Looking for Custom Tambo

It seems unnecessarily demonstrative, and in addition they also appear to have no real conception of what to do with the stick.

Having watched all the vids a few times it looks as though there are a few moves in there that I would consider edged/pointed weapon specific (in the second video he does a bizarre "leaping impale" which is pretty pointless with a stick unless you sharpen the end)

The stick work would do well to look at the FMA systems, which are the best bar none IMO, and specifically you might want to look at the "largo mano" styles to cover your concerns vis a vis close quarters only

 

Actually, it can be very strong. I should point out that the method I'm referring to is with a heavier weapon, and is used in our methods against sword attacks, and certainly not with the striking method shown here. An aside is that the shorter range is actually part of the reason that type of strike (from a "walking stick" style grip) is used. I'm not going to say more about that here, but if you are wanting a bit more detail, I'm happy to send that to you by PM, Stuart.

But we are agreed that there are some rather glaring technical issues... to say the least. I went through some of the links from the second list of videos, including some of the Bunkai applications, and, well, uh....

Agreed only in the context of the way it's done here. In regard to the reverse grip (and even to the holding in the middle bit), that can be highly effective, just not with the weapons shown in use in the examples given. You're absolutely right on your last comment, of course.

The problem is that isn't "full range", it's swinging past a balanced and strong position, making the strike weaker, taking you off balance, and leaving you open to counters. There is no positive benefit from it whatsoever. This type of thinking is common when trying to apply conscious reasoning without understanding the context of it's use.

I appreciate the theory, but it doesn't hold up, unfortunately. A simple evasion (on the opponents' part) will lead to an immediate closing of that distance, and the counter will come in far too fast for that position to handle.

Well, there are some better elements to this (mainly, it seems, from basically copying an Okinawan method, and adding a bit of Chinese influence), but there are still some absolute standouts of bizarre actions that have no place near something purporting to be a martial art (such as the "take it between your legs", or the "roll the staff over the back of your hand" spinning method). But I think I'm getting an idea of why this is all the way it is...

Unfortunately, I personally wouldn't trust the answers you would get. The simple reason being that I don't think they'll come from someone experienced or knowledgable enough about the use of weapons (in this instance, impact staff weaponry) to give a sufficient answer. So while I'm sure that the answer can satisfy the student body, it may not pass muster to a wider audience.

I've kinda danced around this, so I'll see if I can put down what I mean here. This system of Cuong Nhu is made up of disparate sources, including Shotokan, Wing Chun, Chinese Animal Styles, and created sections for itself. This, to me, is an incredibly bad idea, as it indicates a desire to cover everything possible, while understanding nothing about why the systems it borrows it's material from are the way they are. By combining Shotokan kata with the Wing Chun forms you are missing the reasons for both, and training highly contradictory methods (in terms of power generation, angling, striking concepts, postural ideas, movement, defensive strategies, and far more). Add to that the desire to have a weapon syllabus, and we get a group that will try to invent what it feels it wants or is missing, whether it knows anything about it or not.

So while the concept of "all angles, all levels" sounds fine on paper, it fails in reality, as it ends up contradicting itself, weakening what could be strong, and leading to filling in gaps in concrete with loose sand.

 

Hi Chris,

You said...

The bit that caught my eye was "power generation" - now I do know what you mean (well, I think I do) and I have certainly discussed different modes of power generation of forums and directly with instructors and students....

but...

At the end of the day ALL power generation comes about because our mind chooses an action that our body follows by contracting and relaxing appropriate muscles... That's it... So couldn't an argument be made that there is actually no such thing as 'different' (let alone contradictory) ways of power generation???

 

I'll see if I can't give a blanket answer to most of your points here. Cuong Nhu as a system has been evolving as a system since its inception. Our katas and our whole curriculum is reviewed on a regular basis and changes are made. And many of the points you bring up (I'd rather not take time right now to go into each one right now...my attention span can't handle that at the moment! lol) have come up before and have been reviewed.

I don't think I can really demonstrate this by typing, but it has become apparent to me that, yes, you can combine elements of disparate styles to achieve results. We discuss in my own school why techniques from [insert style here] work and how they can be applied individually and also chained together with techniques/principles from other styles.

