Prejudice Against Kung Fu
Brian Walsh
Kung Fu. I study Wing Chun and Yang style Tai Chi and I can't find a reason
for this. Both are very complete, powerful styles that, if trained properly
are ideal for combat and health. I find that a lot of people confuse Kung Fu
with Wushu. Wushu is based on Kung Fu, but without combat training. It's
just a flashy kind of gymnastics. I would imaging martial artists, trained
to have open minds, would accept Kung Fu as a valid form of combat but this
isn't the case. Why is this? Are there any Kung Fu practitioners here who
have experienced this? And for the non-Kung Fu artists, how do you feel
about it? Why?
BillMahoney68
We have something against it because kuung fu hasnt done much in competeting
with other styles in MMA or even kickboxing.
Ok, now sometimes kickboxers compete in san shuo and call themselves san shuo
guys, but usually they just cal;l themselves kickboxers.
When i thumb through a kung fu book i see that the writer had no grasp of real
fighting, every time.
Gi
Guitarfish
much. Go up against a BJJ guy and see what happens.
That said, I have been training traditional kung fu for quite a while. It is
a great workout, and great fun. There are definitely some applications, but
many require significant alterations from the forms.
Keep at it if your happy, but be aware of the limitations. Get supplemental
training if you decide you want it (I do).
Guitarfish
"Brian Walsh" <twist...@nospamdammitsprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8xCb.1530$Pg1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Spidey
I'm not sure if you're referring to "a lot of martial artists" of this
newsgroup, or just in general. If you're talking about everyone here, don't
feel like you're being singled out. Kung Fu is lumped in with Karate, Tae
Kwon Do, Krav Maga, and a few other styles. The prevailing thought on this
newsgroup is that these martial arts have failed to prove their worth in a
competitive sense; that what most people practicing these styles are doing
is simply a waste of time, because "it doesn't work in a fight" unless under
highly controlled circumstances, or confined by a ton of rules. It's NOT
that people here have mistaken Kung Fu for contemporary Wushu. It's that
Kung Fu practitioners aren't willing to prove their training (however proper
they may think it is for "combat") against another martial artist in an
environment that would allow any technique to be used (kicks, punches,
grappling, etc.) And, on the rare occasion that a KF practitioner /does/
step up in such an arena, they always - ALWAYS - are destroyed. The reason?
Their training isn't preparing them properly.
I would encourage you to listen to what some of the Mixed Marital Artists
(MMA) have to say, if they are even willing to comment. They might not,
because this sort of topic has been beaten to death over the past few years.
It's not that they are close-minded to Kung Fu; they just don't see the
validity in it. It hasn't proven itself an effective fighting art in any
open arena to date. Think of it this way: every time you're practicing Bil
Gee, your counterpart in MMA is fighting. Every time you're off doing the
Yang Short Form, your counterpart in MMA is fighting. You're doing Chi Sao?
They're fighting. You're building up your chi? They're fighting. You're
taking a break? THEY'RE FIGHTING. They get better at fighting every day,
because that's all they do. You get better ever day at...forms?
So don't feel bad. Here's my take on the whole martial arts thing: every
style of martial arts has been born out of another style of martial art.
Someone learns a little bit of this, adapts it to their body type, adds a
dash more from another style, yaddayaddayadda - BAM - new style emerges.
This has been going on for hundreds of years. Along comes MMA, and it's
like, "OOOOooooh. Grappling -and- striking? Who would've thought it
possible?" But this shakes up the paradigm, at least in this country. The
shift occurs in a peculiar way: those that want to focus on developing
fighting skills gravitate toward this new 'style'. And people that want to
practice martial arts join, well, kung fu schools. :) My feeling is that
people want to study martial arts; they just don't want to get hit. They
don't want to have their face slammed on the floor. They don't really want
to fight. And since these days you can make serious money in the martial
arts by pandering to a variety of clients, the goal doesn't have to be about
producing fighters, just about making the client fell good about themselves.
All you've got to do is find a martial art that you can downplay the
physical activity of fighting, and you've got a cash cow on your hands!
Hey? What's this? You say this thing kalled 'Kung Fu' has lots of things
called 'forms'? And Karate's got kata? And Tae Kwon Do has Poomse? And no
one ever has to touch another person to do these things? CHA-CHING!!! So
the majority of the people in the martial arts industry really aren't there
to learn how to fight, they're there because it's "cooler" than going to the
local fitness gym.
To give you an actual example, every fall semester I start with about 80-90
students. By the end of the semester, I have...six? Sure, a lot of those
80-90 are just curious. They just want to see what it's all about, and they
drop out early on. And I lose a bunch because the workouts are much harder
than they thought they would be. But I tend to lose the majority of the
newbies after the first couple sparring classes. It's just not what they
want. We're not beating them up or anything, but they've honestly never had
a single punch thrown at their face before, and I don't blame them for
dropping out. Fighting is not for everyone.
Anyway, in the time it took me to get this all down, it would appear that
Bill Mahoney has already replied to your email. (Damn you, Bill, with your
fast ninja-typing skills!) I'm sure he's said all this much more
succinctly, so I'll shut up now. =)
- Spidey
"Brian Walsh" <twist...@nospamdammitsprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:b8xCb.1530$Pg1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I've noticed that a lot of martial artists seem to have a prejudice
Grappler240
damn fine post spidey.
-grap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
"You can carve it on a bowling pin and cram it,for all I care."
-Gichoke, Jan. 21, 2002
678
> [snip]
> So don't feel bad. Here's my take on the whole martial arts thing: every
> style of martial arts has been born out of another style of martial art.
> Someone learns a little bit of this, adapts it to their body type, adds a
> dash more from another style, yaddayaddayadda - BAM - new style emerges.
> This has been going on for hundreds of years. Along comes MMA, and it's
> like, "OOOOooooh. Grappling -and- striking? Who would've thought it
> possible?"
Many. Chinese Shui-Chiau practitioners traditionally also practise one
of the northern long-fist styles. The late Taiwan Shui-chiau master
'Iron Buttery" Chiang Tung-Sing did tai chi as well and applied his
grappling to his tai chi. Not to mention jujitsu, which is the root of
judo and thus bjj, also strike and grapple. Then everytime we see two
average Joes or kids fighting each other, they always strike and
grapple. May not look good and without any techniques to brag about, but
that's what they're doing. Just how people -- and other animals for that
matter -- fight, trained or not.
Ken Vale
>I've noticed that a lot of martial artists seem to have a prejudice against
>Kung Fu. I study Wing Chun and Yang style Tai Chi and I can't find a reason
>for this. Both are very complete, powerful styles that, if trained properly
>are ideal for combat and health. I find that a lot of people confuse Kung Fu
>with Wushu. Wushu is based on Kung Fu, but without combat training. It's
>just a flashy kind of gymnastics. I would imaging martial artists, trained
>to have open minds, would accept Kung Fu as a valid form of combat but this
>isn't the case. Why is this?
>
When you get right down to it a Martial Art is fighting, refined and
effective fighting, as refined and effective as someone who has been in
300 street fights with no formal training, the idea is just to skip all
of the pain from those 300 fights. But if you don't fight on a regular
basis your training loses its edge, sparring is not real fighting, there
are rules, you don't hit your opponent like you would in a real fight,
you can't hit certain parts of the body (some people in my class leave
their back open, why beause you can't hit there, so they launch these
fancy attacks that leave them totally open or worse yet they turn into
the attack so that it hits them on the back. Why? Because it is worth no
points and we aren't hitting hard enough to cause real damage, stupid).
>Are there any Kung Fu practitioners here who have experienced this?
>
Yes I have, I practice Southern Five Animal Kung Fu (though I'm
having a bit of a crisis of faith/fighting right now). Once I got over
the bias that you have noticed (which might have been easier for me as I
got thumped by a kickboxer) and actually looked at what they had to say,
I realised that there were somethings that I really needed to look at in
the way I fight (like grappling), and how I train (I have to start
fighting the kickboxers more).
> And for the non-Kung Fu artists, how do you feel about it? Why?
>
I can sort of answer this one too (a bit of TKD and Kickboxing so I
guess I count). There are many Martial Arts that some people here don't
think to highly of (Karate and TKD are the two most common), take a look
around and see which other ones are not thought to highly of (and look
up "McDojo" in the FAQ and see what it says).
Ken
Spidey
news:X%ACb.689762$9l5.402291@pd7tw2no...
> Spidey wrote:
> > [snip]
> > So don't feel bad. Here's my take on the whole martial arts thing:
every
> > style of martial arts has been born out of another style of martial art.
> > Someone learns a little bit of this, adapts it to their body type, adds
a
> > dash more from another style, yaddayaddayadda - BAM - new style emerges.
> > This has been going on for hundreds of years. Along comes MMA, and it's
> > like, "OOOOooooh. Grappling -and- striking? Who would've thought it
> > possible?"
> > [snip]
>
> Many. Chinese Shui-Chiau practitioners traditionally also practice one
> of the northern long-fist styles. The late Taiwan Shui-chiau master
> 'Iron Buttery" Chiang Tung-Sing did tai chi as well and applied his
> grappling to his tai chi. Not to mention jujitsu, which is the root of
> judo and thus bjj, also strike and grapple.
>
678,
I guess that was kinda my point. MMA came about in large part because a
whole mess of styles met at a tournament, in which one group of fighters -
grapplers - were consistently beating the others. For many people in the US
martial arts community, this came as a revelation. Many strikers actually
saw the value of grappling techniques for the very first time. Sure, maybe
in other parts of the world, this came as no surprise. But HERE, it spawned
a completely new way of looking at the martial arts. The walls came
tumbling down, so to speak.
Grapplers have always known how effective their style is, or, better yet,
how effective their individual techniques are, because they're constantly
improving themselves in a 'randori' environment. Many schools in the US
that are purely standup strikers have other things that they can substitute
for learning to fight, and so the primary skill is often replaced by these
less important aspects of the martial arts. The cart has been firmly
entrenched in front of the horse.
> Then every time we see two
> average Joes or kids fighting each other, they always strike and
> grapple. May not look good and without any techniques to brag about, but
> that's what they're doing. Just how people -- and other animals for that
> matter -- fight, trained or not.
>
I have a problem with this. You are describing natural fighting, something
that anyone has the capacity to do. I do not believe that martial arts
falls into this category. Martial arts are a skill, and therefore require
hard work to attain. A martial artist has the ability to either (1) allow
no harm to come to himself or his opponent during a fight, or (2) exact any
amount of damage he/she chooses on his/her assailant. The martial artist is
in control of himself during a fight at any range. But I see what you're
saying. Maybe some martial artists should watch a couple of average Joes
duke it out every once in a while, eh? Maybe it would teach them something?
;) Thanks for the reply.
- Spidey
George Stewart
wrote:
>Brian,
>
>
>
>I'm not sure if you're referring to "a lot of martial artists" of this
>newsgroup, or just in general. If you're talking about everyone here, don't
>feel like you're being singled out. Kung Fu is lumped in with Karate, Tae
>Kwon Do, Krav Maga, and a few other styles. The prevailing thought on this
>newsgroup is that these martial arts have failed to prove their worth in a
>competitive sense; that what most people practicing these styles are doing
>is simply a waste of time, because "it doesn't work in a fight" unless under
>highly controlled circumstances, or confined by a ton of rules. It's NOT
>that people here have mistaken Kung Fu for contemporary Wushu. It's that
>Kung Fu practitioners aren't willing to prove their training (however proper
>they may think it is for "combat") against another martial artist in an
>environment that would allow any technique to be used (kicks, punches,
>grappling, etc.) And, on the rare occasion that a KF practitioner /does/
>step up in such an arena, they always - ALWAYS - are destroyed. The reason?
