Internalists Fight more

[lkfmdc]

Good stuff, as always, but allow me to ask a few more questions

I have already made my position clear that I never felt the need to go outside my respective system.

The system you were brought up in was extremely strong, well rounded and some would even say progressive. It combined three arts (Hsing Yi, Bagua and Tai Chi) with elements of "Shaolin" (to me the term appeared to be used generically for other Chinese martial art). Gives you a pretty broad base I'm sure you agree.

There has been some suggestion that some non Chinese martial arts have influenced it, particularly boxing and judo. Any comment on that?

And that old systems are indeed complete in their attempts to address all aspects/ranges/transitions of combat potential.

Certainly every art / tradition in the "old days" attempted to address all the aspects/ranges of combat. And in your tradition, you also had to combined knowledge of three traditions funneled down to you

What I am getting at is that the method you use isn't strictly just one art or tradition. It's a method that HAS embraced cross training.

Perhaps I was fortunate to have open minded and knowledgeable teachers who encouraged me to explore other disciplines via "crossing arms" (this is what we said in those days) and to bring back any questions or dilemnas I had. There was always an answer waiting.

I would say you were fortunate on two counts

1) Yes, they encouraged you to experience it, test it and ask questions about it (which sadly the last part many teachers discourage)

AND

2) Your primary teacher and his teacher were both extremely well trained, with a breadth of knowledge and world views which encouraged growth

But I will one more time for the record say; There is nothing new under the sun. All has been done before.

I agree 100%. You can find everything in every tradition (which you then say right after this quote).

However, my point would be that martial arts systems are often like old watches, every once in a while they need to be wound up or some little general up keep to keep them "on time" and running smoothly.

I think the system you were brought up in was EXACTLY this, ie keeping the internal arts current, relevant and up to date.

But that doesn't mean in my opinion that the danger should ever be forgotten

Those who would say that what they do is unique.. well, maybe to them it is, but not to me. Oftentimes it simply boils down to your individual paradigm and experience quotient I reckon.

No, I agree, there is nothing unique in anything. But I think there is always a danger of thinking "well, my system has everything" in that you may not realize that while your system has it, you may not be doing it.

Cross training, not just crossing hands, shouldn't in my opinion be looked down upon (NOT saying that is what you said, but others may construe your comments in ways they see fit) as "going outside your system" or "betraying your teacher" but rather as a constant quest to keep asking questions and keep evolving YOURSELF

[Mike Patterson]

There has been some suggestion that some non Chinese martial arts have influenced it, particularly boxing and judo. Any comment on that?

Sorry. I looked really hard through your post for the "questions", but I only found the one, extracted above. The rest appeared to be "statements" so not sure what you wanted from on those, but I'll make a few comments.

As to the question above.... Look, in my day, you didn't ask your teachers about where this or that came from. You respectfully did what was asked of you when asked. Trying to grill them over what they were teaching you, or worse, implying that what they were teaching you was not what they said it was would likely get you seriously hurt.

As an aside though.. ever see a photo of a "jab" from the bare knuckles days of western boxing? Looks a great deal like the splitting fist of most Hsing-I systems, albeit in a more shallow basin does it not? Hmmmm.... chicken or egg?

My "familie's" history is public record by now. So you can think whatever you like about what is and is not in the "Tang Shou Tao" lineage. The Taiwanese martial artists in my day were very pragmatic people and nothing else really mattered much to them. We trained the arts as we were told to train them.

The fact that we have all three "internal" arts in the Tang Shou Tao system doesn't really change anything I've said. All three stem from the same principle base and and so "dovetail" quite nicely. And it is not at all uncommon, or wasn't in my day, for an "internalist" to start in one of the three and then branch into the other two. Just as it is not uncommon for long term practitioners starting with any other stylistic persuasion to eventually branch into other styles. Such is the evolution of a practitioner.

By example; once I actually understood there were different "lineages" out there, I once aske Hsu Hong Chi (XuHongJi) what "style" our Hsing-I (xingyi) was. His reply to me was: "Where come from, not important. Work, no work, THAT your concern!" And he walked away. I didn't ask that same questioin for many, many years after that first time. Message received, sir! Thank you for not killing me, sir!

I think that a constantly questing mind keeps their respective art fresh. The willingness to interact with others in whatever venue, be it push hands or organized fighting or backyard barbecue brawling, all contribute to keeping the mind evolving within the respective discipline being studied. It is only when people allow themselves to become too "comfortable" and hence "complacent" within only their own school or group that they become tunnel visioned and fail to dig deeper into their system to discover the wealth of information contained. It's there. You just have to look.

