Looking for Custom Tambo

Translation:

 

There was nothing disrespectful there.
Forthright and blunt perhaps but then this is a martial arts forum not a needlepoint forum.

 

Does this sound like I'm burying my head in the sand?

Calling someone "my dear girl" (that's just ONE example!) is disrespectful in my book.

I welcome folks being blunt and forthright. In fact I thrive on it. What I will not tolerate is base insults and disrespectful posts. Nor will I reply to them any further. I have given Mr. O'Malley more than enough leeway thus far.

 

I have to say...I'd probably let that lady hit me with her sticks.
I don't think they'd damage much.

It seems to me they've taken a filipino type weapon (two sticks) and added it to karate style movement.
And that seems at odds to me.
MANY of the swings and strikes stop at the centre line or thereabouts (as is entirely suitable for karate motions in most cases). As such there just isn't going to be any power there IMHO. When you swing a stick it has to go through what you are hitting surely?
I trained with Pat a few years back and what little I can remember from learning anyos (Arnis patterns roughly equivelant to what's on show here) the strikes, for the most part, are are actually swung through. And that seems missing here to me.
Swinging a stick and stopping it right in front of you just isn't that useful a motion to practice that much.
Where the sticks actually go through the target it's often because they are both swung at once which again robs power because you can't commit both hips at once.

 

But he hasn't insulted you...at all

"My dear girl" is just like saying "mate", "my friend", "buddy" or whatever...it isn't like he said "Listen poo stain..." before making a point

Pat is someone that has universal respect for his abilities and knowledge...and rightfully so. You would do well to wind your neck in and listen to him

 

Face it, the tambo work thus seen is absolutely terrible - almost inexcusably so

 

To be fair "my dear girl" is a bit patronising.
Missed it the first time.

 

I have not disrepected you, I have been clearly blunt for good reason but then I have no respect for a group who clearly steels from another, re-labels it as something else and lies to its students to make up for the fact they dont know what they are doing.

The only reason you refuse to answer my questions is not a respect issue is it, it is because you cant and neither can your group because we know they are lying dont we.

The links worked on my phone but I will put a couple more up for your edification.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/-mjIxHQ9bP4

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WC14q54J8cs

 

Really? If someone said "Dear boy" to me I don't think I would even bat an eyelid...ah well

 

It's a cockney thing we call each other worse thing than that that means mate. But hey if you can't take the humour and laugh time to watch the comedy channel.

 

Thank you.

You are wrong and you are a liar sir. You have flatly disrespected me. And lied just now. I did answer you. I met with Master Robert and brought you back his reply to BOTH your questions. I didn't go and hunt down a video...I TALKED TO A LIVE PERSON!! And I told another poster this very morning I will be following up.

Your credibility with me is shot. At this point, I could care less if you told me the sky is blue and Santa wears red.

Those links work. Thanks.

 

You know what Monkeywrench?

If you are this touchy on a forum God help you when someone is really having a go.


As for respect? Hmm well what's worse?

A forum member saying something sucks?

Or an instructor not doing their utmost to ensure they are teaching the best they can to their students?

Especially when the students safety is a consideration!

 

I take back my earlier translation in favor of a new one

 

Your answer from your instructor is made up hog wash plain and simple and this real live person is telling you are being conned. Had. Taken for a ride. Hoodwinked.

Put it this way if your double and single tambo was originally from Kung Fu which its not then why did they decide to take all the fluidity from Kung Fu out of it and make it look like a robot on acid trying to swat flies. Why have they made it worse than it should be? Ask yourself that one boyo.

Answers on a postcard please addressed to

PO BOX BS1
Took
County Hoodwink
Ubeenhad.

 

And this is how your Tambo should be looking

http://youtu.be/zJpLVYwQpfI

http://youtu.be/i-8gjDb68LM

Mind you I would expect any of your guys to be quite as good as this after all PG Edgar was a true Master of the Arts.

Oh by the way you may not be edificated enough to spot that Hubud Drill in there, Oh did I mention its done with weapons first which makes your empty hands more effective later, and look there at long rang and close range, but you told me Arnis is close range and you guys have adjusted to to a longer range. Oh dear, looks like you been hoodwinked again me old mucker.

