Looking for Custom Tambo

Uchida ryu tanjojutsu is a 19th-20th Century art. It would rarely (if ever been used in reality.)

Jissen Kobudo Jinenkan - 1996.

You are using arts that probably were never extensively used or tested as the basis of your argument. If you don't believe me. There is an easy test. Get a nylon weapon and put red ink on the edge. Ask are trained swordsman to attack as if it was reality. See how often you walk away without being covered in red.

Another good test, if you only use paired drills. Go down to your local Kendo hall and ask to test yourself against a similar ranked Kendoka. See how you perform against them.

The Bear.

 

Uchida Ryu Tanjojutsu (Suttekki Jutsu) grew out of Shinto Muso Ryu Jojutsu in the late 1800's as a way of popularising SMR Jojutsu, especially to take advantage of the newer Western fashions (such as a Western style walking sticks, which is what is used in the system), but the basis of it is SMR Jo. And that system does have quite a history of using a stick-weapon against swordsmen.

Jinenkan Jissen Kobudo, as an organisation, may well have been founded in 1996, but only the Jinen Ryu is that new. The Hanbo methods taught come from the Kukishin Ryu, dating back to the early 17th Century (some forms from earlier).

As far as the tests you mention, yep, done things like that before. And I have found that method rather flawed as well, honestly, and does not lend itself to reality. Honestly, the only way to really test it is to do some major damage to another person, and that I'm not sure I want to engage in.

 

With modern equipment you can test to a very intense level without permanent injury. Modern nylon weapons while not having the same cut as a steel weapon does allow (with minimal safety equipment) to spar at near full speed and intensity. You do get major buising and on occasion a couple of weeks recovery is required but it is not for everyone. It teaches you very quickly, there are no superheroes. I do full contact stick fighting frequently and it's very very difficult to land an instantly disabling blow at full speed.

You do not need to rely on historical guartanee's anymore you can test it for yourself. Now if it is a Koryu art I fully understand that the traditional training method highly important. If you don't want to test your art fine but avoid discussions on efficacy with those that do it and do try to make it work.

The Bear.

 

Who said that Koryu methods don't include such testing methods? Araki Ryu, for instance, emphasises it, Owari Kan Ryu begins their training with Shiai (with 9 foot plus spears....), many Jujutsu systems have free-training methods, and so on. It might be argued that you aren't in a position to comment on the efficacy of other methods unless you know them as well...

As far as being difficult to land instantly disabling blows, agreed completely. But, of course, unless you are aiming to land such blows (and therefore aiming to intentionally break your students and training partners bones, at least), then any testing or training method will be flawed. After all, how will you know for sure whether or not you would have stopped an attack unless you actually stop an attack? But, frankly, if we were to implement full contact stick fighting then either there are hospital trips or there is so much padding that it removes the very reality that you are seeking. But then again, we use nice and heavy weapons, designed purely to break bones. Honestly, I'm happier with histories lessons rather than the alternative... and it has nothing to do with being fearful. I just don't see the need or reality as a benefit of such methods.

 

Hi Chris,

I see what you are getting at however I think that you are assuming that your definition is 'IT' whereas I see it as one of a large number of possible definitions (all correct).

I'd also suggest that if what you said was an absolute truth then most MMA fights would be (like in the early days) people of one style fighting people of another style. Experience taught fighters that they needed to cross train and blend different systems in order to prevail...

 

No, the advent of MMA as a distinct discipline supports my contention, actually. Initially it was separate distinct systems, and it was found that, in that environment, one dominant range generated more success than others. So people began training in that other range, but when it was all put together, it had a congruent philosophy behind it (generate success in the competitive environment of an MMA fight or contest would be a good way of describing the base philosophy of MMA, for what it's worth), as well as congruent training methods and a congruent power source. People don't suddenly switch from one power source to another, or even from one art or system to another, they switch ranges according to the situation. That is very different to what is being described here.

 

True if they are arts for another species but we are all human and have roughly the same abilities and attributes. Human limitations affect us all.