There is method to our "madness" even if it isn't apparent from a few videos. What you don't see in the videos is the granular teaching we get on weapons, self defense, kata and several other aspects on a regular basis. None of what we do is rote or set in stone. Meaning that adaptability is a key component of what we do.

 

Power generation is a topic we cover regularly and in *great* detail. Good stuff.

 

Reverse grip only if you are using the stick for off-hand parrying, never for striking. A knife, that is another matter.

I can see no use in holding a stick in the middle.

The Bear.

 

No, I wouldn't make that argument, nor agree that it could even be reasonably made. Each individual art has it's own personal approach to power generation, which works within context of that art, but not in the context of other arts. For example Aikido uses a centrifugal force combined with the attacking momentum, working in tandem with the circular movement that the art features, whereas Karate features hip movement as the major source of power, combined with tension on impact, which works with it's direct striking methodology and straight movements. Both are valid, but contradictory, and as such work within their personal contexts, but not in each others.

You're right in that this is not so easy to go through in this medium, but I will say that, in all the videos that I've now watched, I don't see it at all. I see a basic form of Karate coming out time and time again, in the self defence, in the sparring, and then some other systems being used as "filler" without much understanding of them displayed at all. This extends to all of the weaponry methods I've seen.

The idea that "adaptability" is key is great, but that doesn't mean that unrelated systems are plundered for material without context or need, which is what I'm seeing here. For the record, I do realise that this was never the discussion you intended to have on your system, however if I was in your position, and was being told that a specific measurement or dimension weapon was required, I'd be interested in knowing why the specific form was required, and what basis it had. From what I'm seeing here, there isn't any. The weapon system doesn't have a real basis, and that may have an implication on how you approach the owning of the weapon.

I'd be interested in your take on the various methods in the multiple systems that your system draws it's technical knowledge from, and how they work together.

To highlight, though:

I feel that yourself and Stuart are coming at this from an Escrima perspective, where I agree with you. Kukishin Ryu Hanbojutsu is a totally different animal, and you'll find it may challenge your ideas there a bit. If you have a decent Bujinkan or similar group nearby, you may ask them to show you Kau Kudaki (for a hanbo held in the middle as a powerful strike), or something like Kote Gaeshi, or Saka Otoshi/Gyaku Otoshi for a reverse grip strike. Once again, in a different context and with a slightly different weapon (and usage), it can be very powerful.

 

I don't mind going off topic to discuss these points. You've been respectful and I appreciate that.

Sources of power. Ours is primarily the ground itself. Then the hips, shoulders, opponent's momentum or whatever the case may be. Leveraging the ground itself is one thing we focus on quite a bit. Also learning early on to pivot on your heels (as opposed to the front ball of the foot which is easier but not as "rooted") which provides more stability. And leaves you less open for a sweep.
Now metaphysically speaking, we talk about things like mind, spirit (could be read as "enthusiasm" or "intent") etc as sources of power, but I don't think that's what you're getting at here.

I don't see combining sources of power as contradictory at all. If you practice them with an understanding of the fundamentals behind them (and this is not easy, I know...can take years to cement) they can indeed be blended. And they are.

I had a chance to very briefly ask about concerns brought up here. My first question was "what's the idea behind throwing the stick from one hand to the other?" The answer was simply (and I'm paraphrasing since I don't remember the exact wording) "it's just for show." So not every move we work has an application I guess! lol I just happened to be watching a demo video (couldn't find it on YouTube or I'd share it...was on Desktop) with one of my head instructors which had some stick work in it being applied in a self defense situation with multiple attackers. I asked "are some of these from moves from kata?" Answer was "a lot of it is, yes." I guess actually having the vid would be helpful here...sorry about that. heh

CN incorporates more and more "soft" techniques as you progress. It's not apparent in viewing self defense (or other) videos often. My two head instructors trained regularly under Ernie Cates (http://erniecates.com/) for several years. Their understanding of Judo (just as one example) is well grounded (no pun intended there!) and does indeed mix well with karate and other styles. I could list other example if you like.

Some styles we draw from somewhat sparingly. Tai Chi Chuan is the most obvious one. My mention about pivoting on the ball of the foot comes from Tai Chi if I'm remembering right. Subtle influences can have a great effect and are often not visible at all to the observer in person or via video. Other styles, like Judo and boxing, we draw more heavily from. I'm personally a big fan of how CN has taken all these styles and made a system out of them. I've trained in other styles over the years, so I'm not speaking as a pure CN student. I like the fact that I know how to punch somebody in the face, redirect a counter attack with an open hand and then throw the person. It's very satisfying!

