• Archive through March 18, 2009 March 18 - 07:11 pm [20]

Wonderful! I was a bit worried there for a second.....

Jason posted a link to a Matt Thornton article on another thread, here's something relevant:

"Other personas define themselves through direct measurement against another persona. These people are seen outwardly as "judgmental". They waste no time in telling one person the faults of another. But in that very moment of telling a third party the faults of another persona they betray themselves and their motive. Because the very act of telling is the act of DEFINING, or attempting to define, themselves as something ‘better’. If they ceased the telling, the gossip, they would cease the defining, and as such they would not know WHO they where. They are usually filled with resentment, which viewed from another side is guilt."

I'd say this was well put, but I'm no butt kisser.

Tim,

Clearly, Wanderlei Silva and other top MMA fighters possess a great deal of refined skill. I wonder then if you could comment on whether you feel that the Chinese "internal" martial arts offer any benefits over and above good MMA training, or whether they are simply (if properly trained) a valid alternative to the more typical MMA skills of boxing/muay thai/wrestling?

That's a great way of rewording my origional post, king mint. That's exactly what I was trying to ask though it may not have come out that way.

Tim,
I like that excerpt you quoted. It defines my new buddy Jake and I with regards to our posts. Admit it, Jake

I know I may seem to sound like a broken record, but it's "HOW YOU TRAIN NOT WHAT YOU TRAIN"...with that come intention OR purpose.

Often "HOW YOU TRAIN changes the appearance of WHAT YOU TRAIN".

Notice there was no mention of "art form" or "style" for there is only what is efficient.

An MMA "stylist" who only hits pads and does lockflow grappling drills would most like get his butt kicked by a TCMAs fighter who spars "alive" daily against resistant opponents.

The longer you are around, the more different "expressions of unarmed combat" you are expose to, the more you train "alive"...you'll soon find out there is only "one efficient way".

Take the art of throwing for example. Every "alive" grappling arts have the exact same throws. Why? Through alive training against resistant opponents the grappler has found the exact same tactics work against resistance(chinese wrestling, judo, sumo, sambo, greco/freestyle/folksytle wrestling...all the same throwing concepts) The only thing that changes are the rules and attire...along with the skill of the thrower.

Here's an interesting video of Joe Lewis(one of the greatest American Kickboxers of all times)
Notice what he says about the styles he's trained in and what he thinks is best. It starts at the 3:00 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p0-eSp1dU4

King Mint,

Backarcher summed it up quite well.

I'll add; different "styles" have different approaches, but all legitimate arts, at a high enough level, come to fundamentally the same conclusions. Because humans are humans, and they will be limited to the same sorts of strategies and techniques that actually work for humans who fight.

I have a question for everyone posting here: If you knew you had to go into a ring in a years time with a violent opponent highly skilled in practical striking, throwing and ground fighting, a person with a lot of real fight experience determined to do you excessive bodily harm, and there are to be no rules in your fight, what "style" would you really choose to practice in preparation? Or would you choose several "sytles?" Would you spend the year holding stances and doing forms, or would you spend the year learning practical techniques and engaging in live sparring?

Now ask yourself the same questions if you had five years to prepare, is your answer any different?

Tim,

To answer your question, I would spend the year (or five) learning practical techniques and engaging in live sparring.

Perhaps I should have phrased my previous question in a new thread as I did not really want to add to the original topic. I agree with your comments and Backarcher's.

However, reading through your biography on this website, it seems that in addition to your extensive background in training practical techniques and live sparring, you have also learned from people whom I would imagine had a different training focus. For example, did Sun Jian Yun emphasise live sparring? So the question I wanted to ask was do you feel that the Chinese arts you learned offer any technical or other benefits that are not available in more conventional MMA training, given (as you point out) that any martial art has to be trained with a realistic approach to be effective.