>Their training isn't preparing them properly.
>
>
[snipped great post]
OK, but you can also question the training itself (i.e. as being
representative of what kung fu really is).
To me it seems obvious that if you want to look for the best of a
certain culture's martial arts, you have to look at the best
practitioners from that culture for the standard.
But there's a problem here: Kung fu is a Chinese art, but until fairly
recently China has been a society that was somewhat closed and insular
(of which Taiwan and HK cannot possibly be fully representative).
(China nearly opened up at the beginning of the 20th century but
Communism shut it down again to its pre-20th inward-looking mode.)
So how can we tell whether what we've seen so far calling itself "kung
fu" really has been kung fu?
- George Stewart
********************************************************
"Certainly, the workers might envy the capitalists; but such emotions simply could not supply the gigantic impetus required to overthrow a structure as massive as the capitalist system. Before the workers of a capitalist society could unite, they had to feel that they had literally nothing to lose - nothing to lose but their proverbial chains. For if they had homes and cars and boats and rvs to lose as well, then it became quite another matter." - Lee Harris
Boris Mason
news:3fdab75c$0$14954$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
My feeling is that
> people want to study martial arts; they just don't want to get hit. They
> don't want to have their face slammed on the floor. They don't really
want
> to fight. And since these days you can make serious money in the martial
> arts by pandering to a variety of clients, the goal doesn't have to be
about
> producing fighters, just about making the client fell good about
themselves.
The only way you can learn how to fight is by pickin' fights frequently in
places like bars, on the street and so on... all the rest can be referred to
as martial arts or sports or a system or mma or whaterver you like.
The difference between the different martial arts or styles is the
curriculum that they teach and the way they teach it. Depending on the
emphasize on striking, grappling, internal, external, sparring or no
sparring, people will refer to those style as being realistic or not
realistic. As soon as there are rules, no matter how few, and fixed
circumstances it's not fighting anymore, it's a sporting-event.
Lot's of people studying internal martial arts don't do this to "look good",
nor are they training to kick ass in a sporting event. They will have their
individual reasons and maybe when they ever get in a fight their training
will change the odds in their favour. This kinda training has a value on
it's own.
It's all sports 'till it hits the street, then it becomes chaos.
Boris
Dougie®
>I've noticed that a lot of martial artists seem to have a prejudice against
>Kung Fu. I study Wing Chun and Yang style Tai Chi and I can't find a reason
>for this.
This was all I heard.
>for the non-Kung Fu artists, how do you feel about it? Why?
Can I get back to you on it?
jd_philosopher
many of the more advanced kung fu systems use both grappling and
striking. combined with throws, pressure points, weapons training,
qigong etc. that is what makes them a system rather than just a style
eg an integrated system of several different styles. Naturally they
take much longer to learn ie it can take a lifetime just to master one
style, but to me that is the essence of martial arts - the constant
striving to develop yourself mentally, physically and spiritually.
ordosclan
> I've noticed that a lot of martial artists seem to have a prejudice against
> Kung Fu. I study Wing Chun and Yang style Tai Chi and I can't find a reason
> for this. Both are very complete, powerful styles that, if trained properly
> are ideal for combat and health. I find that a lot of people confuse Kung Fu
> with Wushu. Wushu is based on Kung Fu, but without combat training. It's
Part of the reason is the attitude from KF stylists that: "Other
martial artists are too stupid confuse wushu with real fighting" and
then the "Look at how we train in taichi and wing chun.... impressive
isnt it?"
All the while they are wondering why you think wing chun and tai chi
is a powerful style. What are the health benefits of wing chun?
Taichi isnt qigong.
Are you an athelete?
> just a flashy kind of gymnastics. I would imaging martial artists, trained
Have you seen much wushu? Sure its superfulous. Nothing "regular"
kung fu isnt guilty of. Wushu evolves. Anyone can kick and land on
the opposite leg. There is even wushu chin-na. Does that make the
applications and reversals less relevant IF YOU KNOW THEM?
There is such thing as style, talent and artistic expression. We have
other words such as creativity and personality. You call nanquan
gymnastics?
> to have open minds, would accept Kung Fu as a valid form of combat but this
> isn't the case. Why is this? Are there any Kung Fu practitioners here who
> have experienced this? And for the non-Kung Fu artists, how do you feel
> about it? Why?
They are inspired by NHB. But a lot probably crossed over when they
realised tehy cant fight longer than 3 minutes without sucking wind
like a pig. That no one takes them seriously, and that women arent
impressed by guys that do martial arts. You see the first few
episodes of Cupid? Guess who didnt make the cut?
LEWZERS....
ordosclan
> When i thumb through a kung fu book i see that the writer had no grasp of real
> fighting, every time.
> Gi
Fighting is the last thing to consider when reading a martial arts
book. These are people with no real social or scholastic skills who
are too busy "embracing the void" to answer questions, enter into a
real dialogue or do real research. Even funnyer is the books on Zen.
They take so many words to say the same thing: Nothing. They are the
embodyment of the fear and trepidation someone feels in an attempt to
survive in an incresingly confusing world.
Which is what this book was made for. To make a quick $ and attract
students. Something you have to do with high dropout rates.
ordosclan
> Many. Chinese Shui-Chiau practitioners traditionally also practise one
> of the northern long-fist styles. The late Taiwan Shui-chiau master
Examples?
> 'Iron Buttery" Chiang Tung-Sing did tai chi as well and applied his
> grappling to his tai chi. Not to mention jujitsu, which is the root of
But his taichi was not well looked upon by normal taichi guys... bad
examples here.
> judo and thus bjj, also strike and grapple. Then everytime we see two
Yeah they break boards and do 2 step wrist lock sparring.
> average Joes or kids fighting each other, they always strike and
> grapple. May not look good and without any techniques to brag about, but
Do they look like children fighting?
> that's what they're doing. Just how people -- and other animals for that
> matter -- fight, trained or not.
What does that have to do with pugnatious combat or "spirtuality"?
There are doctrines which express the need to use "executive
functions" to override basal instincts. Fighting or thinking like an
animal makes you one.
Spidey
"BillMahoney68" <billma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031213003634...@mb-m07.aol.com...
>
> When i thumb through a kung fu book i see that the writer had no grasp of
real
> fighting, every time.
> Gi
>
Me too. Has anyone found ANY book with even just a page or two of good
stuff in it? Or, if that's too much to ask, how about a web site with an
decent understanding of fighting methodologies and/or concepts. Hell, I'd
even settle for just good training tips at this point! Thanks in advance.
- Spidey
QuaiJohnCain
"Guitarfish" <n...@here.com> wrote in message news:<xSxCb.3099$JD6.1821@lakeread04>...
> You say they are complete, what do they show you about grappling? Prob not
> much. Go up against a BJJ guy and see what happens.
I'm guessing you haven't seen much grappling within kung-fu. It's
there in some circles, usually called chin-na. Groundfighting is what
is usually missing in KF styles, but again, there ARE some KF circles
that have had it (gasp!) before the BJJ/MMA explosion.
>
> That said, I have been training traditional kung fu for quite a while. It is
> a great workout, and great fun. There are definitely some applications, but
> many require significant alterations from the forms.
Gotta say somethin about forms and apps- when you apply a "move" in
reality it will never look iedendical to the piece in the form. Any
particular given "movement" in a form can usually be applied as a
strike, grappling technique, or throw. But applying movement "a" as a
strike may look VERY different from when it's applied as a throw. And
it's this factor that confuses most people. People get hung up on
things and thier minds shrink as a result. It can be said that forms
also contain non martial application for everyday life stuff, one
example of this would be that Bagua's serving tea exercise can be used
to put on your jacket!
QuaiJohnCain
"Spidey" <bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3fdab75c$0$14954$61fe...@news.rcn.com>...
> Brian,
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if you're referring to "a lot of martial artists" of this
> newsgroup, or just in general. If you're talking about everyone here, don't
> feel like you're being singled out. Kung Fu is lumped in with Karate, Tae
> Kwon Do, Krav Maga, and a few other styles. The prevailing thought on this
> newsgroup is that these martial arts have failed to prove their worth in a
> competitive sense; that what most people practicing these styles are doing
> is simply a waste of time, because "it doesn't work in a fight" unless under
> highly controlled circumstances, or confined by a ton of rules. It's NOT
> that people here have mistaken Kung Fu for contemporary Wushu. It's that
> Kung Fu practitioners aren't willing to prove their training (however proper
> they may think it is for "combat") against another martial artist in an
> environment that would allow any technique to be used (kicks, punches,
> grappling, etc.) And, on the rare occasion that a KF practitioner /does/
> step up in such an arena, they always - ALWAYS - are destroyed. The reason?
> Their training isn't preparing them properly.
>
OH, DING DING DING! A thousand gold stars to Spidey!!!! It's OK to
generalize here, as 95% of TMA training out there is TOTAL CRAP. BTW,
I'm a TMA guy!
> I would encourage you to listen to what some of the Mixed Marital Artists
> (MMA) have to say, if they are even willing to comment. They might not,
> because this sort of topic has been beaten to death over the past few years.
> It's not that they are close-minded to Kung Fu; they just don't see the
> validity in it. It hasn't proven itself an effective fighting art in any
> open arena to date. Think of it this way: every time you're practicing Bil
> Gee, your counterpart in MMA is fighting. Every time you're off doing the
> Yang Short Form, your counterpart in MMA is fighting. You're doing Chi Sao?
> They're fighting. You're building up your chi? They're fighting. You're
> taking a break? THEY'RE FIGHTING. They get better at fighting every day,
> because that's all they do. You get better ever day at...forms?
OH, how the nail's head must be in pain!!!
> So don't feel bad. Here's my take on the whole martial arts thing: every
> style of martial arts has been born out of another style of martial art.
> Someone learns a little bit of this, adapts it to their body type, adds a
> dash more from another style, yaddayaddayadda - BAM - new style emerges.
> This has been going on for hundreds of years. Along comes MMA, and it's
> like, "OOOOooooh. Grappling -and- striking? Who would've thought it
> possible?" But this shakes up the paradigm, at least in this country. The
> shift occurs in a peculiar way: those that want to focus on developing
> fighting skills gravitate toward this new 'style'. And people that want to
> practice martial arts join, well, kung fu schools. :)
Again, so true. What bugs me about those who see MMA as a new "style"
is that they fail to see that it's the training methods that are
different, not so much the "styles". What REALLY bugs me is that
people assume that the FIGHTER's way of training is ONLY found in
MMA/BJJ, that TMA/KF never had it. Folks, there were KF schools that
have serious FIGHTING training LONG BEFORE the current MMA boom, and
I'm constantly amazed that these same types assume that since THEY
never saw TMA with grappling and good FIGHT training before, that it
never existed before.
> My feeling is that
> people want to study martial arts; they just don't want to get hit. They
> don't want to have their face slammed on the floor. They don't really want
> to fight. And since these days you can make serious money in the martial
> arts by pandering to a variety of clients, the goal doesn't have to be about
> producing fighters, just about making the client fell good about themselves.
> All you've got to do is find a martial art that you can downplay the
> physical activity of fighting, and you've got a cash cow on your hands!
