• Archive through July 24, 2000 July 24 - 12:30 am [21]

Thanks for clarifying what your own internal arts teachers actually emphasized, Tim. I'm nowhere near your experience with these arts, and it's really helpful to have a real-life common-sense explanation to counterbalance the teaching of taijiquan as a martial art with a "soft" (?*&@#!)approach to fighting and theoretical writings (the taijiquan "classics") that talk about the opponent moving first but you arrive first.

Tom

Just reviewing what's been said in response to what was an authentically confusing item for me, whether the actual fighting "mindset" of xingyiquan, baguazhang and taijiquan really differed, as is the contention of some of the teachers I've had along with many of the "theoretical" writings/"classics". Based on his extensive experience, Tim clarified the issue for me and helped resolve my confusion.

Tim, you also wrote (on 7/22)that: "First off, Tom, you caught me. In regards to the articles of mine you are quoting above, I tried to write them as "impartially" as I could. They are reflective of the "party line" generic Chinese views of how the arts are organized (including "mindset")."

I wasn't out to "catch" you or anyone else in any kind of contradiction. Despite some tension and vitriole that may spew forth from me and other writers on this board, on this or other threads of discussion, that really isn't my purpose for posting. Like you and I assume everyone else on this board, I have better ways to spend my time and live my life. If I kept asking or rephrasing the question, it's because I couldn't realistically reconcile what teachers and "classics" contend with what my own limited experience in real-life confrontation--or the more extensive experience of other, more highly-skilled people--has been.

Anyways, Tim, I just wanted to say thanks (again) for your cogent and insightful answers.

"Now here is my personal experience with the Chinese teachers I trained with (and who were fighters)." ---Tim Cartmell. Master Tim Cartmell, I would be extremely interested in knowing how your personal experience was with the late Grandmaster Jimmy H. Woo (Chin Siu Dek).
You seemed to have left him off of that list, why?

I didn't mention Jimmy because the original question was about the mindset of fighters using the Internal arts, which Jimmy never practiced.
As far as my personal experience with Jimmy goes, he was a great martial artist, a great fighter and a very charismatic teacher. Unfortunately, the instruction (at least during the years I was there) focused entirely on technique, with little or no discussion of principles, or body use. There was, however, a clear cut strategy. Jimmy often said San Soo was based on the element of surprise. First and continuous attack is the "mindset" of San Soo. It is San Soo's greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Attacking first and continuing until the opponent is down and out is the most direct route to victory. On the other hand, San Soo's absence of non-cooperative sparring leaves the practitioner without the skills to fight hands up, in a clinch or on the ground.