 

Reasonable assumption for stick vs open handed but not for short stick vs japanese sword .

In Uchida Ryu tanjojutsu we have one technique where we grip the stick in the centre when coming up under a swordsmans arms aiming to strike both arms at once with the two ends to interrupt the cut.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFlXW99R2Qk&feature=related"]Uchida Ryu tanjo - YouTube[/ame]

26 seconds in - the front pair...

 

A technique for the "tired of life". Against any decently trained swordsman that is almost certain death.

The Bear.

 

I agree with the idea train hard fight easy - but it is also a truth that the average street punk who attacks is not likely to be very technically proficient - violent and motivated YES but good at the art of fighting Not so much....

Why should it be any different back in the day... not every Samurai was brilliant with a sword, some would be brilliant, some good, some average and some would be downright poor - Any technique can work or fail - it's all situational - if you practice and get good at a technique, you can make even poor techniques excellent.

Also suppose back in the day - a Samurai is about to come over to you and make you into sushi... You grab the only weapon to hand, a stick... He smiles a sardonic smile... What do you do?

 

I didn't say good I said decent i.e. had training. Any of my students would kill an opponent who tried that technique.

Fight bravely and die galantly.

The Bear.

 

Only a slight exageration - thats why the technique is called Sutemi - which literally means something like self abandonment / at the risk of ones life..... not the first choice in the arsenal but they didn't train only for occasions where you have time and space to carry out high probability responses.

Uchida Ryu naming conventions for kata are in the main very simple and explicit - 'Just the shin' for an attack on the shin, 'right solar plexus' for a thrust to the solar plexus from the right - so 'at the risk of ones life' can be read as exactly that.

Regardless - it does demonstrate a historical use for striking holding the middle of the short stick.

 

Given the art is post Meiji restoration I doubt it was used historically. I would view it as an entry exercise to illustrate the principles. You would never use it in a live environment. If you don't believe me try it in a free sparring environment. The time of the foot can never beat the time of the hand.

The Bear.

 

My pleasure. I always look at these discussions as an opportunity to learn and debate, and that doesn't happen without some respect of both sides of the discussion.

Hmm. Honestly, that's not a power source (the ground). It's part of one, but it's not one itself, mainly as it is an external aspect, and not something that you can control. The way you use the ground as a "launching pad" can be a major aspect, but the ground itself isn't. When you then get to "the hips, shoulders, opponent's momentum, or whatever the case may be", I believe it may be a case of my not being clear on what a power source actually is, or how it is defined, which gets into why multiple forms being lumped together is a rather limited concept, at best. But I'll get back to that.

Actually, it might be. There are certainly a number of systems that utilise, as part of their power source, concepts such as "Ki/Chi", so it really depends on what would be classed as the power source in your system. However I will say that the concepts of mindset, or attitude, are not. They are vital to the system's effectiveness in it's training and application, but they are not related to power.

Okay, I'll see if I can explain what I'm getting at here, then.

To begin with, let's look at what a martial art, or system, really is, because that is grossly misunderstood by most people, even highly experienced and well trained ones (I recently critiqued a kata put together and performed by a highly skilled practitioner, the successor to two systems in fact, and had to point out that it went against the way kata work, how they are designed, and limited it's own effectiveness due to the creators not understanding what a martial art actually is). And the simple fact that is missed is that a martial art, or system, is not it's techniques. That then further turns into any system that focuses on techniques (individual moves and sequences) rather than an overall approach, typically in order to either fill perceived gaps, or just put in what a particular instructor is interested in, fails as a martial art in the first place. Basically, it isn't one, it's just a collection of actions.

So what is a martial art, then, if it's not it's techniques?

Well, a martial art is a collection of beliefs and values, taught congruently, and expressed through combative actions that draw their basis from those beliefs and values (collectively referred to as the arts base philosophy). And, if order for it to be effective, those beliefs and values cannot contradict each other... in other words, if the belief held in a system is that power comes from driving the hips forward in order to transfer body weight, it cannot also have a belief that power comes from pulling the hips back, mainly because you cannot do both at the same time, and if you choose one, then you disregard the other.