 

Okay, I take a night off from this thread, and this is what greets me? Fair enough.

Right, before I answer it may be pertinent to revisit the clips themselves, just for reference. The first one is one John Pietro performing a "self defence" demo for a Godan (fifth Dan) test:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6lenW-V83s"]Cuong Nhu John DiPietro Godan self defense demo - YouTube[/ame]

Before getting into anything specific, I'll address the most dominant thing I see in all of the Cuong Nhu clips so far (although, once again, it is not restricted to this system, it is not a good indication), and that is that there seems to be absolutely no understanding of reality, particularly in regards to modern violence, and as such, in regards to self defence. In this area, more than in any other, reality needs to be present in everything. Now, to address your earlier comment about "how realistic does it need to be, do you need to see blood?", that's not what I'm referring to. What I mean is that the attacks shown here are pretty much universally sloppy, badly targeted, out of distance, slow, and so on. The responces are performed much faster than the attacks, which also removes realism from the methods (when I catch my guys doing that, particularly in a slow, learning pace drill, I point out that beating a go kart in a Ferrari isn't really an accomplishment...), as well as being, in a number of cases, fundamentally flawed mechanically, tactically, and more.

To get to specifics, I won't cover everything (or this post would go for much longer than it already will....), but I will cover a fair amount.

0:00-0:44 The attacks from the white haired gentleman are universally weak, out of range, miss the targets, are incredibly telegraphed, and simply poor. John, for some reason, even with an opponent who has 'shaped up' in front of him, remains with his hands at his sides (tactically just a terrible idea), when grabbed does nothing about grounding himself, stays open to being hit, employs a throw that is more muscle and the compliance of his partner than anything else, and gets over-compensating reactions from a range of his techniques. There is nothing relating to self defence here at all.

0:44-1:02 More of the same, with John's balance being much more obviously centred in his chest, rather than his hips (this is present throughout the entire demo), which removes any stability or power from his actions. The responces from the attackers are again highly unrealistic.

1:02-1:47 Sad to say, this is more evidence that there is no depth of understanding of the various sources in this system. The Aikido actions (1:13, 1:16, 1:26, 1:31) are uniformly terrible, with no movement from the hara (highlighted at 1:18 when, after a wrist lock takedown, John bounces up and down in an inexplicable waste of energy and lack of awareness), no power, no flow, and overly compliant reactions. The hip throw from Judo at 1:22 is very badly done, with his hips above his opponents, poor mechanics in the turn, muscling with the arms (that still wouldn't be enough), no use of the hips at all, and the opponent basically throwing himself over. And honestly, the less said about the guillotine choke at the end the better...

1:55-2:13 Weapon defence time. The stick defence is rather ineffective, with the evasive movement against the stick initially not saving him, and the block not powerful enough. He's frankly lucky that his partner is deliberately swinging too low (off target), slow, and stops as soon as John moves. The rest is just useless, to say the least. The knife defence would see him stabbed several times as well, as his evasion doesn't work, the block/jam is ineffective, and his counters do little more than annoy.

2:14-2:39 More weapon defence, knife and gun. Look, he's dead. On both sides. Multiple times. Dropping the gun is, believe it or not, not the worst action done here.

2:39-3:04 Against a knife and baseball bat. This is purely movie fantasy, honestly. The actions are ineffective, the defence doesn't work, the attacks are non-existant, and this isn't self defence, it's homicide, or manslaughter at best. You may get a plea bargain down, but it's downright irresponsible to call this, or promote or teach it as self defence.

3:04-3:30 I don't know where to start with this, the bo work on both sides is terrible, with our white haired gent having no ability to strike with the weapon, no balance with it, and the incredibly bad habit of leaning forward into his strikes. John, though, really isn't any better. His defence would leave him with a cracked skull from both stick-men, and his use of the bo at the end would be lucky to give a splinter to them. He just isn't in a position to generate any power, and he goes on to show that he isn't generating any at all.

