rest of the world (e.g. it is easy to theorise on how easy it is to defend against a kick, but pleeeaase first try that theory out on a Thai boxer or a Taekwondo specialist) it is my opinion that every style should examine itself on the manner in which it itself is ‘hidden’, kept away from the world (i.e. experience against other styles) so to speak.

  My point: in the reality of this modern, sports oriented world every style is in a way a ‘hidden style’; they all lock themselves up in their own set of rules, in their own ‘chamber’ so to speak.

  Imho there is nothing wrong with being a hidden or secret style; there is everything wrong with connecting quality automatically to a style instead of to the practitioner. It is not the style that makes a good fighter, it is the question whether the person in question practises (hours daily) and investigates (how does my style work against…).

  That being said I agree fully with your point that it is rediculous to want to train only that one, apparently special style. Every style has its qualities; whether they become special or not lies in the practitioner, not in the style.

  It all comes down to the questions:
  Do you practice enough?
  Do you investigate the strong and weak points of your (!) qualities?

  Bruce Lee was the great protagonist of ‘taking what is useful and discard the superfluous’ (or something like that; but how do you know whether a certain aspect of a style is useful or not? Have you trained it fully? Or do work on the experience of somebody else? How do you know that a style, or an aspect of a style, that is good for you also is good for somebody with a totally different build and temperament?

  Again: it is not in the style, it is not in the question of being ‘hidden’ or ‘openly spread’. Quality lies in the practitioner.

• 4 MarkC // Jun 9, 2008 at 10:32 pm

  To some extent I agree; I’ve also heard similar conversations.
  However, what if the best teacher in your area teaches a rare style?
  Also, it’s possible that the rare style was tested in the past.

• 5 kenneth fish // Jun 9, 2008 at 10:42 pm

  I think I would disagree with some of the specifics, but agree on at least on generality.

  Ever since I have been involved in CMA, I have found that there is a tendency among Westerners to romanticize various aspects of CMA. Many unscrupulous teachers, both Chinese and Western, take advantage of this, selling themselves as ‘masters”, enforcing disciplines that do not exist among Chinese schools within Chinese communities, and offering shoddy or phony goods of little worth. Calling something a secret is sometimes good marketing.

  That having been said - many very effective styles have been closely held, and the true core of some “popular” styles have been withheld from the public eye as well. For example, all of the Southern Mantis systems I have been exposed to (Jook Lum, Chu Gar, Chow Gar) have been on the viscous side. Until recently they were not taught outside of the Hakka community. Dragon and Tiger Boxing was taught almost exclusively underground in Taiwan, amongst the gangster class - effective to say the least. As for well known systems - one that I am intimately familiar with is Tongbei - very popular, but the “core” of the system is closely held. That is not to say one cannot fight effectively without that material, but the difference is profound once the “hidden” material is trained.

  As far as Xingyi is concerned, I have seen very good Xingyi from all branches of the Shanxi styles - and I have also seen some practitioners who stink on ice. The systems themselves are sound and with good, practical skills to teach.

  I think the real problem lies with the mindset of the type you encountered, and the fact that the majority of people seeking martial arts instruction these days are not in touch with the reality of fighting (and not are many teachers). Also the current culture does not really encourage the kind of training required to get the real skills - its not “instant” or “microwaveable” or available by Google.

• 6 Roel // Jun 9, 2008 at 10:49 pm

  @ MarkC:

  Like my teacher once said: “If the student practices a style made of gold but he himslef is made of copper, he turns the style into copper. If the student, on the other hand, is made of gold but the style is made of copper, he turns the style into gold“.

  A good teacher is a plus, but a louzy student doesn’t obtain quality in spite of his teacher or his style.

  Like I always answer to those who come to me saying how good and famous their own teacher, or his, is in the tone as if that makes them good and famous as well: “And what does that make you? Just the student of someone who is good and famous, no more“.

• 7 Roel // Jun 9, 2008 at 10:50 pm

  And I agree with kenneth fish on all accounts.