It is the questing that is important. The attempts to categorize and quantify only serve to obfuscate the truth. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." As soon as you attempt to define something that is undefinable you limit your perspective awareness to the truth forever afterward.

Again, a "system" is defined by the perspectives it holds about how to best express and utilize the different ranges/tools of combat.. foot, hand, elbow, knee, shoulder, hip, head, trapping, grappling, throwing, submission.. the "system" is the blueprint that makes all these tools and ranges work efficiently together. The tools are the tools, but the "how" of utilization of the tools creates the "system" over time. The differing viewpoints on what is a good "trade off" create the different stylistic persuasions we see today. The rest is the individual in question. The respective strengths and weaknesses of that practitioner will then determine the selected and/or favored tools within the system of choice.

There is no such thing as a "bad" tool. And there is no such thing as a "superior" tool. There exist only poor decisions of when and how to use a tool, or, mistaken perspectives on the actual utility of said tool. All tools are useful in their respective time and place. And if there were such a thing as a "superior" tool, well then, we would ALL be practicing only that ONE THING. And it would have been discoverd LONG ago.

I have had numerous discussions with practitioners/teachers that tell me that they feel that they are able to fight and fight well. Oftentimes, by asking just a few quick questions... Do you spar in your school? What are the rules if any? Do you engage with outsiders at all? Do you go to other schools/venues to play with unknowns in contact environments? What are the rules, if any?..... tells me where their respective heads are. It is amazing to me how many practitioners keep their metaphorical heads in the sand but yet profess that "they know" what they do is real and effective.

And now we have come full circle. As my initial comment on this thread is once again here to be stated. I think there is a major disconnect in many schools today. They do not train essence for combat. They do not marry their style based skill sets with the pressure of actual fighting. Yet they profess that they know.

I say; good luck with that.

[lkfmdc]

Sorry. I looked really hard through your post for the "questions", but I only found the one, extracted above. The rest appeared to be "statements" so not sure what you wanted from on those, but I'll make a few comments.

No worries, and thanks for taking the time to post

As to the question above.... Look, in my day, you didn't ask your teachers about where this or that came from. You respectfully did what was asked of you when asked. Trying to grill them over what they were teaching you, or worse, implying that what they were teaching you was not what they said it was would likely get you seriously hurt.

Oh, I've trained with a number of old school guys. And indeed I've been thrown across the room, choked, even kicked in the nuts I know what you are saying

For me personally though, it remains, when you don't ask questions you stop evolving.

As an aside though.. ever see a photo of a "jab" from the bare knuckles days of western boxing? Looks a great deal like the splitting fist of most Hsing-I systems, albeit in a more shallow basin does it not? Hmmmm.... chicken or egg?

Know enough Hsing-Yi people to know that it shares features with boxing

Also they found Lama Pai (my art) which has never been characterized as "internal" generating power in ways similar to Hsing Yi.

"Strange"? I tend to think there is only two kinds of technique. Those that work and those that don't. Only so many ways the fingers, hand, wrist, elbow, shoulder, hip, waist, knee and ankle work isn't there? But you've already said that!

My "familie's" history is public record by now. So you can think whatever you like about what is and is not in the "Tang Shou Tao" lineage. The Taiwanese martial artists in my day were very pragmatic people and nothing else really mattered much to them. We trained the arts as we were told to train them.

Oh, don't get insulted! I've always found your lineage fascinating and it influenced me, even before I realized you were part of it.

Not saying anything bad about them at all, in fact suggesting that MANY martial artists could learn a lot from them

I think that a constantly questing mind keeps their respective art fresh. The willingness to interact with others in whatever venue, be it push hands or organized fighting or backyard barbecue brawling, all contribute to keeping the mind evolving within the respective discipline being studied. It is only when people allow themselves to become too "comfortable" and hence "complacent" within only their own school or group that they become tunnel visioned and fail to dig deeper into their system to discover the wealth of information contained. It's there. You just have to look.

THIS is what I was getting at, so you understood exactly

I have had numerous discussions with practitioners/teachers that tell me that they feel that they are able to fight and fight well. Oftentimes, by asking just a few quick questions... Do you spar in your school? What are the rules if any? Do you engage with outsiders at all? Do you go to other schools/venues to play with unknowns in contact environments? What are the rules, if any?..... tells me where their respective heads are. It is amazing to me how many practitioners keep their metaphorical heads in the sand but yet profess that "they know" what they do is real and effective.

