If anything, I would say the quality on MAP posts is better, other forums exist with more activity, but this also comes with a lot more rubbish. The quality (and troll) control on MAP is better than other forums I have been on. (It has very much always been that way in the time I have been here). It may be interpreted as TCMA bashing, but I read the OP as a genuine interest as to why this is a reoccurring theme, is there any validity to stances used in a non striking scenario? Do you have an opinion on stances used in a take down defence scenario? Or do you see TCMA training grappling in a different format?
TCMA has its own grappling, of course. E.g. Shuai Jiao wrestling, Dog Style ground fighting, takedowns in Sanda, as well as Chin Na joint locks. I haven’t tried all of the above, but those I’ve tried (Sanda, plus a tiny bit of Chinese ground fighting) were surprisingly close to what’s seen in MMA. Takedown defence from my Chinese experience was as per MMA. I don’t know if this is because MMA’s influenced them or because there’s only so many ways to skin a cat.
All my grappling, particularly shoot defense, in kungfu was in the Sanda format. Change level or sprawl for a low shoot. We did stance work against a resisting opponent attempting to push you back or over. This was never presented as grappling defense, just stance training, and to a degree this would carry over if someone went for a clinch to outer reaping style throw, or a high/failed shoot. It's hard to say in my experience whether the crossover was accurately represented in the wrestling side of Sanda, as coming into kungfu I had 8 years of judo experience. The resistance/sensitivity to someone pushing you in a stance felt like it had carry over, but nothing ever to the degress of standing in a stance to whilst someone does a double leg.
I have never seen anybody who can use rooting to deal with single leg or double legs. Stance has nothing to do with take down defense. No matter how you may stance, that 90 degree angle from your feet line will always be your weakness. Also if you want to stand - low, your opponent can help you to stance lower by pressing you down. - high, your opponent can help you to stance higher by embracing you up. - wide, your opponent can help you to stance wider by springing your leg apart. - narrow, your opponent can help you to stance narrower by sweeping your foot inward.
Whether they be true or no-and for this discussion it actually doesn't matter- no tale I've ever come across of a non-wrestling Chinese practitioner defeating a Chinese wrestling practitioner related a foiled single/double leg take down. One could find some significance in that. Yeah,I won't disagree,having heard all that junk meself. I'd add that I've experienced the same sorts of "logic" expounded by well experienced Karate practitioners. But I'm not "on the scene" these days so maybe more of them have grown up by now. Aside-After officiating at a tourney around ten years ago I-the only CMA guy present- was seated at the banquet table with the tourney hosts and some other instructors-including a very famous Karate instructor of Japanese extraction-all older than myself.They all agreed that the whole MMA thing was just a fad. Behaving totally out of character I just kept quiet. If you want another good laugh go to the Yang Family site and read the thread concerning MMA matches. Fantasy Island. My experience is that it's useful to do unpleasant things to other people at any stand up range,and as one advances one incorporates more mechanics/skills. What,one can't use TC mechanics to strike people from outer range?Or was the above just about WC? Seems most free style sparring is mainly some type of kick boxing -unless/until one or both end up on the floor.What do you think they were doing in pre war tourneys in China? Or post war tourneys in Taiwan,Malaysia,Hong Kong etc? I guess " its own" is in the eye of the practitioner. I agree however that if it's just taught as form,gungs,apps and push hands/da lu.... good luck! Yes and no. Basics are basics,so a rear hand is a rear hand. But what,and how an individual is training is what matters. Generally speaking, a 1 year practitioner of Karate-even if pretty decent for the time in- is not doing very good Karate.Same w/TC. That's true even if they both can KO people. While a major flaw in many CMA and most all TC groups,and I mean those who feel they are practicing a functional system,it's not written in stone anywhere not to train under pressure. Other systems don't have "the advantage" of training under pressure,but many TC groups have the disadvantage of not training properly.I've seen other systems which don't seem to spend much time in "unrehearsed training violence"-JMAs,OMAs,Pentjak Silats-I'm a harsh critic of the TC world but most TC folks are far from isolated in their isolation.(Yuk yuk) Just curious-are they all that different in that regard from the majority of say Karate groups in this? I mean about training to deal with takedowns? The lofty rooting rhetoric.....well,TC people especially can certainly be full of that.And full of other things....... Especially as it's just one of around a dozen common attributes. Some people just need to be smacked upside the head! @ Mr. W-see my post in the "So There!" thread.
I keep deleting and re-writing a response. So difficult to actually explain things without a physical demo. But the most common move (for me) is to "bump" the body with a shoulder to the hips first. If the receiver is in a boxing like stance, the weight is taken off the lead leg...grab said leg and turn it into a single leg td. If in a wide horse like stance; 2 things will happen a) receiver will go on their heels, and a snap double will happen b) receiver will regain balance by placing a foot behind them, which will lead back to above said single-leg. However like many things, there's a counter to the counter etc etc etc.
Kinda late reply, sorry bout that Doc after you took time to post ! My experience and yours though informed by shared arts and teaching methods will differ due to many variants. Chief reason that I find long range TC mechanics more difficult to incorporate into a fighting style is the fact that at 5'9" I'm normally at a range/ jab disadvantage and need to pick my shots and get in close to clinch/strike/throw, or back off and get out of range again. Chen uses plenty of body checks,shoulders,elbows as strikes also using simultaneous sweeps and throws using opposite push/pulling so seems to naturally work better at mid to close range when you already have made contact, certainly most kicks combine control of the arms or upper body. In my instance this blends well with the trapping hands/chi sao aspect of WC and sometimes depending on the opposition I've been able to straight blast my way through, though as PiP said recently, with people of a better level that gets seen through and dealt with in short time. I guess I'm saying effective long range mechanics depend perhaps more on your individual physiology than the style itself. As Ali said, " boxing is the art of not getting hit" and that is something that is even more important to develop when you usually find yourself at a reach disadvantage. Using triangular footwork, stepping off line, body and head movement have been most effective ways for me to deal with this and varying elements of both TC, WC and boxing have helped me. (Btw, sorry if this straying somewhat from original post !)