> Hey? What's this? You say this thing kalled 'Kung Fu' has lots of things
> called 'forms'? And Karate's got kata? And Tae Kwon Do has Poomse? And no
> one ever has to touch another person to do these things? CHA-CHING!!! So
> the majority of the people in the martial arts industry really aren't there
> to learn how to fight, they're there because it's "cooler" than going to the
> local fitness gym.
>
Indeed this is the problem with 95% OF TMA schools.
678
> 678 <neve...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<X%ACb.689762$9l5.402291@pd7tw2no>...
>
>
>
> What does that have to do with pugnatious combat or "spirtuality"?
> There are doctrines which express the need to use "executive
> functions" to override basal instincts. Fighting or thinking like an
> animal makes you one.
>
You speak with big, long words, but you seem to see through a tunnel.
Charles.
Spidey
news:8l8mtv8ve1n1nm9j2...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:53:03 -0500, "Spidey" <bu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >And, on the rare occasion that a KF practitioner /does/
> >step up in such an arena, they always - ALWAYS - are destroyed. The
reason?
> >Their training isn't preparing them properly.
> >
> >
> [snipped great post]
>
> OK, but you can also question the training itself (i.e. as being
> representative of what kung fu really is).
>
KF schools is crap to begin with. In the first place, a large portion of KF
schools buy into the notion that learning forms is important. I know that
many students believe (or have been told) that by learning a form, they're
learning to use the techniques of their system. Or even worse, they're
learning to fight! This is utter nonsense. What has become all too clear
is that the KF practitioners' techniques that they learn from the forms do
not appear in *either* sparring *or* self-defense situations. Worse still,
even the most basic foundational material is absent. So when I watch KF
guys fight, it's more like watching natural fighting; no technique, no
content - NO ABILITY. And so those long hours of forms training amount to
nothing in the end. You could argue that there are other side benefits to
all their training, but I think it's just a monumental waste of time.
> To me it seems obvious that if you want to look for the best of a
> certain culture's martial arts, you have to look at the best
> practitioners from that culture for the standard.
>
> But there's a problem here: Kung fu is a Chinese art, but until fairly
> recently China has been a society that was somewhat closed and insular
> (of which Taiwan and HK cannot possibly be fully representative).
> (China nearly opened up at the beginning of the 20th century but
> Communism shut it down again to its pre-20th inward-looking mode.)
>
> So how can we tell whether what we've seen so far calling itself "kung
> fu" really has been kung fu?
>
Ok, here's the thing about that. Traditional Chinese Martial Arts (TCMA)
has been in the US since the mid-19th century. It wasn't available to
Westerners until much later, but the point here is that Chinese martial
artists were leaving China well before the Communists took over, and so the
argument can be made that TCMA was flourishing throughout the world, and
that real examples could be found outside of China. The second part is
that, until recently, most 21st TCMA teachers came from either Taiwan or HK
by way of mainland China. The flight from Communism continued the
proliferation of TCMA, while at the same time stifling its growth on the
mainland. (Actually, TCMA continued to grow in China, it just wasn't
publicly practiced outside of state-run organizations and events.) So here
again you have real martial arts leaving the country.
If the evolution of TCMA had stopped at this point (1940s?), then I think we
could have looked to its practitioners for clear examples of what kung fu is
really all about, because it was still a form of fighting embedded with all
its parts. I'm now going to stick my neck waaaaaaay out and say that over
the last thirty years, TCMA became popular in the US, and it is in large
part due to that popularization that we end up with the crap we see today.
Like other martial art styles, TCMA 'sold out'. I'm sure KF training
started out with the best of intentions, because most of the teachers
immigrating to this country brought with them a good chunk of
knowledge/material. But once money was thrown into the equation, it wasn't
long before the whole system became corrupted. Now there's a whole industry
in this country. The irony is that you couldn't /pay/ someone to teach you
TCMA in the past. Now, all you have to do is flash some cash and you're a
black belt/sash.
Another contributing factor is that China is now sponsoring groups to come
to the US to show us what "real" kung fu looks like. Somehow, China has
"real" Shaolin monks again, when the temple was destroyed in 1928, and
remained in ruins until Jet Li came along and starred in a little movie
called, "Shaolin Temple". (Maybe some of you have seen it? ;) Too often,
I've heard a fellow student exclaim, "Oooh! The Shaolin Monks are coming!"
Suddenly, I feel like I should be seeing a circus tent on the outskirts of
town....
I know I'm skipping over a lot of stuff here, so please feel free to fill in
the blanks as you all see fit. The point I'm trying to get to is that it
takes something like mixed martial arts (MMA) to come along and shake up the
status quo for real change to occur within established organizations. And
guess what? You do a little digging into TCMA, and you find all this stuff
that -surprisingly- looks a lot like what MMA guys are doing. Why? Because
MMA took/stole/borrowed the best techniques from existing systems and made
them their own. And guess what? Ain't nothing new there. Praying mantis
kung fu is a style born out of the combination of 18 different martial art
styles. So TCMA's done it, Karate's done it, Tae Kwon Do's done it, Aikido'
s' done it, BJJ's done it, EVERYONE'S DONE IT. The underlying factor to
this beg/borrow/steal function is that the person is trying to make
themselves a better /fighter/. That's -it-. No martial artist sees a
technique and thinks, "Ah, that would be really good for cultivating chi. I
shall add that to my repertoire." No! They say, "Holy shit! Did you see
that kick? He nearly took the other guy's head off! I'm gonna learn how to
do that!"
In the end, we may not have a clear understanding of what "real" kung fu is
supposed to be about because of the loads of crap that have been dumped on
us over these past few decades. But I think it's obvious what it's not
supposed to be about, and sadly, that's the stuff that I see the most. If I
were to use the Chinese term the way it's supposed to be used, I would say
that most MMA guys have good "kung fu", and that most KF practitioners do
not.
- Spidey
Dale
> much. Go up against a BJJ guy and see what happens.
Grappling is a major part of kung fu, at least the kung fu I'm learning,
including how to counter BJJ moves. I think the main problem with kung fu is
inconsistency of instruction.
Jacob Andersen
news:brg4mk$4...@library2.airnews.net...
So you do a lot of ground fighting? Cause that's where most BJJ "moves" take
place.
/Jacob
Grappler240
>stuff in it?
The Master Text
'nuff said.
Grappler240
>including how to counter BJJ moves.
so you regularly spar versus bjj guys and counter their moves?
Guitarfish
certainly can be applied to groundfighting.
i used the term grappling to mean groundfighting. perhaps i should
concentrate on not mixing the two terms.
that said, i agree 100% with your points.
guitarfish
"QuaiJohnCain" <quaijo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7e7400ed.03121...@posting.google.com...
Brian Walsh
When I first started training I had thoughts about competition. When I
became good enough I entered a few tournaments. I was almost always
disqualified during sparring because the moves and techniques I used were
illegal for competition. I became disillusioned with it and will never
compete again. Most Kung Fu practitioners I know feel the same way. Why
compete if we can't use our training?
Brian Walsh
"ordosclan" <ordo...@mail.hongkong.com> wrote in message
news:c2876962.03121...@posting.google.com...
> billma...@aol.com (BillMahoney68) wrote in message
news:<20031213003634...@mb-m07.aol.com>...
>
> > When i thumb through a kung fu book i see that the writer had no grasp
of real
> > fighting, every time.
> > Gi
>
> Fighting is the last thing to consider when reading a martial arts
> book. These are people with no real social or scholastic skills who
> are too busy "embracing the void" to answer questions, enter into a
> real dialogue or do real research. Even funnyer is the books on Zen.
> They take so many words to say the same thing: Nothing. They are the
> embodyment of the fear and trepidation someone feels in an attempt to
> survive in an incresingly confusing world.
>
He's an intelligent man who knows what he's talking about. Most books I've
seen are of the poorest quality, but this includes all martial arts books,
not just Kung Fu.
Brian Walsh
> much. Go up against a BJJ guy and see what happens.
>
punching, kicking, grappling and wrestling. In Tai Chi especially, grappling
is one foremost applications. And I have sparred with BJJ guys. I did well.
Brian Walsh
> the chin na i've seen is mostly stand up stuff, that has concepts that
> certainly can be applied to groundfighting.
>
> i used the term grappling to mean groundfighting. perhaps i should
> concentrate on not mixing the two terms.
>
> that said, i agree 100% with your points.
>
> guitarfish
The only thing I dislike about "pure" ground fighting is it's practical
application. Most fights are in bars and your opponent isn't alone. In such
cases the ground is exactly the last place I want to be. It is an excellent
and respectable sport though.
Jacob Andersen
What types of competitions were these and what moves weren't you allowed to
do?
/Jacob
Craig
I really like the books that Kid Peligro writes with Royler Gracie.
Kid writes many great books but the couple with Royler are really
great. You can find these at amazon.com and search "gracie jiu
jitsu". Actually all of the gracie books are good. The steps that
they show really work. I use these same techniques in my everyday
training and in grappling competition.
-Craig
Joe Ottoson
news:3fdb2b8d$0$14955$61fe...@news.rcn.com:
>
> I guess that was kinda my point. MMA came about in large part because
> a whole mess of styles met at a tournament, in which one group of
> fighters - grapplers - were consistently beating the others. For many
> people in the US martial arts community, this came as a revelation.
> Many strikers actually saw the value of grappling techniques for the
> very first time. Sure, maybe in other parts of the world, this came
> as no surprise. But HERE, it spawned a completely new way of looking
> at the martial arts. The walls came tumbling down, so to speak.
Not really. The door just swung the other way.
Brian Walsh
"Jacob Andersen" <d...@glem.det> wrote in message
news:3fdbcc08$0$95040$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
I've been trained to hit. For example, no throat or back hitting. I was
disqualified once for very lightly hitting a guy in the kidney. He turned
his back to me. I found out later that he turned his back for just that
reason. I observed many people doing this and wondered, "Is this the
instinct they're teaching children? To expose vital areas in a fight? This
is child abuse. They're gonna get killed if they try this in a fight."
As for full contact, no holds barred fights, why would a Kung Fu
practitioner spend his entire life training to perfect his style only to
risk some guy getting a lucky knee shot and ruining all that work? That's
just stupid. You'll never catch a serious Kung Fu artist risking himself for
some small cash prize. But then, I train for health and combat, not for
sport. Please don't assume I don't respect competition sports, I'm just
trying to give you some insight into how I train.
Brian Walsh
research anyone should find someone good.
Brian Walsh
"Grappler240" <grapp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20031213193355...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >Grappling is a major part of kung fu, at least the kung fu I'm learning,
> >including how to counter BJJ moves.
>
> so you regularly spar versus bjj guys and counter their moves?
>
strongly in having his students spar against his friends and their students
so they'll be well rounded. All styles should do this. If you only fight
against the style you know, you'll only be able to fight against the style
you know.
Grappler240
>practitioner spend his entire life training to perfect his style only to
>risk some guy getting a lucky knee shot and ruining all that work?
translation:
we can't fight for shit.....we would never enter a ring and fight someone who
trains for real.
-g
Grappler240
>>
>My teacher had friends and teachers from many styles. He believed very
>strongly in having his students spar against his friends and their students
>so they'll be well rounded. All styles should do this. If you only fight
>against the style you know, you'll only be able to fight against the style
>you know.
you didn't answer my question....do you spar, on a regular basis, very hard,
with bjj guys who know what they're doing??