We share similar experiences

Be well

[Mike Patterson]

Oh, don't get insulted! I've always found your lineage fascinating and it influenced me, even before I realized you were part of it.

Not saying anything bad about them at all, in fact suggesting that MANY martial artists could learn a lot from them

Wasn't taken as an insult. You asked a question, I answered. We didn't really think about such things in those days. It is only upon returning to the United States that I was asked such questions.. moreso since the advent of the net of course.

I simply meant that all practitioners, if truly seeking, are influenced by what they encounter. Even if only in small shifts of perspective about what they are doing currently. Sometimes, a major shift occurs as a result of a specific event.

It is well known that the Hung family practiced shaolin prior to beginning to learn the internal disciplnes from Chang Chun Feng. We had always been taught that the Hung's father had blamed the death of his eldest son on the extremely hard kungs that they had practiced prior. It was he that mandated the change of discipline in their family as a result.

People train, they interact with others, other styles, other modes of thought... this changes them. All practitioners evolve in this way. We are all an amalgum of our experiences in the art. Kung fu is a living, breathing evolution within all of us. Or should be.

You also be well.

[taai gihk yahn]

Well, first, I don't speculate on the motivations of others unless their actions directly affect me. So in this case, if you wish to know why any individual may choose a specific course of action, it is best to ask THEM. I am not in their mind, so it is rather pointless to ask ME.

I agree; which was why I made a point to ask you to generalize if u didn't want to speak to Cartmell specifically; also it was untoward of me to suggest that you would have a specific opinion of him, so I retract that and apologize;

Second, I have already made my position clear that I never felt the need to go outside my respective system.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that, if someone did feel the need to "go outside", I don't believe it is necessarily indicative that they didn't study that system "deeply" enough; to say this is to make a lot of assumptions about that person that one could not know; and furthermore, it would suggest that "the system" predominates over the "individual", which I don't agree with, since the individual is as such, while the system is a construct created by the individual(s) as a means to an end; to say that, even for a "complete" system, the ONLY reason one would go look outside for answers is due to the individual's lack of depth of study, is a gross overgeneralization (and yet, people do this all the time, typically the more "traditional" types)

And that old systems are indeed complete in their attempts to address all aspects/ranges/transitions of combat potential.

yes - complete in their ATTEMPTS - meaning that, they may attempt and fail; so when they do, what do they do? some would say "dig deeper" into their own extant method; which is fine; however, what makes more sense? "dig" for another 15 years, or spend a lot less time studying the system that spawned the "problem" that vexes you?

Practitioners evolve. No question about it. Every time we get our head handed to us, we evolve by necessity to avoid same from happening yet again.

of course; again, the question is, what is the most efficacious manner in which to avoid that happening?

But I will one more time for the record say; There is nothing new under the sun. All has been done before. Those who would say that what they do is unique.. well, maybe to them it is, but not to me. Oftentimes it simply boils down to your individual paradigm and experience quotient I reckon.

absolutely;

Look, in my day, you didn't ask your teachers about where this or that came from. You respectfully did what was asked of you when asked. Trying to grill them over what they were teaching you, or worse, implying that what they were teaching you was not what they said it was would likely get you seriously hurt.

fair enough, but honestly, this is more in context of a particular cultural paradigm than a combat one - I mean, there is no logical reason for a teacher not to be forthright about what they learned and where...of course, if that was your personal experience, recounting and adhering to that paradigm probably has a certain nostalgic sensibility - but from a relatively more objective perspective, it may not make that much sense - it might even suggest that the teacher is trying to hide something from the student that might undermine the "purity" of what they are teaching - for example, IF a Chinese teacher had incorporated a non-Chinese system into theirs, it might be somewhat embarrassing to "admit" this - I am not suggesting this was the case, but it certainly wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility; of course, ultimately, who cares, right? and if that is the case, then simply being forthright really makes the most sense...

