HTML Code:
Originally posted by Dave Ross
What I've proven is that while some CMA technique can work, some of the other conventions of CMA are total crap. Rather than curse the darkness, flip on the F in lights
HTML Code:
Originally posted by cjurakpt
I think a lot of TCMA is "filler" that has minimal bearing on actual fighting; furthermore, in terms of building fighting skill, the entire practice of forms is useless
May I ask how much of what CTS taught would fit in "filler" and "conventions" categories by either of your estimations? I hope my question is not taken as an attempt to further any arguments or intended in a disrespectful manner. I ask simply out of interest in the evolution of the TCMA to what it is today. As cjurakpt pointed out, much of the trappings of TCMA developed in a cultural setting that is no longer extant today. As far as I understand, CTS is one of the last successes produced from such a system and as such, it would be interesting to see what he passed on to you and what of his ideas and teachings have not withstood the winds of time.
A second question; By Mr. Ross's accounts, CTS was quite the fighter. If I recall correctly, cjurakpt mentioned CTS' skill with the staff. Did either of you see him use more esoteric techniques in a consistent manner that would be considered "low precentage" moves by your standards? Or did he always stay with "bread and butter" techniques in sparring or a real fight?