But even more importantly, martial arts teach you on an unconscious level. The combative methods (which should really just be expressions of the beliefs of the system itself) are designed to get those beliefs into your unconscious wiring (program them in). The more consistent that programming is, then the more effective the training is. By spending time training methods that contradict the bulk of the training, all you are doing is telling yourself (on an unconscious level) that the beliefs held in the primary methods are not necessarily effective (if they were, you wouldn't need the alternative), or, at best, simply wasting time training things that are not going to be used if and or when it all comes down to it.

It could be likened to learning to play tennis, and spending 9 out of 10 weeks on the court, watching matches, practicing your grip and stroke, and so on, and in the last week spending your tennis training time playing darts. It doesn't really help your tennis at all, and just takes time away from your tennis training, so although it can be fun, it doesn't have any place in your tennis training schedule.

Here's the thing about training your unconscious. It doesn't really differentiate between the different things coming in to it, and happily takes it all in. But when it comes down to needing to apply something, it will always choose the best option it can find (according to it's experience, and your personal values and beliefs), and that's where multiple incongruent power sources really show their limitations. Basically, you can only use one at a time, so anything else gets left behind. The question is, what comes out? Well, what will come out will be whatever the unconscious believes is the best option... but if there are a range of options put in, then it could be anything. Ideally, you'd hope it's the most consistent methods that have been trained, but not always. Sometimes it's something that looks, or resembles, something unrelated that you unconsciously believe is powerful... which could be the bad kung fu films you saw as a kid. In that best case scenario, only the one method, or approach will come out when needed, so the rest of the training will basically be wasted effort.

Interestingly, that's what I see in all of the clips of Cuong Nhu that I have seen. The initial training is based in Karate kata and movement, and I would suggest that that training is fairly solid and strong, because that is what always comes out in all the sparring/self defence clips or other free-form methods shown. The problems come up when the other sections are added in, such as the Wing Chun forms, the Shaolin Animal forms, and the weaponry, as they don't match with the karate template already established. If they are trained purely for interest's sake, fine. But I wouldn't class any of them as good martial arts training, it's just playing with other methods.

In short, a martial art must be congruent. If it isn't, then it's just a collection of movements that you could maybe make work, but then again maybe not. But not a martial art.

Hmm, I'm going to refrain from commenting on the "self defence" sections, or the bunkai sections of stick work, but I will say that if your instructor is telling you that parts are "just for show", then that gels with what we've been saying in terms of the correct usage and combative effectiveness of the weaponry methods. Again, if it's just for fun and interest, fine, but to mistake it for real weapon usage is an error.

Every martial art and artist gets more "subtle" as they continue, and yeah, I can see it in the various clips. I wouldn't necessarily say that Judo is "soft", or even "softer" than other aspects that make up Cuong Nhu... in fact, I'd say it's far from it! As far as Mr Cates is concerned, his association with people such as Ron Duncan, his incorrect usage of the term "Soke", his accreditation from the "World Sokeship Council" are a range of red flags, honestly... but I will say that he seems to get the concept of an common theme/philosophy (which includes a congruent power source) through his art of "Neko Ryu Goshin Jitsu" (sic), although I personally disagree with the alteration he came up with (essentially just altering the angle of entry for kuzushi to his Judo training), with it being less economical and less reliable than the "standard" entry angle.

If they are congruently combined in a new art, that can work (with a congruent power source, and congruent concepts... you end up with what is referred to as a "generalist system", which is what I train in and teach, so I know where you're coming from there), but if not, if you are just taking X-form from Shotokan, then Y-throws from Judo, and Z-forms from Wing Chun, it ends up being a collection of movements, and not a martial art.

Allow me to present a few more examples, then.

Before I get to this, I am going to reiterate once more that I am not discussing a FMA approach, Escrima-style weaponry, or anything similar except in the superficial aspect that we also use a short stick (approx. 3 feet, or 90 cm), referred to as a Sanshakubo, or Hanbo (which is where I think Cuong Nhu gets the term from, despite the actions being closer to FMA methods). Our Hanbo is an impact weapon primarily against weapon attacks, and a grappling weapon against unarmed attacks, There is cross over between both, but that's the basic idea. The Hanbo is also heavier than the Escrima sticks, making it's usage very different. In essence, it's a bone breaker.