Master Tim Cartmell I agree with you on several points, but I also disagree with you on your conclusion. First, where I agree with you. Grandmaster Jimmy H. Woo (Lao Sifu Chin Siu Dek) certainly was a great fighter, a great martial artist, an extremely charismatic teacher (and person) as well as a caring human being (well, later in his life, anyway). Kung-Fu San Soo is definitely defined by the use of the element of surprise. But, also the family of Fut Ga: Psychology (Internal Power), or as Grandmaster Jimmy H. Woo would say, "the use of the Mind over the Body." Before I go into detail about how I disagree with your conclusion, let me first take the time to explain some of my background in martial arts, fighting, and Kung-Fu San Soo. I first started taking Kung-Fu San Soo from the late Master Al Rubin in 1980, when I was 13. That same Summer, I had friends who Boxed at the Corona Boxing Club. They had talked me into going and training with them during the Summer months when school was out of session. I did this throughout high school. I also Wrestled on the high school Wrestling team all four years at Corona Senior High School. I am now currently studying Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu from a gentleman who has over 25 years experience in Kodokan Judo, and has trained the last 8 or 9 years from Rickson Gracie personally, and under his American Jiu-Jitsu Association. So, why am I explaining all of this? To make the point that I am not some genius, or some bad ass who learned the hard way (the school of hard knocks, that is). I sincerely believe in myself, and my ability to handle a "hands up fight" because of my Boxing experience, and to be able to handle a "clinch" situation because of Wrestling, and to be able to handle to ground fighting because of both Wrestling and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. But, Kung-Fu San Soo is the common thread that holds all of this together. Kung-Fu San Soo is the single most effective fighting art by itself. Sure, there are other terrific fighting arts, but not as well-rounded, or nearly perfect as Kung-Fu San Soo. Your conclusion that I disagree with is this, I believe the greatest weakness, as you point out, is not within the art, but the individual. I honestly believe that Jimmy could certainly handle a "hands up fight" the clinch and fighting on the ground. But, then again, he grew up in a different time, in a different country, in a different culture. If anyone of us trained from the age of 4, had a "Crazy Devil" Great Uncle, who encouraged us to fight anyone for looking at us the wrong way, I don't think all this talk about "cross-training" would be an issue. I think, in general, it is us Americans who feel the need to do additionally types of training, because in all seriousness, how many of us get into fights on a regular basis. And, I don't mean non life threatning fights either. Although, Jimmy and his "little" uncle had many scraps with each other, and had a certain amount of understanding they weren't going to kill each other. The postings in China..."My Life or Yours" do you honestly think there was any element of surprise there? Of course not! But as Americans, living in a society that condemns acts of violence, we don't have the experience of hard knocks. My only point is this...if you want to cross-train, fine...no argument out of me there. But the art of Kung-Fu San Soo is not at fault because one of us gets our ass handed to us on a platter. I honestly know there is no substitute for real experience, but if I had gotten to as many fights as I COULD have growing up, I probably be in jail or prison. So, again...I believe the shortcomings are within ourselves, not because we suck, but because of our culture. Anyone have further imput? Thanks for listening to my ramblings. Peace.

SanSooSifu,
Do you think that you would be adequately prepared with only San Soo? If you're answer is yes, why train in other arts?

Two points, from an outside observer:

First, any individual person's experience of a particular martial art will differ from another practitioner's. Tim states that, in his experience of Kung Fu San Soo when he was studying it, he found it to be very focused on technique. Period. Tim's experience studying with Ted Sias may not have been as "principle"-oriented as San Soo Sifu's time with Al Rubin.

Second, Tim acknowledges that there are principle(s) in San Soo, at least of strategy. The principle of using the element of surprise also seems to imply a psychological principle. But Tim's use of "principles", at least in his books and tapes, includes a range of strategies (from the different arts), psychological conditioning, and development of "internal" whole-body power. Does Kung Fu San Soo's teaching include that broad array of principles?

SanSooSifu,
I too am a Master of San Soo, but I have to agree with Tim. Jimmy never taught hands up fighting. He never trained his students for non cooperative opponents. San Soo does not have ground fighting. So I'm curious how you can conclude that it is the most well rounded and nearly perfect art. It sounds like cheerleader association hype! San Soo is nearly perfect for beating the hell out of untrained opponents. San Soo has no method or strategy for dealing with a trained hands up fighter. It lacks the same for dealing with a trained ground fighter. This is nothing to be ashamed about. San Soo has many good qualities. Tim once told me the only aspect internal training lacks is the San Soo method of workout. You must keep in mind the fact that Jimmy did not train his students with hands up fighting in mind. San Soo practitioners were trained to deal with suddenly violent street situations, not hands up fight with trained fighters. If a student wants to learn self defense, San Soo is an excellent method. If you want to be a fighter, like Tim says you have to cross train. San Soo is an excellent base art for this. It provides throws, Chin Na, and striking combinations. No one here is trying to insult San Soo or any San Soo practitioners. I have practiced San Soo for 26 yrs. I enjoy the art immensely! San Soo has never failed me in a street fight. The problem is nowadays there are so many martial artists of differing styles that the odds have incresed for facing a hands up fighter. When Jimmy began teaching this was not so. Obviously you must agree with some of this or you wouldn't be training in BJJ. Good luck in your training! Bob

SanSooSifu,
I forgot to mention, you never replyed to my e-mail answer to your questions. Did you recieve it? If so, were you satisfied with the answers?

McCall Alexandra.pardonable halting
conservatism Eugenia snuff play free texasholdem online download microcycles.curtness connoted, texasholdem tournaments at the golden nugget doubling preprocessors Vreeland dissatisfaction. card games online free texasholdem