Quote Originally Posted by YMC View Post
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.
it's a great question, and not at all taken as an insult (see, it IS possible to inquire critically about something without being a toad about it) - i actually spent all day thinking about the answer, because, a bit to my surprise, I hadn't actually articulated it all that clearly to myself, what I definatively mean by "filler" - it was just a gut response to my personal experience - in other words, I know what I meant, but hadn't actually thought it out fully;

so, here's what i think: as far as principles of fighting go, I think that TCMA has the right idea in many cases: things like jamming the opponet up, shutting down / controling the centerline, how to stick and follow in order to close the gap, different types of focrce generation in context of proper biomechanical principles: these are all things that I think TCMA has going for it; on the flip side, I think that the way a lot of the specific techniques are trainined is antithetical to those above ideas which, in general, are predicated on working against a "live" opponent; forms, and the sequences within the forms, lack the context specific parameters in terms of force generation, points of balance, timing, etc. because they are now all internally generated - it's like having a conversation with yourself, wherein you inevitably come out sounding like a genious to yourself; also, the content is questionable: for example, repetition of basic moves in so-called "advanced" forms - there really is no point to that - if you are trying to communicate / teach an "advanced" principle, then why not focus on the exclusively? why the need to put in the basic stuff that you've already worked to death? of course, if you didn't have repetition like that, TCMA forms would be a lot shorter and take much less time to learn...filler

ok, let the insults fly about how I am advocating not practicing basics any more once you are of an "advanced" level...

Quote Originally Posted by YMC View Post
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?
well, it was mostly basics - not a lot of complicated stuff: staff specifically was all about cutting the angle, sticking, redirection and quickly closing the gap often after whacking someone in the fingers / hand with the staff - very "boring", straight-forward stuff - actually reminded me a lot of western foil fencing...empty hand was the same deal - very direct;

it's funny, because CTS's MO was to do with forms exactly what I talked about above - those sukers could go on forever, and a lot of it was the same old sequences separating a handful of "unique" moves; at the same time, his apps were very direct, and he didn't show a lot of flowery contrived stuff; unfortunately I never sat down and had a conversation with him about the purpose of forms in relation to fighting (lack of Chinese / maturity) - I really wonder what he'd have said about this discussion, I think it would have been interesting...Dave, any insights here?