-grap
Brian Walsh
> Brian,
>
>
>
> I'm not sure if you're referring to "a lot of martial artists" of this
> newsgroup, or just in general. If you're talking about everyone here,
don't
> feel like you're being singled out. Kung Fu is lumped in with Karate, Tae
> Kwon Do, Krav Maga, and a few other styles. The prevailing thought on
this
> newsgroup is that these martial arts have failed to prove their worth in a
> competitive sense; that what most people practicing these styles are doing
> is simply a waste of time, because "it doesn't work in a fight" unless
under
> highly controlled circumstances, or confined by a ton of rules. It's NOT
> that people here have mistaken Kung Fu for contemporary Wushu. It's that
> Kung Fu practitioners aren't willing to prove their training (however
proper
> they may think it is for "combat") against another martial artist in an
> environment that would allow any technique to be used (kicks, punches,
> step up in such an arena, they always - ALWAYS - are destroyed. The
reason?
> Their training isn't preparing them properly.
>
>
>
> (MMA) have to say, if they are even willing to comment. They might not,
> because this sort of topic has been beaten to death over the past few
years.
> It's not that they are close-minded to Kung Fu; they just don't see the
> validity in it. It hasn't proven itself an effective fighting art in any
> open arena to date. Think of it this way: every time you're practicing
Bil
> Gee, your counterpart in MMA is fighting. Every time you're off doing the
> Yang Short Form, your counterpart in MMA is fighting. You're doing Chi
Sao?
> They're fighting. You're building up your chi? They're fighting. You're
> taking a break? THEY'RE FIGHTING. They get better at fighting every day,
> because that's all they do. You get better ever day at...forms?
>
>
>
> style of martial arts has been born out of another style of martial art.
> Someone learns a little bit of this, adapts it to their body type, adds a
> dash more from another style, yaddayaddayadda - BAM - new style emerges.
> This has been going on for hundreds of years. Along comes MMA, and it's
> like, "OOOOooooh. Grappling -and- striking? Who would've thought it
> possible?" But this shakes up the paradigm, at least in this country.
The
> shift occurs in a peculiar way: those that want to focus on developing
> fighting skills gravitate toward this new 'style'. And people that want
to
> people want to study martial arts; they just don't want to get hit. They
> don't want to have their face slammed on the floor. They don't really
want
> to fight. And since these days you can make serious money in the martial
> arts by pandering to a variety of clients, the goal doesn't have to be
about
> producing fighters, just about making the client fell good about
themselves.
> All you've got to do is find a martial art that you can downplay the
> physical activity of fighting, and you've got a cash cow on your hands!
> Hey? What's this? You say this thing kalled 'Kung Fu' has lots of things
> called 'forms'? And Karate's got kata? And Tae Kwon Do has Poomse? And
no
> one ever has to touch another person to do these things? CHA-CHING!!!
So
> the majority of the people in the martial arts industry really aren't
there
> to learn how to fight, they're there because it's "cooler" than going to
the
> local fitness gym.
>
>
>
80-90
> students. By the end of the semester, I have...six? Sure, a lot of those
> 80-90 are just curious. They just want to see what it's all about, and
they
> drop out early on. And I lose a bunch because the workouts are much
harder
> than they thought they would be. But I tend to lose the majority of the
> newbies after the first couple sparring classes. It's just not what they
> want. We're not beating them up or anything, but they've honestly never
had
> a single punch thrown at their face before, and I don't blame them for
> dropping out. Fighting is not for everyone.
>
>
>
> Anyway, in the time it took me to get this all down, it would appear that
> Bill Mahoney has already replied to your email. (Damn you, Bill, with
your
> fast ninja-typing skills!) I'm sure he's said all this much more
> succinctly, so I'll shut up now. =)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Spidey> news:b8xCb.1530$Pg1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > I've noticed that a lot of martial artists seem to have a prejudice
> against
> > Kung Fu. I study Wing Chun and Yang style Tai Chi and I can't find a
> reason
> > for this. Both are very complete, powerful styles that, if trained
> properly
> > are ideal for combat and health. I find that a lot of people confuse
Kung
> Fu
> > with Wushu. Wushu is based on Kung Fu, but without combat training. It's
> > just a flashy kind of gymnastics. I would imaging martial artists,
trained
> > to have open minds, would accept Kung Fu as a valid form of combat but
> this
> > isn't the case. Why is this? Are there any Kung Fu practitioners here
who
> > have experienced this? And for the non-Kung Fu artists, how do you feel
> > about it? Why?
> >
> >
>
striking. However, _every_ style of kung fu has done this from the
beginning. There are a great number of history books that deal with the
origins of martial arts. These detail very specifically how MMA did not
revolutionize anything, rather they returned to the simple common sense that
had been lost in Karate and Tae Kwon Do. I think MMA is the closest thing to
the combat ideals of Kung Fu of any style. My preference for Kung Fu comes
more from the health benefits and Chi Gung than anything else. I remember
the first time I saw my teachers master. He lead us for a weekend seminar.
At 75 he had more stamina and skill than anyone in the room, my Sifu
included. When an old frail looking man shoves people around with ease and
does stances for three times as long as the best student, you just have to
take notice. That's what I want. based on the MMA masters I've seen I've
been led to believe that MMA will not lead me to that conclusion.
Brian Walsh
"George Stewart" <geo...@MAPSONsugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8l8mtv8ve1n1nm9j2...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:53:03 -0500, "Spidey" <bu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> OK, but you can also question the training itself (i.e. as being
> representative of what kung fu really is).
>
> certain culture's martial arts, you have to look at the best
> practitioners from that culture for the standard.
>
> But there's a problem here: Kung fu is a Chinese art, but until fairly
> recently China has been a society that was somewhat closed and insular
> (of which Taiwan and HK cannot possibly be fully representative).
> (China nearly opened up at the beginning of the 20th century but
> Communism shut it down again to its pre-20th inward-looking mode.)
>
> So how can we tell whether what we've seen so far calling itself "kung
> fu" really has been kung fu?
Because of the many masters who escaped the cultural revolution in China
with a new way of thinking. Rather than teach only Chinese or teach
intentionally incorrect styles like they did when they taught Isshin Ru
(sp?) to the Japanese. (Please don't hit me for that, it's a matter of
historical record) They realized that for these art forms to survive they
must be open to every student. This took some time and is still happening,
but faced with the communist China's intention to eradicate martial arts
they (sometimes) realized that for art to survive it must be taught to all
that seek it.
Jacob Andersen
Then how is it relevant to this discussion?
> No grappling or wrestling. No striking areas that
> I've been trained to hit. For example, no throat or back hitting. I was
> disqualified once for very lightly hitting a guy in the kidney. He turned
> his back to me. I found out later that he turned his back for just that
> reason. I observed many people doing this and wondered, "Is this the
> instinct they're teaching children? To expose vital areas in a fight? This
> is child abuse. They're gonna get killed if they try this in a fight."
So Kung Fu has taught you that point sparring is bad. That's good. Has it
also taught you that actual sparring is good?
> As for full contact, no holds barred fights, why would a Kung Fu
> practitioner spend his entire life training to perfect his style only to
> risk some guy getting a lucky knee shot and ruining all that work?
If Kung Fu is as good as some seem to think it is luck shouldn't be a very
large factor. And just how would said knee shot "ruin all the work"?
> That's
> just stupid.
It sure is.
> You'll never catch a serious Kung Fu artist risking himself for
> some small cash prize.
So are you saying that Kung Fu guys don't actually fight? Got it!
> But then, I train for health and combat,
Combat you say? How do you train for combat? By imagining it?
> not for
> sport. Please don't assume I don't respect competition sports, I'm just
> trying to give you some insight into how I train.
You've given me the why. I'd really like the how now.
/Jacob
Jacob Andersen
> >
> >
> MMA guys seem to believe that they were the first to combine grappling and
> striking. However, _every_ style of kung fu has done this from the
> beginning. There are a great number of history books that deal with the
> origins of martial arts. These detail very specifically how MMA did not
> revolutionize anything, rather they returned to the simple common sense
that
> had been lost in Karate and Tae Kwon Do. I think MMA is the closest thing
to
> the combat ideals of Kung Fu of any style.
You may be right. Kung Fu included.
> My preference for Kung Fu comes
> more from the health benefits and Chi Gung than anything else. I remember
> the first time I saw my teachers master. He lead us for a weekend seminar.
> At 75 he had more stamina and skill than anyone in the room, my Sifu
> included. When an old frail looking man shoves people around with ease and
> does stances for three times as long as the best student, you just have to
> take notice. That's what I want. based on the MMA masters I've seen I've
> been led to believe that MMA will not lead me to that conclusion.
Who knows. Helio Gracie is supposedly in pretty good shape.
/Jacob
Brian Walsh
>
> > I've noticed that a lot of martial artists seem to have a prejudice
against
> > Kung Fu. I study Wing Chun and Yang style Tai Chi and I can't find a
reason
> > for this. Both are very complete, powerful styles that, if trained
properly
> > are ideal for combat and health. I find that a lot of people confuse
Kung Fu
> > with Wushu. Wushu is based on Kung Fu, but without combat training. It's
>
> martial artists are too stupid confuse wushu with real fighting" and
> then the "Look at how we train in taichi and wing chun.... impressive
> isnt it?"
I wasn't trying to imply that, I apologize if I did.
>
> All the while they are wondering why you think wing chun and tai chi
> is a powerful style. What are the health benefits of wing chun?
> Taichi isnt qigong.
Of course, it actually is. Every movement timed with precision, coordinated
with breathing. That's the very essence of Chi Gung (Qigong). About Wing
Chun, you're right. It wasn't about health. It was developed (regardless of
the legends) as a fast way of teaching the Chinese to fight. Fast and very
dirty, with the intention of overthrowing the Manchurians. Of course a bunch
of martial artists versus legions of soldiers with guns are always going to
fail, but at least they tried :)
>
> Are you an athelete?
I train and keep in shape but I don't play team sports so by many
definitions, no.
>
> > just a flashy kind of gymnastics. I would imaging martial artists,
trained
>
> Have you seen much wushu? Sure its superfulous. Nothing "regular"
> kung fu isnt guilty of. Wushu evolves. Anyone can kick and land on
> the opposite leg. There is even wushu chin-na. Does that make the
> applications and reversals less relevant IF YOU KNOW THEM?
Of course not, if you know them. During the cultural revolution, Kung Fu
practitioners were hunted down and executed because they posed a
philosophical and combative threat to the new communist Chinese regime.
Wushu was developed by the Chinese as a way of retaining traditional Kung Fu
while stripping it of all combat effectiveness, as to render it no longer a
threat. Regardless of what practitioners and teachers have done with Wushu,
it was developed with only exhibition in mind.
>
> There is such thing as style, talent and artistic expression. We have
> other words such as creativity and personality. You call nanquan
> gymnastics?
>
> > to have open minds, would accept Kung Fu as a valid form of combat but
this
> > isn't the case. Why is this? Are there any Kung Fu practitioners here
who
> > have experienced this? And for the non-Kung Fu artists, how do you feel
> > about it? Why?
>
> They are inspired by NHB. But a lot probably crossed over when they
> realised tehy cant fight longer than 3 minutes without sucking wind
> like a pig. That no one takes them seriously, and that women arent
> impressed by guys that do martial arts. You see the first few
> episodes of Cupid? Guess who didnt make the cut?
Cupid? Never heard of it. And as for people who can't fight for more than
three minutes, well they aren't trying very hard are they? Everyone here
knows you have to train constantly if you want any style to work for you.
>
> LEWZERS....