As an aside though.. ever see a photo of a "jab" from the bare knuckles days of western boxing? Looks a great deal like the splitting fist of most Hsing-I systems, albeit in a more shallow basin does it not? Hmmmm.... chicken or egg?

maybe; OTOH, evolutionary theory has multiple examples of highly similar traits evolving in different species independent of each other; it suggests Nature has an ultimately limited bag of tricks, based on various factors of morphogenesis; therefore, for two disparate systems to independently come up with similar looking / functioning ways to punch someone is not that big a of a stretch;

My "familie's" history is public record by now. So you can think whatever you like about what is and is not in the "Tang Shou Tao" lineage. The Taiwanese martial artists in my day were very pragmatic people and nothing else really mattered much to them.

suggesting that if they had incorporated "external" arts like boxing or judo, they would have been upfront about it, as for them, where something came from wouldn't matter so long as it works;

I once aske Hsu Hong Chi (XuHongJi) what "style" our Hsing-I (xingyi) was. His reply to me was: "Where come from, not important. Work, no work, THAT your concern!"

on the one hand, I don't agree w this perspective in general - I mean, why not just tell someone? however, I can, on some level, understand that he is simply trying to reframe the context from a cognitive behavioral perspective: by taking your keen interest in where it comes from and redirecting it back into the immediate issue of skill acquisition; so, did he ultimately answer that question for you? just curious;

I think that a constantly questing mind keeps their respective art fresh.

exactly - and that involves both experiential work (practicing a technique, testing it out, etc.) and contextual appreciation (where something came from)

It is the questing that is important. The attempts to categorize and quantify only serve to obfuscate the truth.

I don't know - truth, as such, is self-evident; categorizing and quantifying are simply two ways of approaching it, as valid as any other method (I mean, mathematics is based on categorizing and quantifying, and it is one, though not the only, very useful way of providing a perspective on "truth"); I would suggest that the method of inquiry doesn't obfuscate, it is the individual's perception that does: meaning some people can categorize and quantify and in fact get to 'truth" just fine, for others, they become more focused on the act of categorizing and quantifying itself;

"The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." As soon as you attempt to define something that is undefinable you limit your perspective awareness to the truth forever afterward.

but that's the nature of life - we are constantly "attempting to define the undefineable" - because, ultimately, NOTHING is definable - it's all temporary, a convenience - as soon as we coalesce direct experience into thoughts / words, we are doing this; and there is nothing wrong with doing this, it's how we are able to communicate - if we lived our daily lives in full, non-cognitive awareness of "the All", it would b pretty hard to do just about anything that required discriminatory thought, including practicing MA! I think that what the quote above is actually trying to get at is not so much a criticism of "the Tao that can be named" as being "inferior" to "the Tao that cannot be named" (which is how many people seem to take it), but rather that, simply put, they are two sides of the same coin, and that both are valid and necessary in terms of enabling one to negotiate the vagaries of life...

Again, a "system" is defined by the perspectives it holds about how to best express and utilize the different ranges/tools of combat.. foot, hand, elbow, knee, shoulder, hip, head, trapping, grappling, throwing, submission.. the "system" is the blueprint that makes all these tools and ranges work efficiently together. The tools are the tools, but the "how" of utilization of the tools creates the "system" over time. The differing viewpoints on what is a good "trade off" create the different stylistic persuasions we see today. The rest is the individual in question. The respective strengths and weaknesses of that practitioner will then determine the selected and/or favored tools within the system of choice.

so, by this perspective (and I agree w ur assessment 101%), it doesn't matter quite so much what sort of specific "obscure gungs" one practices, there is no inherently superior means by which skill can b acquired, and to qualify a given TCMA as "authentic" or "innauthentic" simply by virtue of the content of its curriculum really doesn't make any sense, since it is utimately the expression of the individual - two people can train the same way under the same teacher, but each will embody and express the art differently; or you can have two people who study different systems under different teachers and actually end up being strikingly similar in what they do and how they do it - for example, one of your students and one of Dave Ross' students could manifest their skills almost identically, despite you and his approach to TCMA being very different; suggesting that to go on and on about who is being authentic doesn't really make any sense, as long as the principles that they teach lead to the desired result of skilled performance;

[YouKnowWho]

if someone did feel the need to "go outside", I don't believe it is necessarily indicative that they didn't study that system "deeply" enough;

Confucius once said, "I have spent 3 days trying to find some solution from what I already know. After those 3 days, I realize that it may be better for me to learn from others instead."

In gradulate school work, before you start your own research, you will write a survey paper first. You may have to spend 1 years to read through more than 200 papers that were published by others first. Not only you try to learn what others did research before you do, you also want to make sure that you don't repeat others research and re-invent the wheel.

All modern scientific research starts from "go outside". I just don't seen any reason that TCMA can get away from that logical path.

