can kung fu work in real fighting????

[jubaji]

He's suffering from Hopeless LARPer Clown Syndrome.

[TigerClaw]

Not the dreaded kryptonite, lol! It seems that TigerClown is suffering from the "My Sifu is God Syndrome."

No, he has many character flaws. But he could fight, that's for sure.

[Ben Grimm]

Well he was born with that. I guess being a LARPer Clown must be his life's calling.

[jmd161]

I have to disagree with you and JadeDragon on this matter; because it forms the basis of which this entire argument is based. Martial arts which are combat tested would work; we would see it work and we (particularly myself) wouldn't have a problem with it. Therefore, my argument is that many (not all) kung-fu styles don't work; because they've never been combat tested.

This is both true and not totally correct. Truth, there are many more styles that claim to be kung fu that did not exist over 50 yrs ago. So of course many of these styles were never combat tested. There are old styles and methods that have been lost forever because they were not shared or taught outside of ones clan or family. As times changed so did the need to train in the old methods and much less need to be a fighter. Thus people training, but no one testing what they're learning. There was a time when you opened a school that you were tested as soon as your doors opened...those times are long long gone.

Actually, the first part of TigerClaw's argument is correct. IF the forms WERE functional, then the art would be as well. But this isn't true of many kung-fu styles. YES, I believe there are useful kung-fu styles, training methods and such, but within the spectrum of martial arts kung-fu ranks poorly, in my opinion. I found TKD and karate one step closer to actual fighting.

Wow! that's an all time low since most TKD fighters can't fight, if they can't kick. There are very few punches within TKD itself, so they lack a lot. I've seen good karate fighters, in fact I trained with one for yrs. There is a lot less to do with a style than the actual fighter when it comes to fighting. Style really means nothing, it's the training and a lot of natural ability involved. Only thing styles do is give you tools to put into your tool box. Some styles have more tools than others, but you can find something useful in every style.

Functional forms of martial arts like MT, BJJ and boxing work most days of the week and can be witnessed to be effective against most attacks in a live setting.

If you train using your techniques against real resistance against a real opponent...then of course you're going to be effective. We all agree that most kung fu schools don't do this at all. Thus their problem...It's not rocket science.

Actually, I'd like to retract a point I made earlier... Forms training isn't useless, as all martial arts (including BJJ, boxing, MT) use forms training. It's the manner in which the forms are used and the type of forms used. Here's an example of 2 different types of forms training; one useful and the other less useful.

Example 1: Choylifut scooping fist to mirror block and reverse punch. The objective is to lift the attackers kick, block his secondary attack with an outward block and perform a reverse punch. The problem is the footwork takes a lot of time to transition from the cat stance to the stanted horse stance, etc... In a real situation, I doubt anyone would bother... I think they would simply perform the blocks and attack. In fact, I've seen people not commit themselves to the stances.

Example 2: BJJ upa to elbow escape to scissors sweep. The purpose is to escape the mounted position using a combination of 2 escapes, then perform a sweep. In actual sparring or combat, the person underneath would actually perform these movements. This being my point. Actual movements being drilled, then tested in actual sparring, means more efficiency.

While there are many stories of kung-fu prowess in fighting like Wong Fei Hung, I just don't buy most of it; because few of it can be displayed today. Unlike kung-fu, the BJJers of today are improving upon on the past. I don't doubt that most BJJer, MT guys and boxers of today have advantages over their predecessors. This isn't true in kung-fu where all people talk about is how much greater the masters of old were and yet no one can replicate their "defeating 20 opponents" anymore.

I'm going to say this... many people including yourself misunderstand kung fu. Hell, most people within kung fu misunderstand kung fu. Since you train BJJ and MMA I'm going to put this in terms you should be able to relate to.

In BJJ you start out learning the basics... as you advance you learn more ways of applying the same basics, but from different angles and positions. The more you learn you realize it's just different roads leading to the same place. When you're a wht belt you know a few submissions a few streets. As a blue belt you're now using main roads and intersections. As a brown belt you now have a 5 lane highway to travel. Then when you reach black belt you have a GPS system that shows you how to tie all these roads together to get where you're going in the most efficient amount of time.