You don't stop the attack. Remember this level of training is for advanced students, if they cannot protect themself then they shouldn't be there. Accidents happen but that helps with the emotional stress.

Nah, it happens less than you would think. Protect the head. The body is very resistant to blows. We used 40" ash sticks and while they hurt like hell and you go home with more stripes than a tiger you can absorb alot of damage once you are conditioned to it.

The Bear.

 

Hi Chris,

So then if MMA can be a martial art (by your definition) why can't the OP's art?

(The above comment assumes that I have followed the thread correctly and it was your contention that his art was flawed by not having a congruent base belief)

 

However the cultural contexts do have an effect on the movements, as well as the traits of the different weaponry used. And besides, my comment was in regard to your statement that, if the arts are Koryu, then relying on history is all well and good, but that I shouldn't argue with someone who is training to "test" the methods, and I pointed out that Koryu do test their methods in a number of ways... and your comments on their efficacy of those testing methods may not be as informed as you may think.

Which actually removes it from a realistic drill or simulation of what would actually happen. It can be very serious, highly demanding, and highly rewarding, but I wouldn't look to it as a bastion of truth in movement.

And again, that takes it away from being a realistic simulation, as you are painting it as being. If there are safety measures in place in order to minimize injury, whether in the form of safety equipment, rules, or the simple removal of the knowledge that you will end up dead or in the hospital, then that will change the way people act and react, and you lose the very reality you are looking for. Again, this is not an attack on the method itself, I've employed it a few times in the past within a variety of circumstances, it's a lot of fun, and more than anything else, a great way to test how you handle the chaos. But it's rather removed from testing the true efficacy of techniques, strategies and methods.

Hi Robert,

Yeah, I'd say you've followed the argument pretty closely...

MMA is a distinct system simply because it is a distinct system; in other words, it has it's own particular methods, it's own particular preferences, it's own approaches, and all of these are informed by it's central tennets or base philosophy as mentioned earlier. The system in discussion here (Cuong Nhu), to my mind, fails as it is a collection of bits and pieces, rather than anything congruent. Honestly, if it was pared down to a solid based (most likely karate based, as that seems to be the largest section informing the system, with Judo-based grappling [throwing, locks etc]), worked into a congruent approach, fine. I can see that working quite well, actually. It's when things like the Animal forms are added in that have nothing to do with the rest of the system, and add nothing other than for interest's sake that it removes itself from being a true martial art.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03fjxu98pRk"]Cuong Nhu Sensei Darius Snake Form Demo - YouTube[/ame]

You may note in the clip above, it is completely removed, mechanically speaking as well as strategically speaking, from the initial double stick clip we had. It is also completely removed, strategically and mechanically, from pretty much everything else in the system. That kind of "a bit of this, a bit of that" approach stops it being a martial art, whereas MMA isn't concerned with "a bit of this, and a bit of that", it's concerned with "what works in this environment for me?"

 

It could a martial art, it just has issues.

The Bear.

 

I have to implement these by law as in the UK you cannot consent to assault. However, we go as far as legally allowed. That is all one can do. Every training method has flaws, all we can do is try to minimise them. When I make mistakes in my training regime I create a new process and try again. What I don't do is follow others blindly without question especially when I have no proof other than allegorical that something works.

I moved to WMA from EMA because I was tired of having to take everything on faith and 2nd hand accounts. Nobody claims to have the answers in WMA and there is a healthy shut up and prove it culture emerging.

The Bear.

 

Chris - You OWE me those 2:36 seconds that I just wasted watching that clip - That was AWFUL - One of the worst forms I've ever seen - Interestingly it did support your argument about their Karate base being OK - the Karate bits were OK - The drunken snake moves were not nice to watch and the couple of XMA bits were fairly ragged too.

That form is fine if it was a one off made up demo piece for some 'Annual Martial Association Get-together' but if it is an actual form that they teach then <SIGH>.