3:30-4:03 A Kusari Fundo? Really? Where did that come from? Okay, so there's some figure eight spinning, but that's really more for show. There's no striking understanding being shown, but I will say that there doesn't seem to be much of an attempt to show that. As for the defence shown, uh, no. The thing that's highlighted in this sequence, though, is the "pull back" of the strikes on John's part, meaning there is no power transfer at all, as well as John's habit of bouncing up with his hands open (no awareness) at the end of all his actions.

4:03-5:43 Believe it or not, the blindfold section is the best of it all, and is closer to what he should be doing when he has his sight. The reason is simple, with his eyesight compromised, John is naturally going into a "survival" mode, which is lowering his balance and weight (so he doesn't fall over), striking directly without the 'pull back', closing and trying to get it done immediately, and more. The "control" from Aikido at the end isn't very good, but the rest is better. Of course, it does show that the "trained" aspects are trumped by the instinctual survival aspect, with his trained responce being thrown out the window (which, honestly, I'm not surprised by, as his body language throughout the entire clip shows a great lack of faith and belief in the techniques he's performing).

Now, this is a test for Godan (fifth Dan). And as such, I feel that it is a spontaneous, unrehearsed test, and that is the meaning of 'self defence' here. In other words, it's not "scripted" as techniques; however that doesn't remove all the issues, especially if it's for such a high rank as Godan. Nothing is done well, nothing is done with control and power, nothing is done with practicality, and none of it is in any way related to self defence.

The second one was simply labeled "Cuong Nhu Self Defence Demo":

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx0nIhno6qk"]Cuong Nhu Self Defense Demo - YouTube[/ame]

Without going through the entire thing, it features much of the same issues as the one above, such as badly distanced and targeted attacks, unrealistic attacks and unrealistic responces, poor karate, poor Judo (for instance, at 1:13 our demonstrator is lucky not to damage his own ankle with that poor attempt at Tai Otoshi), and the weapon use is far from stellar. I will say that the performer here is more confident in his actions, but that this one seems far more scripted (choreographed), so that may be a big part of that.

This is another hallmark of a poor design (trying to be all things). Why would you spend a number of years training in a particular method, only to then be told to do things completely different later? Then, when the higher level instructors, who have "softened" their approach, are teaching the newer students (who should be "hard" in their methods), that just leads to confusion on all sides.

See, now, I'm not fond of such approaches, and find that it's typically done by those who don't understand the art in the first place, and don't see the way things are supposed to be done. The claim is typically that they are going beyond the obvious, or looking deeper, but that's honestly not the case. There are reasons the movements are done the way they are, by adjusting them to fit a desired interpretation you are basically saying that the art got it wrong. And that I feel is less likely than "I don't get it".

With the clips, they are of high level practitioners, and as such, are going to be seen as examples of the end result of training, or at least high level results of training in that system. So the thinking would be that, if you do train differently in class, the results in the demos would be different as well. In terms of "pulling" a strike, there's two ways of doing that. The first is the safe, good training habit method, which involves your partner knowing how to receive the technique, and it being delivered with power, but not transmitted into the partner. The other, which was seen in the clips above, is where the striking hand "springs back" from contact, as if touching something hot. That is less than useless as a training device.

Oh, and as far as "would you do that in a real fight?", from previous examples, you would. There have been a number of accounts of non-contact tournament fighters (used to "pulling" their strikes) who, when in a real fight, retract their strikes. And pay the price for it.

Okay, a bit off topic, but Monkeywrench is right here Pat. A codpiece was about flamboyant decoration, and was there to draw attention to the fact that you were a man... and, based on the size and shape of it, what a man! Nothing to do with protection at all, and rather useless for it (typically being made of leather, rather than anything firmer). In today's society the same role is taken by the tie, so you know (it's an arrow to direct the eyes to proof that you're a man, similar to a low cut top on a woman directing your eyes to evidence of her gender and sexual appeal as well). Okay? Good.

And we're back. Right.

The big question, and the first one I'd ask, would be "what do you mean by 'traditional'?" This art is very new, so where does that traditional construction (material and sizing) come from? Next would be why are both hardwood and rattan accepted, as both have very different properties and uses; one is heavy, therefore slower but more powerful, the other is lighter and faster, but less powerful, therefore relying on the speed and 'whippy-ness' of the strikes to affect it's results.