Kung fu is meant to be taught the same exact way. The problem is too many people have taken the easy way out and the actual practice of application have fallen to the waste side. This is not a new trend or passing faze this has gone on for centuries. BJJ was just a method of keeping JJ alive and evolving. There has always been grappling...grappling is the oldest martial art there is. The problem is times evolved and it was not wise to grapple on the battle field or in a fight. Also, strikers had developed techniques just like BJJ has now that made grappling less effective. If the Gracie's had not continued to compete with what they learned, it would have went the route of JJ and judo before BJJ burst on the seen.

Judo and JJ are not taught the same today as they were before BJJ put grappling arts back on the map.

But back to what I was saying..

just like in BJJ you learn to string a series of techniques together to get a submission or set up one. That is what you are supposed to do in kung fu, except it's not designed to restrain, but be a quick break or strike etc.. One technique in kung fu has many different uses, but people usually only practice the one or two they are shown. This is why you are suppose to dissect forms and techniques to make it work for you. Kung fu is not like BJJ where every technique can almost be applied by anyone. Kung fu was based off size, speed, strength etc.. This is why it is important to pick a style or system that fits you..not to try and fit yourself to the style. Again kung fu is so misunderstood. You don't have to use the techniques the exact way they are displayed in the forms...you have to find what works for you.

I didn't really explain this like I could have, but I really don't want to writet a novel either.


jeff

[pstevens]

Kung fu is meant to be taught the same exact way. The problem is too many people have taken the easy way out and the actual practice of application have fallen to the waste side. This is not a new trend or passing faze this has gone on for centuries. BJJ was just a method of keeping JJ alive and evolving. There has always been grappling....

I partly agree with you here. Kung-fu is a complex system that takes much time and commitment, just like BJJ. However, in kung-fu form and application are two different things. Whereas in BJJ they are the same.

Let me explain.

In kung-fu, karate and other traditional MA’s, you’re taught basic stances and reverse punch-type attacks. However, during sparring (if it exists) you’re told NOT to use these same stances and punches. Therefore, you’re faced with the dilemma of learning to punch and kick correctly on your own.

In the event that you are taught how to punch and kick correctly, it confuses the student because so much emphasis is placed on the traditional techniques without proper correlation. So why not focus on the techniques that DO correspond to combat applications?

In contrast, a style like BJJ teaches the form AS the application. YES, BJJ DOES use forms, just not in the same way. A form in BJJ might be a drill involving; scissors sweep to armbar to omoplata, etc… However, the difference is that these ARE the moves the student will use. They aren’t separate from “other” moves the students must figure out. What’s left for the student to figure out is the timing, adjustment of their own body-type, and sensitivity.

grappling is the oldest martial art there is. The problem is times evolved and it was not wise to grapple on the battle field or in a fight.

I agree with you here. In a street fight, I wouldn’t want to go to the ground. However, many people are just as confused about BJJ and grappling arts as they are with kung-fu.

BJJ has 3 facets: sport, vale tudo (sport fighting) and self-defense. Most people are exposed to the sport and vale tudo aspects and never the self-defense. In sport BJJ, a lot of techniques would get you killed in a street fight and in the ring. In vale tudo, some techniques transfer well into street fighting, but some strategies would also get you killed.

In BJJ self-defense, you’re taught specific strategies for behaviors exhibited by the attacker. There are many finishing moves from the standing position; contrary to popular belief. But of course, there are also techniques that are suspect to criticism.

But the REAL point I want to make is that BJJ deals with the ground when you’re there by default; not always because you want to be. Perhaps you were unable to defend a tackle or surprised; regardless, you’ve been taken to the ground. NOW, at least you have some familiarity and can work your BJJ.

Also, strikers had developed techniques just like BJJ has now that made grappling less effective. If the Gracie's had not continued to compete with what they learned, it would have went the route of JJ and judo before BJJ burst on the seen.

Yes, strikers learned how to sprawl and defend the takedown. Also, they did what BJJ did; they learned the other system to understand how to counter it. Hence, today in MMA, everyone knows everything to varying degrees.