 

And in this, I feel we agree (every training method has flaws). I stand by my statement that it's not actually as realistic as the paired kata methods (when done properly, that is!), although it is a training method that I feel has a lot of value and everyone purporting to teach anything with any claims to reality should experience relatively regularly, partially so they can understand the difference, but most importantly so they can understand the chaos of the environment. For that reason I attend RBSD seminars and classes when I am able as well.

Don't get me wrong on any of this, I have a huge amount of respect for the training methods you are talking about. It may just come down to a different value system stemming from different experiences.

Robert, glad you enjoyed it, ha! That is part of what is taught, there are a few other versions of the Snake form online, as well as Tiger and some more. If you see any of the Self Defence clips, they are basically karate mixed with some judo stand up grappling, and that has a bit of merit to it. But the hodge-podge of bits and pieces with no basis? Nope, sorry, that is someone who doesn't get martial arts wanting to create something that has some of everything... without realising that there are reasons they aren't all found in the same system. And that is why it (Cuong Nhu as a total entity) fails as a martial art as far as I am concerned.

 

I have a strong feeling that a bit of this between us is semantic in nature. "Congruent" for one. I think we could clear this all up in a five minute conversation really. Especially the sources of power thing. And we may not be in 100% agreement afterwards, but I have a feeling we'd be much more on the same page.

As for source of power for example, I disagree. The ground is way more than a launching pad. Can your hips generate power in a zero-g environment? No. Why not? Because you are opposing gravity and pushing off against the *earth itself* for your power at the core of your movement. Again, I can see someone using semantics to pick apart my argument here. But my point is valid I think. Another source of power we discuss often is acceleration.

Your comment of "just a collection of actions" to me does not match at all what my experience has been in my training. It really doesn't. I'm following what you're saying. I obviously don't have your background based on the level of detail in your responses, but I have been around as they say. CN is a martial art. We ourselves are aware there are flaws here and there and discuss ways to change them on a regular basis. CN today is much different than it was in past decades. Techniques are not combined randomly. They are analyzed in great detail and over periods of time.

I like your idea of what a martial art is. Our philosophy system I think you would find highly interesting. At the end of the day, I think if you were able to spend an hour with any one of our Masters you'd see much of what you are saying here is what we actually do. But I'm no Master so I'm most likely doing a poor job of it.

The base of CN is "all angles, all levels, all situations" in essence. Different situations call for different methods. One street fight might call for a purely karate solution. Another might be 50/50 judo/karate. The next might be a close quarters situation where more of a WC approach would be best. And again, moves from these various systems are not cherry picked. And specific moves are often modified in such a way to work with a move from another system as to make a pure karate practitioner want to die from shock! Our karate loads are a good example of this.

I believe that's what it was actually. But I'd need to check on that.

Our curriculum from white to black belt is mostly getting the basics down. After black belt you do keep training your basics and are also encouraged to learn more weapons, forms, animal forms or whatever you chose to pursue as a martial artist based on your interests and abilities. Some of our people have trained Wu Shu and others run their own Aikido schools. One of my head instructors was a boxing journeyman for a while.

I'll end by saying what I meant to add before. The saying goes "perfect is the enemy of good." CN is not a perfect system and a perfect system does not exist that literally covers all situations. But it is a good system (read: martial art) in my estimation.

 

Why the amalgamation of all these unrelated (and possibly conflicting) martial arts?

I just don't get why people can't just practice one or two arts and, oh I dunno, try and master them in their lifetime rather than just creating a bastardised style they can claim to be a master of...

 

There you have it sir!

 

MW,just FYI you can pivot on the ball or heel in T'ai Chi.


So I wondered about this,from the link you provide-
--------------------------------

"T'ai Chi Chuan
Cuong Nhu uses the principles of balanced movement and fluid redirection, as well as the balance and partner drills of Tai Chi Chuan. Cuong Nhu has a unique approach to Karate basics, beginning levels combine T'ai Chi breathing and balance techniques during basic moving( forward, backwards, turns) and kicking techniques into our Karate. "
------------------------------------------------------

OK, I can think of some things which might be considered balance drills,but don't know what is meant by "balance techniques".The term makes no sense to me.
What is a TC "breathing technique" that is so unique to combine w/Karate basics?