>
> ordo...@mail.hongkong.com
Brian Walsh
"Grappler240" <grapp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >As for full contact, no holds barred fights, why would a Kung Fu
> >practitioner spend his entire life training to perfect his style only to
> >risk some guy getting a lucky knee shot and ruining all that work?
>
> translation:
>
> we can't fight for shit.....we would never enter a ring and fight someone
who
> trains for real.
>
> -g
No, that's your spin on it, though I can see how some would be led to
believe it.
Brian Walsh
"Jacob Andersen" <d...@glem.det> wrote in message
grappling and wrestling. All aspects end up in sparring. I just don't like
putting myself into a ring. Broken bones when sparring are common enough,
but the people I spar with make sure no permanent injury takes place. A well
placed painful kick to my knee will point out my mistake, there's no need
for permanent injury.
Brian Walsh
"Grappler240" <grapp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >> so you regularly spar versus bjj guys and counter their moves?
> >>
> >My teacher had friends and teachers from many styles. He believed very
> >strongly in having his students spar against his friends and their
students
> >so they'll be well rounded. All styles should do this. If you only fight
> >against the style you know, you'll only be able to fight against the
style
> >you know.
>
>
> you didn't answer my question....do you spar, on a regular basis, very
hard,
> with bjj guys who know what they're doing??
>
> -grap
Yes. My Sifu believes in fighting with all styles possible. Toward that end
he frequently invites other teachers from the community and their students
to our Kwoon and vice versa. Certainly I don't always win, but I don't
always lose either. It's a good experience because it helps prevent
arrogance on all sides. I can absolutely respect what you train because I've
sparred against it and recognize it's strengths. It's a shame you haven't
sparred against serious Kung Fu students or you'd probably realize our worth
as well. I don't seek to minimize your style by any means. I just hope that
you respect other styles for what they are.
Brian Walsh
"Jacob Andersen" <d...@glem.det> wrote in message
> "Brian Walsh" <twist...@nospamdammitsprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8VQCb.3106$0s2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > >
> > MMA guys seem to believe that they were the first to combine grappling
and
> > striking. However, _every_ style of kung fu has done this from the
> > beginning. There are a great number of history books that deal with the
> > origins of martial arts. These detail very specifically how MMA did not
> > revolutionize anything, rather they returned to the simple common sense
> that
> > had been lost in Karate and Tae Kwon Do. I think MMA is the closest
thing
> to
> > the combat ideals of Kung Fu of any style.
>
> You may be right. Kung Fu included.
Heh. Maybe. I just like seeing that reture to logical fighting be it MMA or
a Kung Fu system. I've seen so many Karate and Take My Dough (Tea Kwon Do)
schools pop up and teach garbage. Cardio Kickboxong for self defense! Buy
your very own black belt! Silly. I know I can learn to fight faster with
MMA, but I like the beauty and challange of Kung Fu. I guess the first goal
of martial arts is to find out what you like. The second is to make sure
you're not being ripped off.
Bernie Kornowicz
> I've noticed that a lot of martial artists seem to have a prejudice
against
> Kung Fu. I study Wing Chun and Yang style Tai Chi and I can't find a
reason
> for this. Both are very complete, powerful styles that, if trained
properly
> are ideal for combat and health. I find that a lot of people confuse Kung
Fu
> with Wushu. Wushu is based on Kung Fu, but without combat training.
Wushu is based on gongfu?!! Gongfu IS wushu. Taijiquan is both wushu AND
gongfu.
> It's just a flashy kind of gymnastics.
Incorrect. You have been given incorrect information.
Matthew Weigel
"Brian Walsh" <twist...@nospamdammitsprintmail.com> wrote:
> but the people I spar with make sure no permanent injury takes place. A well
> placed painful kick to my knee will point out my mistake, there's no need
> for permanent injury.
How often have you heard of permanent injury to someone in the MMA ring?
--
Matthew Weigel
hacker or something
no longer posting from work
BillMahoney68
>
>The only thing I dislike about "pure" ground fighting is it's practical
>application. Most fights are in bars and your opponent isn't alone. In such
>cases the ground is exactly the last place I want to be. It is an excellent
>and respectable sport though.
Now logically if MOST opponants arent aloe, then we are not alone MOST of the
time(being that we are the other guys OPPONANT)
ERGO,
Why do you assume that we are outnumbered?
Gi
BillMahoney68
>ead04...
>> You say they are complete, what do they show you about grappling? Prob not
>> much. Go up against a BJJ guy and see what happens.
>
>Grappling is a major part of kung fu, at least the kung fu I'm learning,
>including how to counter BJJ moves.
LOL.
Did you ask your instructer for his source?
Gi
BillMahoney68
>My teacher had friends and teachers from many styles. He believed very
>strongly in having his students spar against his friends and their students
Please tell me that this kung fu school is near MY SCHOOL.
Gi
BillMahoney68
>> with other styles in MMA or even kickboxing.
>> Ok, now sometimes kickboxers compete in san shuo and call themselves san
>shuo
>> guys, but usually they just cal;l themselves kickboxers.
>>
>> When i thumb through a kung fu book i see that the writer had no grasp of
>real
>> fighting, every time.
>> Gi
>
>When I first started training I had thoughts about competition. When I
>became good enough I entered a few tournaments. I was almost always
>disqualified during sparring because the moves and techniques I used were
>illegal for competition. I became disillusioned with it and will never
>compete again. Most Kung Fu practitioners I know feel the same way. Why
>compete if we can't use our training?
Dont compete.
DEFINATLY DONT.
I would be a very bad person if I told you to enter a violent situation armed
with Kung Fu.
Gi
BillMahoney68
>All Kung Fu systems include more or less equal parts
>punching, kicking, grappling and wrestling. In Tai Chi especially, grappling
>is one foremost applications.
> I have sparred with BJJ guys. I did well.
Brain"Cotton Palm" Walsh by armbar 2:12
Joe Ottoson
>
> "Jacob Andersen" <d...@glem.det> wrote in message
> news:3fdbde20$0$95010$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>> You may be right. Kung Fu included.
>
> Heh. Maybe. I just like seeing that reture to logical fighting be it
> MMA or a Kung Fu system. I've seen so many Karate and Take My Dough
> (Tea Kwon Do) schools pop up and teach garbage.
Same rules apply to TKD in general that apply to Kung Fu.
Brian Walsh
"Matthew Weigel" <mcwe...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:mcweigel-439D26...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <%7SCb.3241$0s2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Brian Walsh" <twist...@nospamdammitsprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> > but the people I spar with make sure no permanent injury takes place. A
well
> > placed painful kick to my knee will point out my mistake, there's no
need
> > for permanent injury.
>
> How often have you heard of permanent injury to someone in the MMA ring?
>
Excellent point. At this time I can't cite references to MMA. Although,
Mohammed Ali does come to mind....
Brian Walsh
Good point. However, in such a situation, I believe that the ground is the
last place I want to be. Just based on bar fights I've seen a dedication to
the ground isn't practical.
Brian Walsh
Obviously, it isn't. That's a shame. Training with others of the martial
arts community is great training. Everyone walks away a better fighter.
Brian Walsh
In my case, my instructor's source is his teachers. They dropped by many
times a year to hold seminars. Thus, we were able to see my teachers
masters. They would criticize my teacher as well as us. Does your teacher
hide his instructors from you? If so, what's he hiding?
Brian Walsh
Oh, you're a troll. I responded to your other posts without prejudice. But
reading this I can only guess you're picking a fight. Too bad, I wanted
intelligent conversation. My mistake.
Brian Walsh
"Joe Ottoson" <gro...@landfill.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94511D834D56Cja...@130.133.1.4...
You are exactly correct. I almost feel ashamed of my fellow Kung Fu artists.
The state of Kung Fu in America is a travesty. Simply too many con artists.
There _are_ good Kung Fu schools in America, but you have to look _very_
hard to find them. Damn shame.
Brian Walsh
"Bernie Kornowicz" <korn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:45TCb.1478$ti2.793@lakeread03...
No, see one of my above posts. Wushu today is not but a shadow of Kung Fu or
Tai Chi. Look into communist Chinese history for more information.
Dougie®
>When I first started training I had thoughts about competition. When I
>became good enough I entered a few tournaments. I was almost always
>disqualified during sparring because the moves and techniques I used were
>illegal for competition. I became disillusioned with it and will never
>compete again. Most Kung Fu practitioners I know feel the same way. Why
>compete if we can't use our training?
The oldest lamment in the book. Because you got disqualified
with point sparring then your Kung Fu is that deadly?
Dougie®
>As for full contact, no holds barred fights, why would a Kung Fu
>practitioner spend his entire life training to perfect his style only to
>risk some guy getting a lucky knee shot and ruining all that work? That's
>just stupid. You'll never catch a serious Kung Fu artist risking himself for
>some small cash prize.
What a compelling argument. I hereby will never spar again.
> But then, I train for health and combat, not for
>sport.
But you never practice it until you need to right? You save it
for "the streets."
Dougie®
>Most fights are in bars
A lie.
> and your opponent isn't alone.
Neither am I in a bar.
> In such
>cases the ground is exactly the last place I want to be.
Who says all BJJ is ground?
> It is an excellent
>and respectable sport though.
A sport that often bests other arts.
Brian Walsh
"Dougie®" <dougee...@canada.REMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:2amotvgfe2cmope9l...@4ax.com...
Not at all what I said nor what I implied.
Fraser Johnston
> >As for full contact, no holds barred fights, why would a Kung Fu
> >practitioner spend his entire life training to perfect his style only to
> >risk some guy getting a lucky knee shot and ruining all that work? That's
> >just stupid. You'll never catch a serious Kung Fu artist risking himself
for
> >some small cash prize.
>
> What a compelling argument. I hereby will never spar again.
There is cash prizes? Shit I've been doing it for fun.
>
> > But then, I train for health and combat, not for
> >sport.
>
> But you never practice it until you need to right? You save it
> for "the streets."
>
> Dougie®
> http://fatehfightclub.tripod.com/fateh.html
It is far too deadly to be used anywhere else. Where are "the streets" and
how do I find them?
Fraser
Dougie®
>Grappling is a major part of kung fu, at least the kung fu I'm learning,
>including how to counter BJJ moves. I think the main problem with kung fu is
>inconsistency of instruction.
Everyone is having to learn to counter BJJ etc. Why is that?
Some arts just use what they know and do fine. Kung Fu isn't one of
them
Grappler240
>The state of Kung Fu in America is a travesty.
there are always going to be those few "diamonds in the rough". Those guys who
are tough, who can fight, and who do karate or kungfu or whatever. But it is
an exception to a well established rule.
maybe your school is one of those.
-g
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
"You can carve it on a bowling pin and cram it,for all I care."
-Gichoke, Jan. 21, 2002
Dougie®
>Brian Walsh, if that is his real name, wrote:
>> > But then, I train for health and combat, not for sport.
>"Dougie®" <dougee...@canada.REMOVE.com> wrote in message
>> But you never practice it until you need to right? You save it
>> for "the streets."
>It is far too deadly to be used anywhere else. Where are "the streets" and
>how do I find them?
I don't know. Apparently only TMA people know where they are.
Dougie®
>Not at all what I said nor what I implied.
Hey, fuck you. Until you have stepped into a ring to fight,
where it's more than just, "I got DQ'ed for excessive contact" I don't
wanna hear your dancing-around-in-your-jammies crap.
Dougie®
>Training with others of the martial
>arts community is great training. Everyone walks away a better fighter.
A fighter implies that you fight.
