tiger claw applications

I'm also a TCMA guy, and I agree with you there Tom. Fluidity is what's important, but KFM is talking about using stances individually, not as transitional movements.

__________________
"You must be brutalized to become brutal." - ClaytonOT

“	I would change that to constant control in constant motion	”

In a fight there is never constant control (until the end) unless there is a great disparity in skill level between the combatants.

“	I think that we have a different understanding of what stances mean in TCM if you think that stances are fixed, dead,	”

The word "stance" by virtue of the definition of the word means it's static and fixed.
I understand that during a fight one will flow from one position to another but stance training is seldom if ever presented that way and the flow in a live environment never looks anything like the stance training that is done.

__________________
Rock On!
Cam
"Raise up your mind....."

“	Originally Posted By: Ben Grimm I'm also a TCMA guy, and I agree with you there Tom. Fluidity is what's important, but KFM is talking about using stances individually, not as transitional movements.	”

Yes and I think this shows a lack of understanding on his part.

“	Originally Posted By: Lugaldamhara The word "stance" by virtue of the definition of the word means it's static and fixed.	”

That is a definition of stance but not my definition in my definition all stances are in a sense transitional.

“	I understand that during a fight one will flow from one position to another but stance training is seldom if ever presented that way	”

OK. but that is how i am presenting it because that its the way that i think of it.

“	and the flow in a live environment never looks anything like the stance training that is done.	”

True. Stances are a means to an end not an end in themselves. Whether a stance looks text book or not doesn’t mater. What matters is the mechanics. You do occasionally see classical looking techniques or stances in fights but it is rare. To me the stance is not the pose it is the underlying mechanic and if you know what the mechanics looks like you can see them in any functionally applied movement or technique.

Or put another way when it comes to the use of stances in practical fighting the glass is half full not half empty.

“	That is a definition of stance but not my definition in my definition all stances are in a sense transitional.	”

Oh, sorry. I wasn't aware that you had your own definitions for words. I was under the impression that we had universally agreed upon definitions for things (dictionary) so as to lessen communication break down.

Maybe KFM has his own personal definitions for words and that's why no one understands what the hell he's talking about.... It's worth looking into....

But anyway, stances were never meant to be used to be fought with, staticly, as has been suggested.

__________________
Rock On!
Cam
"Raise up your mind....."

“	Originally Posted By: Lugaldamhara But anyway, stances were never meant to be used to be fought with, staticly, as has been suggested.	”

Here here... doesn't get any simpler than that.

__________________
Terrorists aren't overseas. They're at the gas pump.
********
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -- Kung Fu-tzu (Confucius)

“	Originally Posted By: Lugaldamhara I was under the impression that we had universally agreed upon definitions for things (dictionary) so as to lessen communication break down.	”

Actually it’s the other way round the meaning of words does not lie in dictionaries it lies in accepted usage, for example the word quite, in the US quite is used to mean very much or exactly, but in the UK quite is used to mean close to or somewhat. Dictionary definitions do not exist to define meaning they exist to record the meaning in current usage.

So are you saying that the accepted current usage of the word "stance" is "transitional movement"?

I am sorry, I did not know that.

Where can I go to get up to date on these common current usages? Seems I need to bone up. I had no idea that changed or when it changed....

__________________
Rock On!
Cam
"Raise up your mind....."

Me neither. Cam, I always thought that the word stand and stance were somewhat similar in meaning. From my understanding, when you are in a stance, you are standing in one position, whether it's horse, forward, hanging horse/cat, back, unicorn stances or whatever. Some transitional movements might look like stances, but I would never use a classical stance in combat, as I prefer mobility over static positioning.

__________________
"You must be brutalized to become brutal." - ClaytonOT

“	Originally Posted By: Lugaldamhara So are you saying that the accepted current usage of the word "stance" is "transitional movement"? I am sorry, I did not know that. Where can I go to get up to date on these common current usages? Seems I need to bone up. I had no idea that changed or when it changed....	”

Our thoughts are confined by the words that we use. Your definitions are good as mine but if you only think in your own definitions you will always be confined by them. I attempt to share my understanding and give you a different way of looking at things. I have already taken your definition on board and agreed with what you say. I am not saying that you have to agree with me, but why not take my definition on board and see where it takes you? A little open mindedness isn’t going to kill you.

Cam is very logical, when it comes to definitions. He would always correct me when I used to call hybrid martial arts, MMA. But even in this case there is a huge difference. MMA is a sport. A hybrid martial art, is a martial art such as JKD, where elements from other arts have been incorporated with WC. I actually did some research on it, and found Cam was right. I won't say he is right all of the time, nor do I agree with him all of the time. But I can see sense in what he says.

__________________
"You must be brutalized to become brutal." - ClaytonOT

__________________
"You must be brutalized to become brutal." - ClaytonOT

“	I have already taken your definition on board and agreed with what you say. I am not saying that you have to agree with me, but why not take my definition on board and see where it takes you?	”

If you have agreed with me, then we are in agreement.
I did consider your definition and once you explained to me that your personal definition of "stance" was "in transitional motion" then we are in agreement.

The fact is that no one else in the world equates "stance" with "transitional motion", so surely you can see the communication breakdown.

The point was that static stances are not used and were never meant to be used in fight as they are taught traditionally... as static stances. They are designed for attributal development, not technical application.

You are talking about being in motion and while in motion sometimes flowing into a brief posture that resembles a traditional static stance and then from one into another. I don't doubt that that happens. I do not use any traditional stances when I fight yet I guarantee that if someone video taped me fighting and stop-framed it they would find certain brief frames where I was in a position that resembles a traditional static stance.

At the end of the day, we are in agreement. It was your "personal definition" that caused the initial breakdown of communication. Perhaps this should be an indicator that personal definitions, especially when they tend to mean the exact opposite of the common definition accepted by the majority of the populace, are not very conducive to productive communication of ideas.

__________________
Rock On!
Cam
"Raise up your mind....."

Either way, stances aside... why is it that I can't see any truly useful applications for a tiger claw in today's society. Well apart from laughing at KFM and his tiger claw to the throat.

__________________
"You must be brutalized to become brutal." - ClaytonOT

In a nutshell, if you are fundamentally superior to your attacker, you should have no need to use maiming "substitute techniques". If he is fundamentally superior to you, these substitute techniques aren't going to be very effective anyway.

Putting stock in these substitute techniques as being important is evidence of a couple of things...

1.) The person espousing them is too lazy to put in the time and hard work (real kung fu) to develop the fundamental skills.

2.) The person espousing them is a hardcore LARPer type that fancies the romanticism that surrounds styles that advocate and promote these things.

KFM is probably both.

Again, I state.... there is a reason most RBSD guys are fat, out of shape 50 year old combat wearing mall ninjas that smoke 3 packs a day.
They talk about reality based self defense and espouse these "deadly techniques" all the while trying to convince people that sport fighting is good only for sport fighting and DA MEAN STREETZ is all about the groin clawing while their personal appearance and lack of fundamental skills screams "lazy lard ass that needs to move out of his parent's basement and spend less time playing D&D and watching Jackie Chan flicks and more time in the gym". These guys are usually found downtown bouncing at a local pub wearing their combat boots and sporting their pepper spray and ASP batons and love to brag about the thousands of street fights they have been in.

__________________
Rock On!
Cam
"Raise up your mind....."