I don't see how TC can be incorporated into a system w/out the prerequisite development of TC specific skills-in which case to develop the shen fa necessary requires at least an hour in solo exercises on a daily or near daily basis,plus at least several hours a week of very properly practiced partner training exercises such as push hands. Does/has anyone in the CN system do/done this? Is this what CN practitioners are expected to do? I don't know of any other methods to develop this.

Incorporating some concepts,such as "fluid redirection" doesn't mean much unless it's executed in the TC manner,which is totally dependent on specific physical technique.Same with the partner drills.The concept of redirection isn't exactly something TC has a monoploy on.

Often over the years I've seen various systems which claim to incorporate TC.Most don't have the body method required to make the claim an actuality.

It's one thing to incorporate a new kick into a system.Can one incorporate TC's lu -(commonly referred to as "roll back/backwards pulling")- and how/when TC expresses it? Yeah, but one has to be able to actualize it in the correct TC physical fashion,otherwise it's not TC lu,just an idea executed in a different fashion from TC method.

Also, without the develpoment of the overall p'eng -(not the expression of it as "ward off" p'eng)- there simply ain't no T'ai Chi.

 

Yeah, it's possible. So I'll attempt more to clarify what I am meaning here, and see how that gels with your experience. I'll use examples where I can as well.

In terms of the use of the term "congruent", that simply means that all the individual parts are working towards the same direction. In terms of power generation, if one form of power generation says you snap in with the hip (karate), and another says you push from the ball of the foot and pivot, without the snapping of the hip (Wing Chun), you can't do both at the same time, so they are incongruent power sources to have. If one power source says you tense your arm (the tendons) to strike, and another says you relax your arm for speed, both are valid, but mutually exclusive. And by taking the mechanics (techniques) from a range of unrelated systems in the way Cuong Nhu says it does then you are getting into this incongruent training methodology.

Well, to get semantic with it then, how about if you're in the ocean? Are you using the ground there, or are you using some other launching pad for your power generation? For the record, before you think I'm being unnecessarily facetious, our traditions do have methods of fighting when in the water in this way...

The ground is not a power source. How you use it (spring off of it, push against it, whatever) is.

When it comes to acceleration, that's just basic physics, really. Force = Mass x Distance x Acceleration/Velocity. How do you achieve your acceleration? I know of a few different methods sworn by in different systems, and they tend to contradict each other, and that'll get more to the core of your actual power source. Mainly because it'll need to match the rest of your power generational concepts, otherwise it's like a rowing team where one or more of the team is rowing in the opposite direction to the rest.

From all reports on the curriculum, which is supported by all the video evidence, the Cuong Nhu syllabus is initially Shotokan Karate, in the form of kata and techniques, with some Wing Chun methods added (but not their forms yet), then adding Judo, Aikido and Tai Chi methods (classing these as "soft" arts), as well as some original forms primarily for weaponry, and some more "soft" forms. After Black Belt, the student is permitted to choose to study things like Wing Chun forms, Vovinam (Vietnamese martial arts, the animal forms seen) etc, again with these taken directly out of the respective systems.

The big problem is that each of the respective systems is unique in it's approach, with Wing Chun and Shotokan being rather contradictory in their approach, power source, tactics, movement, and mechanics, for example. And the big result of this is that the entire system suffers, as compromises are made to accommodate all of the differing approaches, and the resultant confusion gives no basis for the original aspects, such as the weaponry forms. I'll see if I can demonstrate...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCWJVX7wzV8"]CNPREZ29meg.mov - YouTube[/ame]

The above is a demo clip showing the range and breadth of Cuong Nhu training. Unfortunately, in every area it is deeply lacking. I'm not going to go through the entire clip, but to highlight a few examples:

0:14-0:23 shows a Karate action by attempting to utilise an Aikido "circular" action, and the Karate kicks and strikes are robbed of their power source. The concept of distancing is also way out.