This is why I agree with Bruce Lee and not the Gracies. For a group claiming to be innovators of MMA, the Gracies are now clinging to their traditional methods of training that have little relevance in their own arena - MMA.

Bruce, on the other hand, believed that martial arts are constantly evolving; a “living” art that expresses the times and the individuals of those times. Many people misunderstand this. They think the man just wanted attention; but “no” he believed in keeping martial arts alive and that meant evolving.

Kung-fu people, for the most part, have rejected Bruce’s ideas and that’s why they’re stagnant and endanger of losing credibility.

I’ll end with this idea. But I appreciate the discussion. Thank you.

[TigerClaw]

In kung-fu, karate and other traditional MA’s, you’re taught basic stances and reverse punch-type attacks. However, during sparring (if it exists) you’re told NOT to use these same stances and punches. Therefore, you’re faced with the dilemma of learning to punch and kick correctly on your own.

In the event that you are taught how to punch and kick correctly, it confuses the student because so much emphasis is placed on the traditional techniques without proper correlation. So why not focus on the techniques that DO correspond to combat applications?

Who says you should not spar or fight with the stances and techniques you use in forms. I teach my students to fight in stances and with form and to us and mix up the many techniques from the forms. There is an endless combination.

[jmd161]

I partly agree with you here. Kung-fu is a complex system that takes much time and commitment, just like BJJ. However, in kung-fu form and application are two different things. Whereas in BJJ they are the same.

That's the problem I'm trying to point out...The two were never meant to be separate. Yes, form is a guide to show you techniques and flow and structure, but it's also meant to be worked and dissected. Forms were meant to be evolving, that's why you have styles like Hung Fut that took the best techniques of Hung Gar and fused it together with the best techniques of Fut Gar. The style I train was developed from 17 different styles. My sigung (my teachers teacher) as well as my sifu (my Teacher) both changed and added techniques within the system, so it is far from the same black tiger that was created over 400 yrs ago. The problem is most people don't do this, they think they are preserving the art by refusing to evolve, when in fact, they are making it stagnant.

Let me explain.

In kung-fu, karate and other traditional MA’s, you’re taught basic stances and reverse punch-type attacks. However, during sparring (if it exists) you’re told NOT to use these same stances and punches. Therefore, you’re faced with the dilemma of learning to punch and kick correctly on your own.

In the event that you are taught how to punch and kick correctly, it confuses the student because so much emphasis is placed on the traditional techniques without proper correlation. So why not focus on the techniques that DO correspond to combat applications?

In contrast, a style like BJJ teaches the form AS the application. YES, BJJ DOES use forms, just not in the same way. A form in BJJ might be a drill involving; scissors sweep to armbar to omoplata, etc… However, the difference is that these ARE the moves the student will use. They aren’t separate from “other” moves the students must figure out. What’s left for the student to figure out is the timing, adjustment of their own body-type, and sensitivity.

Therefore lies another problem with the understanding of how kung fu works. Everything we learn is from a fighting point of view. There are no wasted flowery techniques in what we do...even with our drunken and monkey style techniques. We are taught how to fight with every stance within the system, as I said, stances are transitional moves. I would never stand and fight in a deep horse or cat stance. But, if I wanted to trip you (cat stance) and drive you into the ground shift to (arrow stance) and hold you down (knee stance sorry forgot the proper name) I just used my stance to do it.

I agree with you that many styles teach a student how to do techniques that they will never learn how, why or when to use them. This is a lack of the teachers knowledge of the very system he teaches, not the style itself.

I agree with you here. In a street fight, I wouldn’t want to go to the ground. However, many people are just as confused about BJJ and grappling arts as they are with kung-fu.

BJJ has 3 facets: sport, vale tudo (sport fighting) and self-defense. Most people are exposed to the sport and vale tudo aspects and never the self-defense. In sport BJJ, a lot of techniques would get you killed in a street fight and in the ring. In vale tudo, some techniques transfer well into street fighting, but some strategies would also get you killed.

In BJJ self-defense, you’re taught specific strategies for behaviors exhibited by the attacker. There are many finishing moves from the standing position; contrary to popular belief. But of course, there are also techniques that are suspect to criticism.