Although I said I wasn't going to go into much detail on our use of the weapon here, I'll give a few ideas as to why we use it in such a way that you and Stuart are saying is ill-advised, and why it's not, in the correct context.

In the following clip you can see a few uses holding the weapon at the end (inverted grip), allowing a powerful strike to a swordsman's wrists with the end of the stick, deliberately shortening the distance in order to "cramp" the swordsman. If the stick is held extended, then the swordsman has a slight reach advantage, combined with the advantage of having a cutting edge. By shortening the distance, we move in past the swords optimal distance, and it becomes a context of who can manage the distance of their weapons the best. Look to 5:38 in the clip below for an example of this as a concept drill (similar to one of the kata we have).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im2bczsirAw"]Jinenkan Dojo Gent Demo (Part 1/2) - YouTube[/ame]

When it comes to "I can see no use in holding the stick in the middle", look to 4:38 and following for a grappling answer to when you may hold the stick in the middle. Additionally, in the following clip, there is an application of a kata called Uchi Waza (there are a couple of variants on the name, but that'll do here) at 1:38 onwards. Here it is showing again a strike using an inverted grip, but it also has a partner kata, very similar, called Kau Kudaki. In this second kata, it is often taught moving past the Uke at the end, and the strike to the face (more horizontal in that instance) typically has you shift your hand to the middle for the strike. Oh, and the name (Kau Kudaki) translates pretty directly as "Destroy the face".

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUI3HDrojcw"]Jissen Kobudo Jinenkan - YouTube[/ame]

So, once more, holding the stick in the middle has a few applications without compromising power or effectiveness to the degree you seem to be implying, as does an inverted grip. It all depends on the weapon, usage, and context.

 

More Tanjo

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBi4XvWVUIs&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Uchida Ryu Tanjojutsu - Donn F. Draeger - YouTube[/ame]

 

Ah, love that clip, Dean...

And, if I'm not mistaken, Sutemi shown again at 1:26 (stick held in the middle, and a pretty safe evasion followed by checking against the weapon arm... I see a fair bit of value in that!). Nice.

 

This is a demonstration and would never be used in a live environment. PAIRED DRILLS ARE NOT REALITY. Things that work in paired drills do not work in reality.

First: whacking a wrist even breaking the wrist will not stop an attacker. I broke two of my students fingers and he fought on for five minutes without realising. Only after the duel he realised the extent of his injury.
Even if you kill a man, he may not realise it for over a minute and continue to fight. It is why in our training we never just kill a man once, we kill them until they stop fighting.

Second: One action is not a fight.

Third: Anyone who tells you and unarmed person or a short weapon (like stick) can defeat a trained swordman is a LIAR!!! This isn't Marvel comic books, I have fought maybe 50 to 100 of the best duellists around today and NONE of them would be able to do it.

Don't confuse propaganda with reality. The reality is that if you face a better armed opponent who is trained, you are going to die. The best you can hope for is that they make a mistake and give you a chance.

 

"It is why in our training we never just kill a man once, we kill them until they stop fighting."

You must have a high rate of turnover for students.....

 

Honestly, Bear, I'm going to be blunt and say that you're not really clued into what you're looking at. To begin with, when done properly, paired kata in this way can be a lot closer to reality than sparring can be, for myriad reasons. Next, breaking fingers is one thing (I have a broken finger at the moment, and it's hardly slowing me down much, nor did it at the time), but a broken wrist is a rather different situation. Next, "even if you kill a man, he may not realise"? Once again, I'm not sure you're clued into what you're looking at, or the reasons things are the way they are.

When it comes to "one action is not a fight", I'm not sure who said it was. Again, I'm not sure that you're clued into what you're looking at.

When it comes to "versus a trained swordsman", I'm not getting into the concepts of Muto Dori, but the vast repertoire of technical approaches in multiple systems that have relied on such teachings for their survival may disagree with you...

When it comes to "propaganda and reality", if I'm not mistaken you are training in Historical Western systems, which are basically recreations rather than proper continuations of knowledge from when it was used to current generations. While I'm not saying that such things exist in all arts, you may be aiming that in a direction that doesn't warrant it.