1:29 Shotokan. The forward movement of Shotokan is removed due to the other influences, resulting in off balance movement, constant presentation of their backs, and so on. There is no connection between their hips and their kicks (or any other movement), meaning that there is little in the way of the power that these methods should have. Oh, and they really need to keep their guards up, their heads are way open the entire time.

1:39 Shotokan form. Again, no connection between the hips and the rest of the movement, but because this is the form, the forward movement missing in the sparring section is present. However his weight is way too high, there is no grounding or moving from the hara/tanden, and that results in poor stability for performing or receiving an action.
You might compare that with this clip of Taiji Kase Sensei:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bEfmupkZj0"]Sensei Taiji Kase - A Shotokan Master - YouTube[/ame]

Back to the Cuong Nhu clip....

1:50 Boxing. Firstly, I might point out that the Marquis of Queensbury Rules that are the foundation of modern boxing are English, so claiming that Boxing is American is a bit wrong as well. But to critique, the use of a half-karate stance from the Shotokan side of the training is making them slow, compared to an actual boxer, and the punches have none of the kinetic chaining that give boxing punches their power. It isn't just the arms.

2:14 Vovinam. Look, I'm going to be honest here, this just looks like a poor mans Shaolin Animals form without the distinct characters found in that system. Everything seems to lack power and penetration, and that seems to come from a lack of suredness as to what the power source should be. The targeting is fine, and the applications all good, but it is lacking in execution.

2:42 Wing Chun. That's being classed as a "soft" style? Not sure the Chunner's would like that.... To begin with, that form of training exercise looks like a take on Chi Sau combined with the Chain Punching, but missing the point of both. And frankly, the less said about that version of Siu Lim Tao the better... here's another take on it, to get a better idea of how it's meant to work:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MAFO7dGj3k"]Wing Chun - 1st form Siu Lim Tao - YouTube[/ame]

And back to the Cuong Nhu clip....

3:00 Judo. Again, I wouldn't really class Judo as a "soft" art, no matter the literal translation of "Ju". But the biggest problems here are hallmarks of the karate training again. The entering and kuzushi are far from optimal, and the position that the Uke is in is not being broken sufficiently. As this is a central, fundamental concept to Judo, to miss it is to miss Judo entirely as well.

3:25 Aikido. Again, it's trying to be Karate, and failing to be either. There is no Aikido present at all, and attempting to apply Aikido concepts in this way just doesn't work. There is none of the "softness" that this is supposed to contain in this system (Cuong Nhu), there is no Irimi or Kuzushi again, no use of circular action, and as a result, no Aikido. Just imitation.

3:48 Tai Chi (Taiji). Taiji is far more than just Push Hands exercises, but El Medico has dealt with the issues of whether or not this is Taiji better than I could. I will say that the backwards roll didn't look very "Tai Chi" to me, and the movement back and forth in the Push Hands drill also seemed, uh, off.

I said I wouldn't go through it all, and I won't, but suffice to say that the rest is a mixture of okay karate (not fantastic, or even very good, but okay), and poorly executed and understood weaponry aspects that have already been covered here. The overall feel is of a movie choreographer wanting to put as much into the mix as possible, regardless of the result. That works if it's the Matrix, but not in reality.

This is really just a short highlight of the problems with incongruent power sources and methodologies being thrown in together, which is what I was getting at when I said "just a collection of actions", implying that there isn't the actual art behind them which inform why you use the specific actions you do; they get corrupted and distorted, and the entire system suffers for it.