• 8 kenneth fish // Jun 9, 2008 at 11:04 pm

  the parenthetical comment in the last paragraph should read “nor are many teachers”

• 9 William // Jun 9, 2008 at 11:34 pm

  That reminds me of my self a while ago. I was looking to learn Baji and met some Wutan guys in Canada. I was so bent of learning it that it was only after few years that I realize it was not my thing, not because of the style was bad or because the teachers didnt know their stuff ; it was just that they were so misterious when it came down to teach you how to use it than it was all a waste of my time and money. I then started to learn from Tim C and what a change. A teacher who knows applications and how to use them in real fighting is something few people have the luck to find. No need to look for some unusual system, just good old Xingyi

• 10 neijia // Jun 10, 2008 at 12:21 am

  It also depends on how exotic is exotic. “Good old xingyi” seems exotic to me as I have no easy access to it. If I lived in LA, sure, I would be at shen wu in a heartbeat. The “best” training (based on quantity and my subjective assessment of quality of training partners and systematic well-organized curriculum and level of resistance) I can do now is in bjj, but … I’m not overly interested in the “ground range”. It is what it is and it’s fine. I am very interested in xingyi. There is probably a psychological-economics element of “scarcity” - something seems relatively scarce and its perceived value goes up, no matter what its “real” value may be (depending in part on all the factors already mentioned).

• 11 B_Wutang // Jun 10, 2008 at 5:13 am

  William // Jun 9, 2008 at 11:34 pm -

  My teacher knows xingyi and baji - but thinks baji is unnecessary to learn if you know xingyi - which is what I’m learning right now (in addition to chen/yang tai chi, and pa-kua.

• 12 ppscat // Jun 10, 2008 at 5:56 am

  Dave, I think that despite the ‘Exotism and Fetishism’ title, your post didn’t focus on the quality of secret/hidden styles but on critical mass that ANY style needs to fully develop. Am I right? It would be great if you could write another post targeting specifically on critical mass. I practice a widely know IMA and have a teacher that is quite good in an international basis, but of little appeal in my country. My school ended up ‘exporting’ all top instructors to Europe, due to the lack of critical mass.

• 13 MarkC // Jun 10, 2008 at 7:57 am

  Roel; you seem a little defensive about the value of good teachers. I’m under no illusions that having a good teacher will change anyone into a superman. However, having a good teacher helps a lot. A good teacher can see a student’s problems quickly and suggest very appropriate remedies. The rest is up to the student.

• 14 Rick Matz // Jun 10, 2008 at 9:37 am

  I remember when the choices were: “karate” and “judo.”

  Later, karate was split into two choices: karate and Korean karate.

  Those were the days. Life was simple then.

• 15 Meow // Jun 10, 2008 at 3:25 pm

  kenneth, what is the core youre talking about?

• 16 Chris Lomas // Jun 10, 2008 at 7:06 pm

  I think this article is very true. As a teacher in the last few years I have found a surge in people interested in small variations within X style without even being able do the ‘common’ basics.

  Indeed I have had two people ask specifically if I can teach them Shanxi Hsing I as they are only interested in it (of course they wouldn’t be willing to travel or spend time/money to get it).

  I have found people who want to learn such specific methods usually believe they have discovered a way of avoiding hard work.

• 17 Dave Chesser // Jun 10, 2008 at 9:37 pm

  “I have found people who want to learn such specific methods usually believe they have discovered a way of avoiding hard work.”

  You got it.

• 18 kenneth fish // Jun 11, 2008 at 12:53 am

  Meow:

  Training methods for speed, power, alignment, mindset, and perception. Techniques and applications of techniques not easily understood just by watching the moves in the sets. Body placement. In every system that I know of there are “qiao men”, little details that make thing work, that you don’t get just by practicing on your own. Subtle things that have to be shown.

  In Tongbei there are shenfa, power generation methods, control by body placement and coordinations that are not publicly shown.

  Chris and Dave;
  That last sentence was what I was getting at in the end of my previous post. Chris put it in a nutshell.

  KJF

• 19 Roel // Jun 11, 2008 at 5:57 am

  @ MarkC: Thanks for your input. I know that a good teacher can be a great guide; what I meant to underline was what in the meantime has been said by Chris, “I have found people who want to learn such specific methods usually believe they have discovered a way of avoiding hard work“. Only I was not as ‘poetical’ and tried to stress the necessity for hard work and talent on behalf of the student from a different angle, because: a lot of those famous teachers have had teachers that were not, or a lot less, famous or even ‘good’.

  Like I said: “A student of gold can turn a style into gold“.But I do not wish to hijack this discussion in a direction away from the original intention.