But the REAL point I want to make is that BJJ deals with the ground when you’re there by default; not always because you want to be. Perhaps you were unable to defend a tackle or surprised; regardless, you’ve been taken to the ground. NOW, at least you have some familiarity and can work your BJJ.

I know and understand a lot about BJJ, so i know what you're pointing to. I'm trying to convey that the same way BJJ is taught, is how kung fu used to be taught. Many people have taken to the sport side of kung fu and karate and thus have never learned actual combat kung fu or karate. Over the yrs so much time was spent on changing forms/katas to please a judge off flash and not actual substance. I'm learning from a fighter not a choreographer, so our training is based solely from a self defense point of view. Trust me I won't be winning any forms tournaments with what I'm learning

Yes, strikers learned how to sprawl and defend the takedown. Also, they did what BJJ did; they learned the other system to understand how to counter it. Hence, today in MMA, everyone knows everything to varying degrees.

This is why I agree with Bruce Lee and not the Gracies. For a group claiming to be innovators of MMA, the Gracies are now clinging to their traditional methods of training that have little relevance in their own arena - MMA.

Bruce, on the other hand, believed that martial arts are constantly evolving; a “living” art that expresses the times and the individuals of those times. Many people misunderstand this. They think the man just wanted attention; but “no” he believed in keeping martial arts alive and that meant evolving.

Kung-fu people, for the most part, have rejected Bruce’s ideas and that’s why they’re stagnant and endanger of losing credibility.

I’ll end with this idea. But I appreciate the discussion. Thank you.

It's not that people in the real CMA world rejected or refused Bruce Lee. Many so called purest wanted to keep that under their hat and many Chinese hated that he was not traditional. Chinese wanted to keep CMA theirs, they did not want their kind teaching their secrets to bigger stronger Americans. Hardcore Chinese did not like Bruce because he was not really that good at kung fu, and they felt he would make them look foolish. My sifu knew Bruce personally and he admits that Bruce was talented, but his kung fu was weak. Like many he never really committed to it. He wanted to be the best, but wanted to take shortcuts to get there. Bruce Lee actually only had like 3 months to a yr of Wing Chun training, so his understanding was very basic, but he was very talented and fast.


jeff

[CrushingFist]

Being in NYC, most schools make a living from students and they're just commercial schools taking them to tournaments.

And they're all so expensive here, its like hey thats why im not training too costy.

[JadeDragon]

Pstevens.......I have to disagree with you on something you said. You stated that a lot of kung fu has not been combat tested. That's just not true. In the past Kung fu schools (in china) would issue challenges all the time to each other to see whose kung fu was better so that they may bost that they have the best kung fu in order to attract more students. Granted, challenges like this don't happen as much today as they did back say 100 years ago but kung fu has beeen tested in combat.

[jubaji]

Granted, challenges like this don't happen as much today as they did back say 100 years ago but kung fu has beeen tested in combat.

Spent a lot of time in China 100 years ago, did ya?

[jmd161]

Being in NYC, most schools make a living from students and they're just commercial schools taking them to tournaments.

This is the goal of 80% of the schools teaching CMA today. Unfortunately, I hate to admit if you're planning to make a living off teaching CMA, you almost have to be this way. If my teacher was teaching publicly with his own school and relied on it to survive...he'd probably be broke and have the same handful of us he has now.


jeff

[JadeDragon]

Spent a lot of time in China 100 years ago, did ya?

No, have you?

Did you spend a lot of time in 1492 when Columbus sailed to the new world? No you didn't but you know he did because of written and oral documentation. Same goes true for challenges that took place in China you dimwit. Get a life and stop trying to be argumenative.

[jubaji]

No, have you?

No, so I'm not going to make categorical statements about something as specific (and undocumented) as which school challenged which. There is a lot of exagerration in stories of Chinese history.

[jmd161]

There is a lot of exaggeration in stories of Chinese history.

Sadly this is very very true!


jeff

[Hermit]

Anything works in real fighting, even salt and peppar. Would it not be kungfu if i used salt and peppar in a real fight?