[Mike Patterson]

1a, b& c) yes - complete in their ATTEMPTS - meaning that, they may attempt and fail; so when they do, what do they do? some would say "dig deeper" into their own extant method; which is fine; however, what makes more sense? "dig" for another 15 years, or spend a lot less time studying the system that spawned the "problem" that vexes you?

2) of course; again, the question is, what is the most efficacious manner in which to avoid that happening?

3) of course, ultimately, who cares, right? and if that is the case, then simply being forthright really makes the most sense...

4) so, did he ultimately answer that question for you? just curious;

Not to be rude, but clearly you have FAR more time than I do to post in this forum. So I'm just going to stick to the questions and avoid the rhetoric since you are certainly entitled to your own opinions. And I really don't care.

1a, b &c) The answer to this would depend on the individual, their experience quotient, their problem solving skillset and attributes of personality that are impossible to know.

2) Keep an open mind. Study tactics and kinetics of motion. Look for answers in all possible avenues open to you for discovery.

3) I certainly don't care. And as for being forthright.. well, most human beings are far from. Most promote their own agenda every time over anything else.

4) Yes. He did.

[taai gihk yahn]

Not to be rude, but clearly you have FAR more time than I do to post in this forum.

well, today I do, as we r sitting here as the hurricane passes over and i am still on vacation; starting next week, I will probably be back to not posting much at all;

So I'm just going to stick to the questions and avoid the rhetoric

I am not attempting to be rhetorical;

since you are certainly entitled to your own opinions.

of course; as are you;

And I really don't care.

um, well, ok; hey, I thought we were just having a conversation - you know, I express my opinions, you express yours, as a result, some new perspectives might be arrived at by both parties; but, if you really don't care, I guess that concludes the exchange...

1a, b &c) The answer to this would depend on the individual, their experience quotient, their problem solving skillset and attributes of personality that are impossible to know.

2) Keep an open mind. Study tactics and kinetics of motion. Look for answers in all possible avenues open to you for discovery.

3) I certainly don't care. And as for being forthright.. well, most human beings are far from. Most promote their own agenda every time over anything else.

4) Yes. He did.

agree w #1 & 2; as to #3) well of course, we all have our particular interests that we "promote" - my personal "agenda" is to try to discern clearly the fundamental operating factors that influence people's behavior (my own included); this, to me, necessarily involves examining and breaking down structures of "traditional" thought and the assumptions that often go along with them; a lot of times, that means looking at things in a detailed manner; I guess I am influenced a great deal by Krishnamurti's method of inquiry;
for #4, that would suggest he was not being deceptive, but rather trying to keep u focused on ur training at that particular stage;

ok, so anyway, sorry that you seem to have tired of our discourse (maybe I am wrong, but that is my sense of it); take care;

[bawang]

who is mike patternson can someone explain to me

[omarthefish]

Rather well known student of Xu Hong-ji (许鸿基) which makes him also Shixiong to Tim Cartnell. (I think anyways. )

He's particularly famous in Internal MA circles for having very successfully fielded lots of students in full contact kuoshu matches where they can be seen applying the skills of Xingyi and Bagua clearly and effectively. Maybe Taiji too but me personally, I mainly see the other two in the clips that are out there.

[lkfmdc]

Shihfu Patterson is a student of Hsu Hong Chi. Hsu is a student of Hong I Hsiang. Hong founded the Tang Shou Tao organization in Taiwan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ4t7...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CISLY0kXQrk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB47HIyWkDA&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE11C...eature=related

Originating back in the 1960's, the organization was actually pretty progressive by TCMA standards, and as I said some would even say controversial in some respects


SADLY, apparently not doing well in Taiwan these days, this is supposed to be the last school left?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWK9h...ture=fvwp&NR=1

[andyhaas]

I'd say 'internalists' -- that is, those that study the so-called 'internal' styles, especially tiajiquan, don't fight for anything, especially compared to MMA or something like that.

I had a lot of arguments with a ton of them and they generally consider it against 'wude' (martial virtue) to apply what they study in anything but a rou-shou (freestyle push-hands) format.

I checked out Mike Patterson's school because it was comparatively rare in that they did supposedly go to tournaments like that, but they had stopped going to tournaments supposedly so much by that time (2000) and the commute just didn't work for me.

In this case, I don't think the exceptions prove the rule.

[Hardwork108]

My personal perspective on the recent exchanges in this thread is that the major TCMA styles are COMPLETE systems - Something that I have known for years and I am happy that that this fact has been validated further here!