• 20 B_Wutang // Jun 11, 2008 at 12:26 pm

  RE Doing the hard works versus looking for something exotic -

  The conversation reminds me of the problem I’ve seen among some students I’ve run into who want to learn shuai chao because it sounds cool - for example - but don’t even have shaolin basics because they’re afraid of doing something that’s basically heard to do well… Or the students who equate being good at kung fu with knowing the forms in their head - instead of learning to love the practice and the hard work.

  –Which reinforces to me that learning tai chi, bagua, and hsing-is fine and good - but in my case– being able to do northern shaolin as a foundation - is very important in doing the internal styles well. But there will always be some students who would rather do yang poorly than put in the hard work…

• 21 Meow // Jun 11, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  roel, youre right with the student gold thingy, although, its not really that style anymore is it, it becomes good

  wutang, theyre called idiots

• 22 wayne hansen // Jun 12, 2008 at 4:57 am

  if you learn from an inferior teacher initially it is hard to surpass them because you are imploying their means practice.
  however if your first teacher is gold you can learn from all.
  learning shaolin to learn the internal is unnecessary if your internal teacher is gold.

• 23 wayne hansen // Jun 12, 2008 at 4:59 am

  should read.

  means of practice

• 24 B_Wutang // Jun 12, 2008 at 11:05 am

  wayne -
  “learning shaolin to learn the internal is unnecessary if your internal teacher is gold.” -

  Maybe for you - that is the case
  - in our tradition - northern shaolin is a building block to the internal styles.

• 25 wayne hansen // Jun 13, 2008 at 5:55 am

  b wutang

  i am not trying to dis your linage,each teacher teaches what he thinks will pass on his knowledge in the best way.
  i spent some time teaching my students the llama/llama 6 strength kune so they could understand the more refined punching of the internal styles.
  i just wanted to point out that it is not a necessity to train one style to learn another and in some cases too many cooks can spoil the broth.
  one of the big problems i find today is that people come to me with so much information ,much of it erroneous and that i have to spend much time cleaning the blackboard rather than imparting what they need.
  in the past things were taught more slowly and people learnt much quicker as a result.
  people are now taught they have a right to much more,and teachers accomadate ,usually for the sake of having a solvent school.i feel in the end they are a bit like the pelican.
  its beak can hold more than its belly can.

• 26 B_Wutang // Jun 13, 2008 at 6:42 am

  I didn’t take that as a dis as I don’t think you know who my teachers are — I doubt you would dis them if you knew who they are.

  from our two grandmasters who work closely together - we learn 5 major systems (the 3 internal styles) and northern shaolin and praying mantis. - I do the 3 internal styles and northern shaolin - but i’m taking my time before I do praying mantis. I’ll even focus on chin na at the end of the summer - but when I’ve asked one of my teachers about the other styles he knows extremely well - like shuai chao or piqua or baji - he tells me that that would be way too many styles…

• 27 kenneth fish // Jun 13, 2008 at 6:50 am

  B_Wutang:

  I would agree, in a way. Traditional martial arts teaching assumes a common foundation of culture and knowledge. One common denominator is foundation skills - all of the systems I have been taught start with common elements - stances, transition and movement drills, punching drills, kicking techniques, simple basic forms and so on. Master Zhang started all me with basic northern kung fu foundation work. We also had a set, Eight hands, which was a sort of Tantui for Xingyi. Some Xingyi systems have their own version of Tantui.
  I have known Taiji teachers who insisted on a solid Shaolin foundation (Kuo Lienying, Zhu Suyi and others). More than a few teachers of Xingyi, Bagua, Taiji, and Tongbei I have known in China have emphasized to me that a solid foundation in Shaolin is essential - and that one comes back to those drills at varying stages in ones development. It is in America that I find an attitude that these skills are somehow low level or not necessary - whereas in China there is general agreement that without them there is no foundation to build upon. Look at Fu Suyun’s description of her training - grueling hours spent training northern kung fu basics before being accepted to the Zhong Yang Kuo Shu Guan, where she again spent the first two years training foundation skills before going on to Xingyi and Bagua.

• 28 kenneth fish // Jun 13, 2008 at 7:11 am

  It is also my experience that those Taiji teachers who could actually apply their art were those who had already achieved a good level in some Shaolin art. Again, Kuo Lienying is a good example, also Y.C. Wong, and Xiong Yanghe. Even we look back to historic figures, wasn’t Yang Luchan already well versed in Shaolin Hongquan before seeking instruction from the Chen family?

