[Jean Thibodeau]

[Randall Pleasant]

Steven

Before I answer your questions let me point out that I do not speak for ARMA or any of its members. I only speak for myself and out of my own somewhat limited understandings.

[Craig Peters]

[Craig Peters]

[Hugh Knight]

[Steven H]

Craig and Randall-

Thank you for elaborating on how you use the term flourysh. The analogy to shadowboxing makes it clear.

I think, however, that there is a critical difference between boxing and longsword. In boxing it is possible to withstand a large number of solid, well executed attacks. Few people will ever survive a second sword hit. As such the flouryshes should be kept short - you only need to hit once or twice. Perhaps only two to four tempo. Two to four tempi plays is also consistent with the bulk of instruction from the Medieval period. If after a few tempi you haven't hit it is time to withdraw (abzug).

Hence my preference for praciticing the plays as written instead of flouryshes.

Do you know of any modern combative systems that make use of a training tool like flouryshes?

Thanks,
Steven

[Randall Pleasant]

[Steven H]

[Steven Reich]

[Van de Laak]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Greg Mele]

[quote="Steven Reich"]

[Van de Laak]

"As to never doing anything twice...pure Bruce Lee gets so misquoted. We can say what we like about Bruce, but the truth is that these were conclusions he came to after having learned traditional forms - his JKD - whatever it may have been in the moment to him, was only capable of existing because of his base, which he then built on. "


So true. I agree.

--- what follows now is just a kung fu rant , if interesting read on ---

I said in my earlier post that Bruce Lee moved away from fixed forms later on. Of course, by practising forms you form a solid basis, which you can build on. Certainly, one still has to continue practise forms. However putting too much time in it will create inflexibility. I do know some martial art schools who put only (or too much) emphasis on fixed forms, which imo creates incompetent students, for they will only know how to execute a form. But ask them to show one particular move, and you will see them go through the whole form (in their mind) till they "find" the move asked for. Because they only know the sequence/form as a whole. In order words, they don't know how to fight. They are dancers.

One only has to look at MMA fights (mixed martial arts), in which more practical orientated arts.(wrestling, jiu jitsu, thai boxing) will mostly win from FORM orientated martial artists. (for example kungfu, karate) Don't get me wrong, these last two arts used as an example, can have tough sparring training as well, but still. The reason is (in my opinion) that these guys often focus to much on forms and less on free fighting. However the most important reason that they often can't win is because they seldomly know wrestling/groundfighting techniques. Once on the ground = game over. They don't know what to do. Fighting when standing up, no problem... on the ground... like a fish on land.

I am a kung fu practitioner, and I love my style (white eyebrow) which is an no-nonsense style, but I still have to admit the above things.

Unfortunately the Chinese government standardized kungfu into completely impractical wushu. (kungfu/wushu is actually the same) but the term wushu is mostly used for the showy standardized form. Personally I believe that 99% of the so called Shaolin Monks are (mostly) fakes.

What's more, the "kung fu" (read wushu) they always show during demonstrations is often badly executed. (the guys from the official government wushu schools are much better) The real kung fu they will not show, for the masses will find it boring. (most effictive systems are boring to look at) But jumping, spinning, flipping is more interesting for the masses. Bah. These so called monks are often just students from a wushu school in monk robes, send around the globe to promote wushu and Chinese culture. Of course the temple supports this because they can use the money to renovate the temple and such. Nothing wrong with that.

At the time kung fu became popular due to the kung fu movies (especially the "Shaolin Temple" movie with Jet Li) and the TV series "Kung Fu", the temple only had a cook, and a handful of monks lett. (I guess due the cultural revolution)

For example according to Jet Li, when he arrived at the temple to film themovie "Shaolin Temple" in 1980:

"There were only three monks living at the temple. One was the abbot, one
the gatekeeper, and the last one was the caretaker/cook. As far as we
knew, none of them had any particular martial prowess and nobody in the
area practiced wushu."

and now we have hunderds of "monks" touring the globe, come on! A bit strange isn't it?

Alternative theory;

I support an interesting alternative story of the Shaolin temple. Most people know about the Shaolin temple that the monks learned kung fu as an exercise to improve their health, (introduced by Ta Mo) and to protect them from bandits etc. Shaolin monks created kung fu, and then kung fu was taught to others and spread.

However the theory I support is that the monks were originally.... just monks... praying and such, nothing else. Perhaps they did a few yoga like exercises. Roaming vagebonds who knew real kung fu, in order to survive those days, sought often refuge in the Shaolin temple. Bringing with them their fighting skills and knowledge. Which they passed on (for whatever reason) to the monks. Slowly the monks got very experienced in kungfu which they learned from these vagebonds, and then improved it and made their own variations. Historically it is documented that these monks really could fight, they even fought for the emperor. That's beyond doubt. But what's in doubt is the origine of their art.

This last theory make much more sense then the first one. Anyway, I find this interesting stuff... just wanted to share this stuff.... thanks for reading.

[Steven Reich]

[Van de Laak]

Thanks for the comment, I might get some more time available during weekdays, so I can join them so I will be able to have a training partner.

[Craig Peters]

[Craig Peters]

Besides, it's hard to argue that there's no value to flouryshes when you see one executed by an experienced martial artist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOus0HhEcY4&feature=related