George Stewart
wrote:
>"George Stewart" <geo...@MAPSONsugarland.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:8l8mtv8ve1n1nm9j2...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:53:03 -0500, "Spidey" <bu...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >And, on the rare occasion that a KF practitioner /does/
>> >step up in such an arena, they always - ALWAYS - are destroyed. The
>reason?
>> >Their training isn't preparing them properly.
>> >
>> >
>> [snipped great post]
>>
>> OK, but you can also question the training itself (i.e. as being
>> representative of what kung fu really is).
>>
>Oh, absolutely. And nine times out of ten, what people are being shown in
>KF schools is crap to begin with. In the first place, a large portion of KF
>schools buy into the notion that learning forms is important. I know that
>many students believe (or have been told) that by learning a form, they're
>learning to use the techniques of their system. Or even worse, they're
>learning to fight! This is utter nonsense. What has become all too clear
>is that the KF practitioners' techniques that they learn from the forms do
>not appear in *either* sparring *or* self-defense situations. Worse still,
>even the most basic foundational material is absent. So when I watch KF
>guys fight, it's more like watching natural fighting; no technique, no
>content - NO ABILITY. And so those long hours of forms training amount to
>nothing in the end. You could argue that there are other side benefits to
>all their training, but I think it's just a monumental waste of time.
>
For the average con-artist, forms are a way of mulcting the gullible.
For a traditional martial artist, forms were a compendium of the
techniques of the art, _and_ a way of conditioning the body.
As to actual fighting, the traditional way (in the East, and probably
the West too, from what we can gather from old manuals, etc.) seems to
have been two person drills done with killing (and life-defending!)
intent, ad nauseam - remember, weapons were the main thing in those
days, cutlery; unarmed skills were only a foundation and fallback.
The aim of all that training wasn't to "have a fight", even an unarmed
fight, but to kill, maim, rend, disable, an opponent, even unarmed.
Think about this (this is something I've seen Mike Sigman pointing out
before). If you say something is "no holds barred", how far do you
want to go? I'm not talking about just eye gouging, kicks to the
balls, etc. How about breaking limbs in joint locks, ripping out
chunks of flesh, etc.? How about ACTUAL eye gouging - irreperably
destroying someone's eyes? Those are the kinds of skills that were
taught in TCMA, and in older European MA. It's obviously no easy
matter to "tone down" a skillset like that and make it sportive (so
that the fight can go on for a reasonably long and entertaining time!)
But I'm sure it can be done (it was done in the West!), and the
"flavour" of the traditional skill preserved in milder techniques (see
below). It just strikes me it's likely to take a while. In the West
we've been at sportive combat arts for so long (since guns made our
ancient traditional fighting skills redundant) we're quite good at it.
Guns made all those old skills redundant only relatively much more
recently in China, and China's had some problems since then that
haven't been conducive to the quiet development of sportive combat
arts! Wushu, sanshou, etc., haven't been around as long over there as
boxing, wrestling, etc., have here.
>> To me it seems obvious that if you want to look for the best of a
>> certain culture's martial arts, you have to look at the best
>> practitioners from that culture for the standard.
>>
>> But there's a problem here: Kung fu is a Chinese art, but until fairly
>> recently China has been a society that was somewhat closed and insular
>> (of which Taiwan and HK cannot possibly be fully representative).
>> (China nearly opened up at the beginning of the 20th century but
>> Communism shut it down again to its pre-20th inward-looking mode.)
>>
>> So how can we tell whether what we've seen so far calling itself "kung
>> fu" really has been kung fu?
>>
>Ok, here's the thing about that. Traditional Chinese Martial Arts (TCMA)
>has been in the US since the mid-19th century. It wasn't available to
>Westerners until much later, but the point here is that Chinese martial
>artists were leaving China well before the Communists took over, and so the
>argument can be made that TCMA was flourishing throughout the world, and
>that real examples could be found outside of China.
I don't see much reason for Chinese martial artists to leave China.
The sort of people who left China would be more likely to be
entrepreneurial Chinese, etc. Martial artists, real martial artists
of the traditional kind, would have been found among the likes of
bodyguards, caravan guards, village militia, warlords' gangs, criminal
gangs, etc. Not many of them would have any good reason to go abroad.
>The second part is
>that, until recently, most 21st TCMA teachers came from either Taiwan or HK
>by way of mainland China. The flight from Communism continued the
>proliferation of TCMA, while at the same time stifling its growth on the
>mainland. (Actually, TCMA continued to grow in China, it just wasn't
>publicly practiced outside of state-run organizations and events.) So here
>again you have real martial arts leaving the country.
>
I don't know how representative the diaspora to Taiwan and HK was? -
mainly richer, more middle class people (people who could afford to
make the move, at least) I should think, not the sorts of classes from
which you're likely to get top notch martial artists. Also, there's a
wide variety in Chinese styles, and Taiwan and HK are in the South, so
you're unlikely to get a full representation right there.
>If the evolution of TCMA had stopped at this point (1940s?), then I think we
>could have looked to its practitioners for clear examples of what kung fu is
>really all about, because it was still a form of fighting embedded with all
>its parts. I'm now going to stick my neck waaaaaaay out and say that over
>the last thirty years, TCMA became popular in the US, and it is in large
>part due to that popularization that we end up with the crap we see today.
>Like other martial art styles, TCMA 'sold out'. I'm sure KF training
>started out with the best of intentions, because most of the teachers
>immigrating to this country brought with them a good chunk of
>knowledge/material. But once money was thrown into the equation, it wasn't
>long before the whole system became corrupted. Now there's a whole industry
>in this country. The irony is that you couldn't /pay/ someone to teach you
>TCMA in the past. Now, all you have to do is flash some cash and you're a
>black belt/sash.
>
I'd say it's more like, because nobody knows any better about a
subject that's popular, the popularity of which has been spread mainly
by the entertainment industry (which presents an impractical cinematic
variety of it), it's easy to con people.
Actually, I've just realised that's a good analogy. Supposing
swashbuckling movies became popular again, if you were a reasonably
good athlete in general, it would be easy to learn stage fencing
techniques, and you could do them quite flashily, and present them,
not as stage fencing, but as "real sword fighting". Since nobody's to
know what real sword fighting looks like, who'd know?
>Another contributing factor is that China is now sponsoring groups to come
>to the US to show us what "real" kung fu looks like. Somehow, China has
>"real" Shaolin monks again, when the temple was destroyed in 1928, and
>remained in ruins until Jet Li came along and starred in a little movie
>called, "Shaolin Temple". (Maybe some of you have seen it? ;) Too often,
>I've heard a fellow student exclaim, "Oooh! The Shaolin Monks are coming!"
>Suddenly, I feel like I should be seeing a circus tent on the outskirts of
>town....
>
Well, if you were really interested in finding out how good the
Shaolin Monks are, you could arrange an exchange of skills with some
of them ... :-)
Prima facie there's nothing much suspicious about the idea of Shaolin
skills being still around. The story of TCMA during the Communist
years is a mixed bag - not all of it bad, since there were a few
high-ups who were quite fond of MA, and did their best to prevent too
much havok during the Cultural Revolution. Looking at the history of
Taiji in Chen village, there was a period of intense persecution
during the Cultural Revolution, and a few other dodgy moments (e.g.
earlier, when some skilled folks died from starvation during the
so-called Great Leap Forward, etc.), but on the whole, with dedicated
effort on the part of a few highly skilled enthusiasts to educate the
next generation, the traditional stuff was preserved intact. I
imagine analogous stories were played out with other skills. TCMA
even enjoyed a bit of a renaissance in the 1980s in the Wushu world
(apparently many Wushu practitioners also study traditional styles
too, much in the same way a language student might study older
versions of their language). Re. Shaolin in particular, there _were_
a few old geezers left who'd been trained in the old ways, and I'm
sure the Commies milked 'em. Plus, Shaolin skillsets per se were
diffused through some of the other traditional styles anyway, so it
probably wasn't too difficult to reconstruct some authentic Shaolin
from other authentic styles. (But I admit I'm speculating here - what
I do know is that one of the teachers at the Beijing Wushu academy
during the 80s, a guy called Li Tailiang who is also a lineage
inheritor of a very traditional form called Xingyi, which he also
taught at the academy, also studied with one of the authentic
surviving Shaolin Monks - studied not just Shaolin, but also the Zen
meditation that had been practiced at Shaolin. Just those little
facts suggest to me that there was a lot more going on than we'll ever
know about, even under Communism.)
>I know I'm skipping over a lot of stuff here, so please feel free to fill in
>the blanks as you all see fit. The point I'm trying to get to is that it
>takes something like mixed martial arts (MMA) to come along and shake up the
>status quo for real change to occur within established organizations. And
>guess what? You do a little digging into TCMA, and you find all this stuff
>that -surprisingly- looks a lot like what MMA guys are doing. Why? Because
>MMA took/stole/borrowed the best techniques from existing systems and made
>them their own. And guess what? Ain't nothing new there. Praying mantis
>kung fu is a style born out of the combination of 18 different martial art
>styles. So TCMA's done it, Karate's done it, Tae Kwon Do's done it, Aikido'
>s' done it, BJJ's done it, EVERYONE'S DONE IT. The underlying factor to
>this beg/borrow/steal function is that the person is trying to make
>themselves a better /fighter/. That's -it-. No martial artist sees a
>technique and thinks, "Ah, that would be really good for cultivating chi. I
>shall add that to my repertoire." No! They say, "Holy shit! Did you see
>that kick? He nearly took the other guy's head off! I'm gonna learn how to
>do that!"
>
In a general way I agree with you, and I think MMA is great, and I
respect it, what I understand of it.
But regarding traditional skills, in the old days in Europe, and until
only the 20th century in China, you wouldn't actually _see_ much of
those kinds of real skills on display, except occasionally in earnest.
People kept their cards close to their chest, and it wouldn't have
been so easy to cross-train.
Anyway, I think a big factor here is actually _surprise_. There are
MA fads and fashions because aside from conditioning, balls and skill,
the other factor that can help win fights is to have suprising moves
and approaches up your sleeve. At one time Judo was a surprise, and
could beat wrestlers, then Karate was a surprise, and could beat Judo,
etc., etc., and now we come full circle to a situation where wrestling
is sometimes a surprise and beats something derived from the original
Judo (BJJ)!
>In the end, we may not have a clear understanding of what "real" kung fu is
>supposed to be about because of the loads of crap that have been dumped on
>us over these past few decades. But I think it's obvious what it's not
>supposed to be about, and sadly, that's the stuff that I see the most. If I
>were to use the Chinese term the way it's supposed to be used, I would say
>that most MMA guys have good "kung fu", and that most KF practitioners do
>not.
>
I'd say that's probably true, but my feeling is that we don't even
know what good kung fu (in the sense of "skill from repitition") of
the Chinese flavour looks like really.
Put it this way, bareknuckle "boxing" here in the West was at one time
a complete art involving throws, locks, etc. And that, in turn, was a
sportified version of older unarmed combat systems that soldiers and
knights would have learned - systems that look, in the old manuals,
very much like Jujitsu, with _lots_ of throws, etc.
And when you read stuff about the olden days, you realise that there
must have been lots of training tricks, conditioning tricks, etc.,
that have been lost over time. That's certainly true of the West
(think about the old "strongman" tradition - you can look at those
guys almost like you'd look at traditional Chinese MA-ists of yore:
they had "secrets", and all that, which were probably derived from the
older cutlery skillsets of the West.)