I think you may be misunderstanding what I am meaning by a "philosophy" here. In all of the documentation that I have come across online about Cuong Nhu there is frequent reference to "philosophy", including "martial philosophy", but it's not what I'm talking about here. The way it appears to be presented in Cuong Nhu is as an idealised construct, a betterment of the lives of those involved and those in contact with them (society at large). That's very laudible, and personally I am all in favour of it, but that's not what I was getting at. In terms of a "martial philosophy", the term seems to be used to refer to the application of strategies (when it's best to avoid conflict, when you should engage etc), which again is very important, but not what I'm meaning.

To give you an idea, there are the Judo philosophies of unbalancing to overwhelm, or yield when being overwhelmed, or the Wing Chun philosophies of protecting the centre line, and a straight line being the fastest way to a target. Then there's the Karate philosophy of solidity to power your strikes, and direct forward movement in the footwork (Wing Chun tends to not have that as such a high feature, and their footwork reflects a different philosophy again), and none of these fit the Aikido philosophy of non-resistance to force and redirection of an incoming attacks energy.

Unfortunately, for the reasons I've mentioned, that just doesn't work. From an unconscious level, you won't have the ability to decide which range you're in and therefore which method you should use, you will simply always go to the one that is unconsciously recognised or identified as the most powerful. In other words, whether it's against a group, one-on-one, a weapon, close quarters, or from a distance, you'll use the same responce set. The rest really is a waste of time and energy.

According to the online sources, it's an option after Black Belt, so while it was done for a demo, it's still part of the teachings of the system, apparently coming from the Vovinam heritage, which itself dates from the mid-20th Century.

As far as "perfect is the enemy of good", I understand what that phrase refers to (which is the pitfall of looking so hard for perfection that you try to skip over being good in the first place, and therefore never attain anything like the perfection you are seeking), but that is not the case here, I'd say. In fact, I'd suggest that the very concept of Cuong Nhu epitomises the "seeking perfection" aspect: by trying to put in so many aspects and cover so much, the entire system suffers being mediocre at best.

 

Well, for one thing, can you afford to pay to take more than one art? I can't! haha But that's not the point.

MMA is very popular these days and widely viewed as effective. Yet it is a synthesis of more than one art. And CN has been following this idea of combining styles for way longer than has been popular in the mainstream. Since the mid 1960s.

To properly reply to this I believe is beyond me. I have only practiced a smattering of this sort of thing thus far and that has mostly been at seminars. It is something that is more heavily focused on at higher ranks than I have achieved as yet.

But I can say that the breathing work we do has had a marked effect on my concentration and stamina. It helps keep me calm and focused in sparring. My sparring today feels much better than it did even a year ago.

I take many of your points here well. Especially the one about showing your back in sparring. I would make that point myself! It's a hazard unfortunately of having a style that spans a large geographic area...hard to keep everyone on the same page. I know "homogenous" styles suffer from this as well.

I will tackle the seeking of perfection. No, we don't actually seek perfection with the expectation of finding it one day. Perfection is the ultimate goal but we go in knowing we will never achieve it. It is the journey of discovery and development that is the key.

Incongruent training methodology. I see what you are saying and I simply disagree. Certain basics from seemingly disparate arts can indeed be congruent. Shifting from one to another is often not "intuitive" and does require a good bit of practice. And some others seem to flow well together from what I've experienced. And they can be chained together quickly and effectively. Your skepticism is healthy and your concerns valid. I've just come to the point where I realize that "style" is something of a myth. CN is a style, yes. But it does not try to contain itself in a solid container. "Be like water" like the man said.
:hat:

I get what you are saying about the ground not being a power source. I think I agree. But I do think that awareness of how power generation in many cases relies on leveraging the ground is key.

Acceleration is a fairly basic concept. I can't tell you CN's entire treatise on acceleration. One example is to not throw your technique with all speed/power initially. Let it build. Especially if you are chaining more than one move together.

Thank you for your input. Many of the things you have listed we really do discuss on a regular basis and changes have been made (and will be made!) based on them. As I said before, CN is an evolving style.

 

I think we've gone about as far as we can, then. On a personal note, I'd just like to say that I'm extremely impressed with how you have been handling yourself in this discussion, it's been a pleasure.