• 29 BL // Jun 13, 2008 at 8:30 am

  (It is in America that I find an attitude that these skills are somehow low level or not necessary - whereas in China there is general agreement that without them there is no foundation to build upon.)

  China is a pretty big place.

  My experience has been quite different, also I would point out that historically many teachers have asked students to forget what they practiced before and not to practice anything else. It was not a matter of adding to, it was a total tear down and rebuild.

  I suppose it really depends on the level of the style one is learning.

  what i mean is, for some intenal is just a word that means something like what they already know. for others like myself, this word means something very differnt.

  I have found with many taiji people that there seems to be an idea that its merely an out growth of something that they are already doing . as in the statement above.

  I would say its not that the skill sets are low or high level, its more like they are very different relying on a totally different idea.

  In china with my own teacher it would not be possible to practice other things or even to practice what one already knew and expect to achieve any degree of proficiency in this art.

• 30 wayne hansen // Jun 13, 2008 at 3:32 pm

  if it breaks the internal principles it can not be an advantage.
  locking out the joints,double weighted stances etc.
  any action that breaks the tai chi classics is not tai chi that is simple.
  if a system cannot stand on its own what use is it.
  10 incomplete systems joined together are still incomplete.
  that does not mean that masters cannot take from varing systems to make a new and complete system,but at some time they must have learnt at least one complete system.
  each system should have its own basic stances,footwork,fighting sets,chi kung,sticking exercises,weapons,applications,sparring,conditioning
  [internal and external],chinna.etc.

• 31 B_Wutang // Jun 14, 2008 at 12:43 am

  RE - “10 incomplete systems joined together are still incomplete.”
  - “each system should have its own basic stances,footwork,fighting sets,chi kung,sticking exercises,weapons,applications,sparring,conditioning
  [internal and external],chinna.etc.”

  I agree - I meant to tell you they are 5 complete systems - not a mixed martial arts curriculum.

• 32 José de Freitas // Jun 16, 2008 at 7:28 pm

  But someone who is well versed in the basics and foundational training of one style can generally learn others and gain something (I’m not saying everything) from it, to enrich what he is doing. In the end, the man is the style, if he is good. Some teachers will stick to one or two styles and keep them separate, and they are doing a fine thing, by preserving styles in their purer original form - others abandon the notion of a style and go own, even if they still call it Xingyi or Taiji or whatever. My teacher spent five years doing nothing but basic training of Eagle Claw and Long Fist methods. Then he moved on to northern Mantis and Xingyi, next Yang Taiji. But through it all, we can see the applications of Eagle Claw and its methods under the surface, so to speak, of what he does. I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. He also has a certain honest appraisal of what he teaches. He teaches the Original form of Jiang Rongqiao Bagua, for instance, but always stresses he isn’t teaching a complete Bagua system, just something that will enhance our Xingyi or Taiji. The beauty of “forms” as they are frequently used in CMA is that, even when you do not learn a certain complete system, learning a form can be very good for you if you have good basics and can apply some thinking skills to this new form.

  This is common in many lineages, which will transmit various styles, but generally only require the student to invest in the foundational training of one or two of them. Look at Wan Peisheng’s lineage, for instance. It includes Wu Taiji, Yin and Cheng Bagua and others. Or Wan Laisheng’s, which taught the basics through Six Harmonies Boxing, then taught ZiranMen, and then taught a mishmash of other forms to teach aspects of other stuff (including Taiji, Xingyi, Eagle Claw and whatnot forms). When I first went to my teacher, he asked what my initial training was. I said “nine years of japanese karate” and he simply asked me 1) if I could hold mabu for ten minutes and 2) to perform a couple of forms; his comments were, OK, the style looks boring but your stances are OK, you can extend your body and relax some, you don’t need to learn Long Fist, you can go straight to Taiji and Xingyi. So at least in some cases we can see that there are “universal basics” I think.

  And I could be completely wrong too.

• 33 neijia // Jun 17, 2008 at 12:15 am

  >there are “universal basics”

  What is the famous Bruce Lee quote?

  “There is only one type of body, 2 arms, 2 legs … Therefore, there can only be one style of fighting. If the other guy had 4 arms and 2 legs, there might have to be a different one.”

  Another great quote attributed to him:
  “Put every great teacher together in a room, and they’d agree about everything; put their disciples in there and they’d argue about everything.”

  Speaking of Bruce, I believe he learned some Wu taijiquan from his father before his more famous study of wing chun, boxing, and fencing.

Leave a Comment