So although I agree with the r.m.a. stance against cheap shots re. the
difference between "sport" and "TMA", there is a serious point to be
made there: the functions of the things are entirely different. A
truly traditional skill tends to be a prelude to weapons training, and
is designed to render the opponent non-functioning as quickly as
possible if one's ever "caught out" - it's meant to structurally or
functionally destroy as quickly as possible. Not so easy - and the
point is, there were all these extra conditioning and training drills
to recruit every possible aspect of what the body can do, to add
power.
And the body does have some unusual, largely un-tapped abilities.
THOSE are the kinds of things you'd never see openly displayed, and
they are the things that really define kung fu (and probably defined
the older European stuff too).
Do you see the parallel? Older European stuff became "sport" to
survive long ago; Chinese stuff has only more recently started down
this road. (Old TCMA have become "sport", but also "health" because a
byproduct of training some of those recondite aspects of the body is,
apparently, a kind of strengthening of the body's homeostasis that
can't be attained by cardio or muscular training alone. So kung fu
does have this bit of extra interest to it, this bit of extra intrigue
- which we'll probably see more about as time goes on.)
Anyway, the upshot is, I reckon TCMA haven't yet had their full chance
to _get sportive_ (as it were) - the Chinese themselves still have to
catch up with the West to find ways of making what were traditionally
lethal arts, the lethality of which is now redundant, into combative
sports that will win in the arena of combative sport, an arena that,
in the West, has become the main living MA tradition. I think it
probably takes a bit of time before Chinese coaches learn the "game"
those foreign jonnies are playing. They seem to have been
concentrating on Muay Thai, which is relatively more local. And there
are signs that San Shou is starting to get parity with Muay Thai now
(e.g. http://crane.50megs.com/index6x.htm )
Heh. Sorry for the length - got a bit carried away there! :-)
- George Stewart
********************************************************
"Certainly, the workers might envy the capitalists; but such emotions simply could not supply the gigantic impetus required to overthrow a structure as massive as the capitalist system. Before the workers of a capitalist society could unite, they had to feel that they had literally nothing to lose - nothing to lose but their proverbial chains. For if they had homes and cars and boats and rvs to lose as well, then it became quite another matter." - Lee Harris
Fraser Johnston
> >It is far too deadly to be used anywhere else. Where are "the streets"
and
> >how do I find them?
>
> I don't know. Apparently only TMA people know where they are.
>
> Dougie®
> http://fatehfightclub.tripod.com/fateh.html
But I AM a TMA person. Kind of anyway.
Fraser
Bernie Kornowicz
Derived from several Chinese dictionaries:
Wu: martial; military
Shu: method; art; skill; tactics; technique
Wushu: fighting skill; martial art; swordplay
So "wushu" is the correct term for Chinese martial arts.
Gong: work; achievement; accomplishment
Fu: ordinary man; farmer; peasant
Gongfu: labor; effort; skill; art
The term "gongfu" originally had nothing to do with martial arts except in
relation to the amount of work needed to become skillful in it. Nowadays
"gongfu" is used in the west in place of the correct word, "wushu".
Tai: extreme; excessive; too; very
Ji: extreme; utmost point
Quan: fist; boxing
Taijiquan: traditional Chinese shadowboxing
So "taijiquan" is wushu because it's a Chinese martial art and it's also
gongfu because the meaning of the term "gongfu" has been changed by
westerners to mean "martial art".
The whole thing about all the "real" Chinese martial artists moving to
Taiwan or Hong Kong because of oppression during the Cultural Revolution is
just western mythology. Some moved, some went underground.
"Wushu" is very often denigrated by "traditional" Chinese martial arts
teachers because they themselves don't know very much and their skills are
mediocre at best. Keeping your students in the dark is a great way to
maintain your student body and keep the bucks rolling in.
Just because a wushu practitioner publicly demonstrates an arial cartwheel
or butterfly twist doesn't necessarily mean that's all they know. It's not a
very good idea to underestimate other martial artists.
Robert Low
Dougie® <dougee...@canada.REMOVE.com> wrote:
> I don't know. Apparently only TMA people know where they are.
We're protecting you. Wouldn't want you to get hurt
because of your enthusiasm and inadequate preparation.
--
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
Matthew Weigel
"Brian Walsh" <twist...@nospamdammitsprintmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent point. At this time I can't cite references to MMA. Although,
> Mohammed Ali does come to mind....
There are a few salient differences between MMA and boxing in this
context, however. Remember, dementia pugilistica is associated with
being punched in the head too hard, too many times (not completely: it's
not unknown in other contact sports known for repeated injury like
football). At a guess, I'd say an entire MMA bout features fewer total
punches than a single (exciting) round of boxing has head shots.
Also, boxing has more padding on the contact portion of the glove, which
has no negative effect on head injuries but *does* allow the boxers to
hit harder, leading to greater likelihood of concussion from individual
blows.
Finally, MMA has no standing 10 count: if there's any single thing that
contributes greatly to head injuries in boxing, it's getting pounded so
hard that you it takes you 9 seconds to stand up, and then doing it
*again*. In an MMA bout, if you're having that much difficulty, you've
lost.
Oh, and I almost forgot about headgear...
--
Matthew Weigel
hacker or something
no longer posting from work
'Vejita' S. Cousin
>> Excellent point. At this time I can't cite references to MMA. Although,
>> Mohammed Ali does come to mind....
>
>Finally, MMA has no standing 10 count: if there's any single thing that
>contributes greatly to head injuries in boxing, it's getting pounded so
>hard that you it takes you 9 seconds to stand up, and then doing it
>*again*. In an MMA bout, if you're having that much difficulty, you've
>lost.
If you do a pubmed search on this topic http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
you'll find that this appears to be the key point. There have been
several studies done showing that kickboxing is safer (brain injury wise)
than boxing, because you take fewer blows to the head.
It's also been shown that repeated injury leads to worst results than
an equal number of isolated injuries.
Further, amateur boxers have brain functions that do not
(statistically) differ from non-boxer (although all pros have some level
of brain damage).
A full double blind control experiment will never be performed, but
everything I read leads me to believe that the safest way to
fight/train/spar (brain damage wise) is:
No gloves or light gloves to prevent cuts
No standing 8/10 counts
Manadory 2-4wk bans following KOs
I think MMA's stopping the fight as soon as the fighter can no longer
defend themselves actually makes the sport far safer (brain injury wise)
than boxing, despite the (to the laymen) 'brutal nature' of MMA.
Coldblood
heh. i used to enter tkd tourneys. tkd guys are a great deal of fun to beat
on. i have a drawer full of medals to prove it too :) excessive contact..
bah. one retard decided it would be good to do a jumping front kick at my
head. my response was to thrust kicked him in square in the crotch, which
was conviniently at my chest level. launched the guy about four or so feet
straight backwards( him still air borne), at that point he landed on his ass
and slid/roled/sprawled a few more feet, where he lay convulsing and holding
his balls. apparently, cups were optional in his school. totally sucked to
be him. i did not however get called for excessive contact. this was in a
standard run of the mill mcdojo tkd tourney. so i gotta ask, what kind of
panty waist namby pamby tourney was brian entering? ballroom dancing?
andrew
Jacob Andersen
Hmmm, headgear, I seem to recall something I needed to say about that,
perhaps it'll come back to me.
/Jacob
Jacob Andersen
I guess it could be debated whether or not this is true, *however* BJJ'ers
may have dedication to the ground, but certainly not MMA'ers
/Jacob
Brian Walsh
> "Dale" <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >Grappling is a major part of kung fu, at least the kung fu I'm learning,
> >including how to counter BJJ moves. I think the main problem with kung fu
is
> >inconsistency of instruction.
>
> Everyone is having to learn to counter BJJ etc. Why is that?
> Some arts just use what they know and do fine. Kung Fu isn't one of
> them
>
historically became BJJ. Kung Fu artists do use what they know.
Brian Walsh
"Grappler240" <grapp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20031214080222...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >You are exactly correct. I almost feel ashamed of my fellow Kung Fu
artists.
> >The state of Kung Fu in America is a travesty.
>
> there are always going to be those few "diamonds in the rough". Those
guys who
> are tough, who can fight, and who do karate or kungfu or whatever. But it
is
> an exception to a well established rule.
>
> maybe your school is one of those.
>
> -g
>
working on it. Some of the guys I train with are amazing though. I think
with any school or style the important thing is to find a teacher who isn't
full of crap. No easy task in any style.
Spidey
> > Everyone is having to learn to counter BJJ etc. Why is that?
> > Some arts just use what they know and do fine. Kung Fu isn't one of
> > them
> >
> Kung Fu doesn't learn to counter BJJ. Kung Fu trains the techniques that
> historically became BJJ. Kung Fu artists do use what they know.
>
- Spidey
Spidey
Who is your teacher, and what style does he teach? Thanks in advance.
(Apologies if you've already answered this somewhere else.)
- Spidey
"Brian Walsh" <twist...@nospamdammitsprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:AM5Db.4041$0s2....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
BillMahoney68
> >cases the ground is exactly the last place I want to be. It is an
>excellent
>> >and respectable sport though.
>>
>> Now logically if MOST opponants arent aloe, then we are not alone MOST of
>the
>> time(being that we are the other guys OPPONANT)
>> ERGO,
>> Why do you assume that we are outnumbered?
>> Gi
>
>Good point. However, in such a situation, I believe that the ground is the
>last place I want to be.
Which is unfortunate.
Cause Im betting that the ground is exactly where you will be.
Gi
BillMahoney68
>
>> >My teacher had friends and teachers from many styles. He believed very
>> >strongly in having his students spar against his friends and their
>students
>>
>> Please tell me that this kung fu school is near MY SCHOOL.
>> Gi
>
>Obviously, it isn't. That's a shame. Training with others of the martial
>arts community is great training. Everyone walks away a better fighter.
Some guys limp away to the ER.
Gi
BillMahoney68
>
>> >All Kung Fu systems include more or less equal parts
>> >punching, kicking, grappling and wrestling. In Tai Chi especially,
>grappling
>> >is one foremost applications.
>>
>> > I have sparred with BJJ guys. I did well.
>>
>> Brain"Cotton Palm" Walsh by armbar 2:12
>
>Oh, you're a troll.
Im a giant two headed troll!
ROAR!
(I regenerate 2 HP per round)
>l. I responded to your other posts without prejudice.
(CHANNELS MISTER MACKEY)
"Predjudice is bad....m'kay"
>But
>reading this I can only guess you're picking a fight.
Dont flatter yourself, buster.
> Too bad, I wanted
>intelligent conversation.
Do all your "intelligent" conversations begin with you asking a question about
"kung fu"?
>My mistake.
Damn straight.
Now get to the back of the line.
Gi
BillMahoney68
What if youre not in a bar?
How are you gonna fight a guy thats in one?
Gi
Brian Walsh
"Spidey" <bu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fdd0292$0$14960$61fe...@news.rcn.com...
techniques and both expanded them and simplified them. BJJ is very good and
has evolved past some of the original techniques. All I'm saying is that
Kung Fu has it too.
Brian Walsh
Cybermagi
>if trained properly
> I find that a lot of people confuse Kung Fu
>with Wushu.
You should not be surprised at this the same thing also happens with TKD and
Karate it all depends on how and what you train for sport and combat do not mix
I have been involved in the martial arts since 1967 and am just amazed at what
i seen going on nowadays.It's just a flashy kind of gymnastics. An example of
this was a show on the discovery channel called Xtreme martial arts. If you
listen to the people talk they say that what they are doing would proably get
them hurt in a real situation.