So, people can try all they want to "extract" comments that validate needless cross training, or to somehow indicate shortcomings in given TCMA styles - but it won't do any good. Facts are facts!

The other fact that has been cemented here is the fact that the major (at least, most of them) TCMAs contain ground fighting methodologies.

Given the above facts, if one does not get a COMPLETE training in his given TCMA school, he should perhaps blame his school or "sifu", and perhaps himself for lack of patience, but NOT cluelessly blame the particular style or even the WHOLE of the TCMAS - sometimes the case in this forum - for being "unfuncional", or somehow lacking!

The TCMAs are not for everyone, that is why god created kickboxing and the MMAs. If having trained in a kung fu school, you do badly in a fight against another stylist then you have two choices:

One. Look deeper into your own style for answers (assuming that you are getting genuine tuition).

Two. Run along and join your local MMA gym.

The choice is yours, people are free to do as they wish, so whatever makes you happy, but don't dare make incorrect and generalized statements about the supposed short comings of the TCMAs when you have not studied them deeply enough and/or have not had genuine instruction.

We live in a world that over 90% of "TCMA-ists" who post in this forum are not aware of ground fighting training in the TCMAs, or they think that they were later (post UFC) additions. A world where a great percentage do not even have a beginner's concept of Internal training, while still claiming valid TCMA experience, even "sifu" status. In some cases, they are not even aware of the Internal aspects of the External kung fu styles they, themselves claim to practice.

For all of the people in the 90% category here in the forum I recommend that you pay attention to people who know more than you, because sifu Patterson is one such person, and he has been kind and patient enough (including with me) to inform us of his Way.

In my humble opinion, people who are here in the forums to exclusively "teach" and impress the rest of us with their half baked kung fu knowledge (eg. "forms are useless"; "Internals don't exist";"no ground fighting in Kung fu", etc.) which has led them into a life of pseudo kung fu combined with MMA training - and promotion in forums - not to mention, often needless cross training, should get off their high horses and try and to expand their actual TCMA knowledge, specially when, in the know, sifus such as Patterson are kind enough to spend the time to explain certain TCMA approaches.

After all, we are all posting in a KUNG FU FORUM (one of the best ones there is, I believe) and don't forums such as this one exist for this exact purpose - that is the expansion of knowledge?

[Mike Patterson]

I'd say 'internalists' -- that is, those that study the so-called 'internal' styles, especially tiajiquan, don't fight for anything, especially compared to MMA or something like that.

I had a lot of arguments with a ton of them and they generally consider it against 'wude' (martial virtue) to apply what they study in anything but a rou-shou (freestyle push-hands) format.

I checked out Mike Patterson's school because it was comparatively rare in that they did supposedly go to tournaments like that, but they had stopped going to tournaments supposedly so much by that time (2000) and the commute just didn't work for me.

In this case, I don't think the exceptions prove the rule.

"Supposedly?" It's a fact, not a supposition.

Those who you have had "a lot of arguments with" are not representative of the rest of us "so called internalists".

The commute didn't work for you, huh? I used to "commute" 10,000 miles to learn after I left Taiwan. The best avenue of study is seldom down the street from you. My teacher used to say; "As long as you like study, I like teach. You no like study anymore... who lose? Me? I don't think so. I already know."

I stopped training teams in 2000, yes. But tournaments are only a venue of demonstration of such training. The training still did and still does exist through me. Too bad you couldn't rectify the commute.

And WE are not an exception. Only in this country is what I have done even remotely "exceptional". The fact that you have not been exposed to such often elsewhere is a result of your environment, NOT the arts you now disparage.

But hey, to each his own.

[Indrafist]

[QUOTE We live in a world that over 90% of "TCMA-ists" who post in this forum are not aware of ground fighting training in the TCMAs, or they think that they were later (post UFC) additions. A world where a great percentage do not even have a beginner's concept of Internal training, while still claiming valid TCMA experience, even "sifu" status. In some cases, they are not even aware of the Internal aspects of the External kung fu styles they, themselves claim to practice. [/QUOTE]

In 1975 my Lion's Roar Sifu took me to the ground in a full contact sparring session (which were mandatory) and broke my right elbow with a cross-over arm bar. I was off work for 4 months. An internal style Sifu called Ho Sui Fai (from Macao) also used to teach at the school, and he fought on the ground - I know because he put me there regularly.