I will also say that, as far as the methods mentioned (striking with the last three inches), that's good, but the striking method shown in the clips doesn't achieve that. I'll get to that in a second.

Here's the thing, though. Robert is not exactly going to turn around and say "yeah, we don't really get the way a stick is meant to be used, so we kinda made it all up". However, it might be said that what Cuong Nhu does in it's stick work, single or double, doesn't really expand the range at all, it uses poor mechanics which lead to weak strikes and gigantic openings. You might want to look at the way stick work is done in Arnis and the FMA's, coupled with the type of weapon used, and you can soon see why the range is the way it is, and why the Cuong Nhu method is seen the way it is.

Honestly, it's just more of the same. To see what I mean by "huge openings", freeze it at 0:35 (this is a common thing in these clips, this is just the first occurance in this one), and to see what I mean by inefficient use of the weapons, well, all the wild swinging actions one either side of the freeze frame. By overly extending that way the weapons are over-reached (range wise), leading to a huge lack of power, the remaining power to the strike being concentrated well after the weapon had past it's target, and more. Honestly, this is just terrible.

No. This comment tells me that he doesn't understand the arts he's dicussing, the history of martial arts, the development of same, and more. The comment about "nothing new in martial arts" refers to things like "an arm bar creates stress on the elbow, not on the upper arm" and so on (only so many ways to bend an arm kinda thing), not when it comes to methods of drilling. They are part of the unique aspects of any art, and new ones are constantly being used and developed. His argument fails on pretty much every front.

Wow, uh, no. The first had no idea how he wanted the weapon to work, he was using as a light 'whippy' weapon, as well as a strong (hard) blocking and grappling weapon... the attacks were terrible, and why did one attacker just wait while he was rolling around with the second one? The second clip was at least a bit better, but again there were some major issues with the usage.

 

Damn Chris!!!! How the hell do you top that???

 

Monkeywrench,
I have been in your shoes. I used to practice an invented art taught by people that thought they knew what they were doing. When on-line forums and bulletin boards began, I eagerly talked about my training with the greater community. I met exactly the same sort of derision as you have met here, so I stopped talking about my own training. Instead, I began researching other's training. I attended seminars and competitions, and had the opportunity to train a little with highly respected senior instructors. The difference between what I thought I was doing and reality was amazing. I managed to arrange for training with some very good instructors, and have never looked back.

Don't get me wrong. I still admire my first instructors, and still taught that school for quite a while since I had students that wanted to achieve a certain level in it. My original instructors weren't trying to lie to me or fool me. They were good hearted and dedicated individuals that just didn't know any better, since they hadn't gone out into the greater MA community to discover real training for themselves.

Ultimately, it all comes down to what you want out of your training. If you enjoy the training, and training atmosphere, you are getting now then by all means please stick with it. Going to the dojo regularly is the hardest part of any training regimen. The vast majority of martial artists will never be called upon to use what they've learned, so actual quality of training is only really important if you are planning a career in law enforcement or security. You need to realize though that you will never fit in with the greater MA community training with that group. You'll have to settle for associating with your own group only as there's not a lot of tolerance for invented arts with sub-par technique.

P.S. I do sword, not sticks. However, even I could see that the woman in the video you posted had no force in her strikes, and no way of generating any real force. It was a dance only, which is fine if that is what you are after.

 

Touchy? For how many pages did I go before I finally said "enough?"

I call your attention to the TOS:

There has been a patently un-friendly tone put forth here. I more than once requested Mr. O'Malley simply be direct and post his questions. He ignored that request.

That is not me being touchy.

And let me be clear once again and say this is not about anyone's commentary about technique. I take those commentaries seriously and I'll say this for the THIRD time...I will be following up. In fact I already have. I asked a friend from another site that has knowledge of Vietnamese martial arts about all this. I'm waiting to hear back from him.

I find it telling that NO ONE thus far has acknowledged that I have said this.

Complete. Communication. Failure.