Grappler240
>historically became BJJ.
okay...
what is an omo plata??
gogo plata??
spider guard??
americana??
baiana??
Grappler240
>techniques and both expanded them and simplified them.
BJJ has NO relationship whatsoever to Kung Fu. BJJ evolved from judo, which
evolved from jujutsu, which evolved from the samurai's fighting with one
another in heavy o yorio armor.
no kung fu crap in there, dick.
try again.
and try reading a little.
Grappler240
>
mostly the kung fools.
Brian Walsh
"Grappler240" <grapp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >. BJJ has taken the Kung Fu
> >techniques and both expanded them and simplified them.
>
> BJJ has NO relationship whatsoever to Kung Fu. BJJ evolved from judo,
which
> evolved from jujutsu, which evolved from the samurai's fighting with one
> another in heavy o yorio armor.
>
> no kung fu crap in there, dick.
>
> try again.
>
> and try reading a little.
>
> -g
I've read quite extensively. Martial arts started from Indian meditations,
traveled to China, then to Japan and Korea. More specifically Judo comes
from Chinese Suai techniques whereas JJ is more derivative of Chin Na. All
of this is very well documented in both martial arts books as well as solid
history books.
Brian Walsh
"Grappler240" <grapp...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >Some guys limp away to the ER.
> >
>
> mostly the kung fools.
>
Not in my experience.
Brian Walsh
happened very early. Due to the extremely xenophobic practices of both
Chinese and Japanese, what they shared was often deliberately tampered with.
Though they have the same origins they both tended to spread and evolve on
their own. It should also be pointed out that, though this evolution did
happen independently, most techniques of any style are very similar. There's
only so many ways to move a body.
'Vejita' S. Cousin
>> > Kung Fu doesn't learn to counter BJJ. Kung Fu trains the techniques that
>> > historically became BJJ. Kung Fu artists do use what they know.
>> >
>> UHHHHHHhhhhhh....that last sentence is HIGHLY debatable. :)
>>
>I'm just going on the history I've learned. BJJ has taken the Kung Fu
>techniques and both expanded them and simplified them. BJJ is very good and
>has evolved past some of the original techniques. All I'm saying is that
>Kung Fu has it too.
I suppose, if only it were about the techniques. As others have
stated it is NOT about the techniques, it's about how you train. Pretty
much every MA has a varition of the jab/cross. But boxers have
'refined/mastered' it. Imagine TKD vs. boxing, what normally happens? Is
it that TKD lacks the techniques found in boxing? No, in fact TKD adds
more techniques.
However, techniques alone are meaningless without the attributes
(timing, sensetivity, footwork, endurance, etc) to utilize them. There
are KF systems that claim to be 'complete' in that they contain all
techniques. That's cool, but the real question is can people that study
that study actually use those techniques.
MMA, boxing, MT, savate, bjj, judo, sambo, wrestling, etc. are
training in a manner to utilize their techniques. Any system can work (in
theory) if trained corrected, but most MA schools are not training
correctly (eg. no randori). The result is despite any techniques or
knowledge in the syllabus the students tend to not be able to fight.
Grappler240
you should slow down a little and read for detail.....
>Martial arts started from Indian >meditations,
>traveled to China,
whatever you say, man. there is as much evidence that china and other asian
countries formed their martial traditions independently as there is for any
other theory. we will probably never kow for sure.
then to Japan and Korea.
More specifically Judo comes
>from Chinese Suai techniques
couldn't be more wrong. Judo was created by Jigoro Kano from his studies in
Tenshin Shinyo Ryu and Kito Ryu Jujutsu. In 1882 he distilled what he knew and
created judo.
whereas JJ is more derivative of Chin Na.
nope. japanese jujutsu was first "codified" into a ryu by kissomori takenouchi
in 1532.
He knew no chin na.
chinese arts suck, and you are a complete moron.
All
>of this is very well documented in both martial arts books as well as solid
>history books.
>
i don't know where the hell you learned that shit....but it is as false as the
man in the moon.
read this...it was written by sensei kano:
Jujutsu Becomes Judo
by Jigoro Kano
Most people are no doubt familiar with the words jujutsu and judo, but how many
can distinguish between them? Here, I will explain the two terms and tell why
judo came to take the place of jujutsu.
Many martial arts were practiced in Japan during its feudal age: the use of the
lance, archery, swordsmanship and many more. Jujutsu was one such art. Also
called taijutsu and yawara, it was a system of attack that involved throwing,
hitting, kicking, stabbing, slashing, choking, bending and twisting limbs,
pinning an opponent, and defenses against these attacks. Although jujutsu's
techniques were known from the earliest times, it was not until the latter half
of the sixteenth century that jujutsu was practiced and taught systematically.
During the Edo period (1603-1868,) it developed into a complex art taught by
the masters of a number of schools. In my youth I studied jujutsu under many
eminent masters. Their vast knowledge, the fruit of years of diligent research
and rich experience, was of great value to me. At that time, each man presented
his art as a collection of techniques. None perceived the guiding principle
behind jujutsu. When I encountered differences in the teaching of techniques, I
often found myself at a loss to know which was correct. This led me to look for
an underlying principle in jujutsu, one that applied when one hit an opponent
as well as when one threw him. After a thorough study of the subject, I
discerned an a1l-pervasive principle: to make the most efficient use of mental
and physical energy. With this principle in mind, I again reviewed all the
methods of attack and defense I had learned, retaining only those that were in
accordance with the principle. Those not in accord with it I rejected, and in
their place I substituted techniques in which the principle was correctly
applied. The resulting body of technique, which I named judo to distinguish it
from its predecessor, is what is taught at the Kodokan.
The word jujutsu and judo are each written with two Chinese characters. The ju
in both is the same and means "gentleness" or "giving way." The meaning of
jutsu is "art, practice," and do means "principle" or "way," the Way being the
concept of life itself. Jujutsu may be translated as "the gentle art," judo as
"the Way of gentleness," with the implication of first giving way to ultimately
gain victory. The Kodokan is, literally, "the school for studying the Way." As
we shall see in the next chapter, judo is more than an art of attack and
defense. It is a way of life.
To understand what is meant by gentleness or giving way, let us say a man is
standing before me whose strength is ten, and that my own strength is but
seven. If he pushes me as hard as he can, I am sure to be pushed back or
knocked down, even if I resist with all my might. This is opposing strength
with strength. But if instead of opposing him I give way to the extent he has
pushed, withdrawing my body and maintaining my balance, my opponent will lose
his balance. Weakened by his awkward position, he will be unable to use all his
strength. It will have fallen to three. Because I retain my balance, my
strength remains at seven. Now I am stronger than my opponent and can defeat
him by using only half my strength, keeping the other half available for some
other purpose. Even if you are stronger than your opponent, it is better first
to give way. By doing so you conserve energy while exhausting your opponent.
This is but one example of how you can defeat an opponent by giving way. It was
because so many techniques made use of this principle that the art was named
jujutsu. Let us look at a few other examples of the feats that can be
accomplished with jujutsu.
Suppose a man is standing before me. Like a log on end, he can be pushed off
balance -- frontward or backward -- with a single finger. If at the moment he
leans forward, I apply my arm to his back and quickly slip my hip in front of
his, my hip becomes a fulcrum. To throw the man to the ground, even if he
greatly outweighs me, all I need do is twist my hip slightly or pull on his arm
or sleeve.
Let us say I attempt to break a man's balance to the front, but that he steps
forward with one foot. I can still throw him easily by merely pressing the ball
of my foot just below the Achilles' tendon of his advancing leg a split second
before he places his full weight on that foot. This is a good example of the
efficient use of energy. With only slight effort, I can defeat an opponent of
considerable strength.
What if a man were to rush up and push me? If instead of pushing back, I were
to take hold of his arms or his collar with both hands, place the ball of one
foot against his lower abdomen, straighten my leg and sit back, I could make
him somersault over my head.
Or suppose that my opponent leans forward a bit and pushes me with one hand.
This puts him off balance. If I grab him by the upper sleeve of his
outstretched arm, pivot so that my back is close to his chest, clamp my free
hand on his shoulder and suddenly bend over, he will go flying over my head and
land flat on his back.
As these examples show, for the purpose of throwing an opponent the principle
of leverage is sometimes more important than giving way. Jujutsu also includes
other forms of direct attack, such as hitting, kicking and choking. In this
respect, the "art of giving way" does not convey the true meaning. If we accept
jujutsu as the art or practice of making the most efficient use of mental and
physical energy, then we can think of judo as the way, the principle, of doing
this, and we arrive at a true definition.
In 1882 I founded the Kodokan to teach judo to others. Within a few years, the
number of students rapidly increased. They came from all over Japan, many
having left jujutsu masters to train with me. Eventually judo displaced jujutsu
in Japan, and no one any longer speaks of jujutsu as a contemporary art in
Japan, although the word has survived overseas.
Return to the Judo Information Site
This article is an excerpt from Kodokan Judo by Jigoro Kano. This award winning
web page is provided by Neil Ohlenkamp, Judo Information Site, USA. Copyright ©
1997/2003. Last modified April 21, 2003.
Here is something on the history of jujutsu:
Introduction to the History of Jujutsu
The Origin of Jujutsu1
Before the advent of modern weapons, man needed a means of survival agains his
enemies. He taught himself to run, jump, throw, hold, punch and kick. in this
way. prehistoric man developed techniques that are employed in Jujutsu, aikido,
judo karate, wresting and sumo.
Evidence in the authorized chronicle of Japan (Nihon Shoki) shows that a
contest held in 230 B.C. was a close contact martial arts fight. The contest
was held between Takemi-kazuchi-nokami and Takemi-nakata-no-kami.
Takemi-kazuchi-no-kami took his opponent's arm joint and threw his opponent to
the ground. He was made ruler as a reward. Another very bloody contest was
held between Nomino-sukune and Taimano-kehaya. Nomino-sukune hit his
opponent's chest with his hand, threw his opponent onto the ground, and kicked
him to death.
The account of these fights is the earliest record we have of Jujutsu. Later,
Jujutsu (or yawara) appeared in literature in the "Once upon a time tales"
(Konjaku-monogatari) of the 11th century. Over the centuries Jujutsu was
called by such names as kumiuchi, kogusoku, taijutsu, wajutsu, torite,
koshinomawari, hobaku, etc. Because the warriors of these accounts wore armor,
the techniques consisted mainly of knocking down and then harming their
opponents.
Jujutsu became more formally organized in the latter half of the 16th century,
and various ryu (schools or styles) were created between the 17th and 19th
centuries. According to Tomiki2, there were 179 styles of Jujutsu during this
period. In those days, the warriors wore light dress, and many Jujutsu
techniques employed were joint techniques. Warriors trained for physical
skill, but the buiding of one's character was of the utmost importance as
Jujutsu players came strictly from the military class of Japanese society, or
the Samurai.3
you, sir, are a dumbass.
Garth Wallace
>>Kung Fu doesn't learn to counter BJJ. Kung Fu trains the techniques that
>>historically became BJJ.
>
> okay...
>
> what is an omo plata??
>
> gogo plata??
>
> spider guard??
>
> americana??
>
> baiana??
Even if BJJ did have some connection to kung fu, I doubt the names of
techniques would be even remotely similar.
--
Happy denizen of the Nightstar IRC Network
Webcomics discussion: irc://us.nightstar.net/webcomics
Progressive rock chat: irc://us.nightstar.net/progrock
Linguistics and foreign languages: irc://us.nightstar.net/babel