"I have a question for everyone posting here: If you knew you had to go into a ring in a years time with a violent opponent highly skilled in practical striking, throwing and ground fighting, a person with a lot of real fight experience determined to do you excessive bodily harm, and there are to be no rules in your fight, what "style" would you really choose to practice in preparation? Or would you choose several "sytles?" Would you spend the year holding stances and doing forms, or would you spend the year learning practical techniques and engaging in live sparring?"

I would find the best way to bring weapons into the arena, plant co-conspirators in the audience, and try to take the dangerous man by surprise, showing up late, or early, or sneaking up on him.

Aside from bringing weapons, getting others to help me, and hitting the guy when he doesn't see it coming, I'd train in resistance based martial arts, because they are the only way to get good.

A guy can lift a bar with no weight on it all day long, and exhibit perfect form. However this doesn't mean he can lift 300lbs.

I think what Timber is asking about is the difference between "system" and "subject".

Martial arts systems, are "systems" that study the "subject" of fighting.

He is taking for granted that all systems of martial arts have one subject-which is fighting. However most "traditional" martial arts have deviated from this. Most martial art systems make the system the subject matter. By doing this they get further away from fighting, and become engrossed in their own internal issues.

"I think what Timber is asking about is the difference between "system" and "subject".
Martial arts systems, are "systems" that study the "subject" of fighting.
He is taking for granted that all systems of martial arts have one subject-which is fighting. However most "traditional" martial arts have deviated from this. Most martial art systems make the system the subject matter. By doing this they get further away from fighting, and become engrossed in their own internal issues."

That sounded like an intelligent reponse. However Timber previously posted:

"Why call Shen Wu Shen Wu at all if it is a mixed martial art school? Why didn't you call it Tim's MMA Academy? Why are there specific pages here on the three internal martial arts if they're not the main course?"

Now it seems Tim teaches the principles of these systems in a MMA format. I think what Timber and King Mint is asking is simply, 'why did Tim choose to go in this direction?' Though I would think the answer is fairly obvious. What better arena to test your abilities? Also, I feel teaching it in such a way would be easier for the average student to absorb.

Dirty Rat,

"I think what Timber and King Mint is asking is simply, 'why did Tim choose to go in this direction?'"

That is not what I am asking at all (I really should not have butted into this thread). I take it as given that the MMA approach is critical in developing the ability to actually apply martial art. I am more interested in Tim's view on the relative advantages (if any) of the Chinese martial arts he has trained compared with western combat sports, in an MMA or other fighting context.

I would add that your question depends on the teacher King. Principles are principles, but a teacher is what makes or breaks those principles.

In my opinion the best answer was..

"you can tell the shen wu students from the others because they are the ones winning"

This states a simple truth, if the Shen Wu academy is a school interested in imparting martial skill to it's students, then it is a successful school of martial arts.

It is successful in transmitting knowledge of it's subject matter-Fighting.

Other schools, likely the ones in question cannot say this. So any comparison between other martial arts styles that do not prove themselves in this arena is foolish. We cannot compare their success rate because they don't fight in the same manner.

Similarly, we cannot compare the two systems based on systems sake. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

The whole questions lacks a thought.

From the perspective of a person founding a system. Tim has put in more time, and has a far greater depth of experience, in both traditional Chinese martial arts, and Modern sport martial arts then anyone else posting on this forum.

To go a step beyond this, he is himself, a champion fighter, and trained champion fighters.

This goes beyond self mastery of martial arts, and makes him a master teacher as well.

In other words, he's a major exponent of the martial arts, who has created a system that has proven itself effective. This is beyond reproach.

King,
My bad. Guess I just jumped the gun and thought that if Tim saw "relative advantages (if any) of the Chinese martial arts he has trained compared with western combat sports, in an MMA or other fighting context", then logically he would not have gone the route he did. Or more likely, there are advantages as well as disadvantages he must have seen as gaps that needed to be filled. Evolution.

I need to practice this, "unintentional flaming"...

Btw, I'm not a shen wu student. Im just a shenwu.com-student, atm.