A video that brings into question the legitimacy of traditional Chinese martial arts as real fighting styles was brought to my attention recently:
The video by Rantwo is called “No, Pak Mei is NOT For Fighting”. And here it is:
It’s a breakdown of a recent video by the Karate Nerd about sparring with Pak Mei expert.
Now, you can agree or disagree with Rantwo’s opinion on whether the Pak Mei guy can fight or not. Personally I think Rantwo brings up some good points, but I’ve heard other people argue that he’s kind of missing the point – sparring never looks good.
Anyway, I don’t want to get into that. My comment on the video would be that Rantwo is making the classic mistake that a lot of people make when looking at videos of traditional master getting beaten up by average/bad kickboxers and then deciding that martial art XYZ must be no good: It’s always a reflection on the person involved, not the whole style.
I don’t think you can view a couple of videos of Pak Mei guys then decide the whole style is “not for fighting”. I can guarantee you there are Pak Mei guys out there who have no problem throwing down. To just dismiss a whole style like that seems to be incredibly naive.
When it comes to sparring, I don’t think there are styles, there are just individuals. At least that’s the way I look at it.
The Tai Chi Notebook 
I agree that Rantwo makes some good points, and some he doesn’t mean to make. However, his paradigm is just as delusional as he claims the Pak Mei paradigm is.
First, his points are most valid only with his narrow definition of “fighting” by which he means “sport fighting,” or his words, “combat sports.” He suggests, “[a new recruit facing a pro fighter in 30 days] needs to learn basic striking, basic wrestling, basic guard, basic BJJ, maybe just how to shrimp or hip escape, basic kicks maybe. Why?Because we know that these things will take you to the goal of learning how to fight as quickly as possible with as little nonsense as possible. This also is uncontested. This is only contested by delusional retards who are still stuck in some weird MacDojo cult. Why don’t we see this being used more in Combat Sports?”
Second, related to the first, is the standard by which he measures training is speed of learning which he calls “efficiency.”
If we change either parameter, the equation spits out a different answer. Rather than a Pro fighter in a scheduled match, what if the new recruit will be meeting a killer, that is, someone who resolves conflict with violence with no scruple about killing. Rather than thirty days, you have at least three years to prepare for someone you will meet randomly. Little of the training Rantwo mentioned would be vital.
Instead of fewer rules, we could even go the other way, more rules, preparing for push hands or point karate matches. The answer to how would you train effectively and efficiently would change for each of those too.
The adage, “You fight the way you train,” is a truism for a reason. So, to Rantwo’s point, if you are training Pak Mei, or another traditional martial art, you need to know honestly for what kind of fight you are training, if any at all. This knowledge will help you train more effectively and efficiently.
Finally, paradigms, schools of thought, are made to be shifted or broken and new paradigms formed when new, dissonant information is introduced. There are quirks of the body for which current sport fighting does not account, so the paradigm is not as stable as Rantwo would lead you to believe.
LikeLike