We can all agree that forms do not produce fighting skills. Co diyioning forms help with strength, power, stamina but are still just harder versions of daydreaming with movement. Other practices are needed much more than forms to produce real fighting skills. Which Kung fu style, in its core, has more sparring and two person practices as opposed to:
Single person drills(techniques done in the air alone, throw set ups but not throws)
Techniques done with non-resisting people.
I would think that the kung fu equivalent of judo would be the best. The so called striking arts have too many forms and larking.
Which kung fucstyle do you all co sider to be the best for those that want real skills in a shorter period of time?
sanshou/sanda methods with any style. shuai jiao. other than that i believe the methods will be dependant on the teacher not the style. so really it cant be just one ‘style’ will be best. but certain methods make the best
[QUOTE=Ben Gash;1143663]Style makes no difference in this regard, it’s about training. You can train any style realistically, you just need to understand how.[/QUOTE]
if you want real training. check out the hippy tai chi and kung fu schools. after an hour of jumping and dancing in a field they beat on a drum and chant songs.
a bit of a derail, but i happened to make a passing comment without thinking at work that “I hate hippy tai chi” and my co workers asked, 'whats hippy tai chi?" so i explained briefly. non martial artists think that ‘hippy tai chi’ is what all taijiquan is…
[QUOTE=Ben Gash;1143663]Style makes no difference in this regard, it’s about training. You can train any style realistically, you just need to understand how.[/QUOTE]
I am calling bs on this statement. The reason is this: Learnibg a fighting method and learning a style are two different things. When a teacher starts teaching bug style or monkey style(imitating a real animal) then that is not fight training. San shao does not teach a style of movement. It teaches barebones fighting. The difference is that the style way focuses heavily on forms and if not forms than stylistic drills that try to make your body look like an animal when doing technique.
Let me rephrase the question. San shao cannot be an answer because it is modern.
Which tcma style has less of a focus on forms and more on conditioning and fighting? Ving tsun comes to mind but we all know that Ving chun people just do bs chi Sao foreplay before the gay sex begins drills. Check out the Gary Lam thread on the wc forum to see how rediculous chi Sao is.
Choy li fut can be good if it is trained more like kickboxing and less like…well doing 5 million of the same exact, but slightly different variation, form. And dropping that “internal” form they have would be good too.
IMO any short hand style that trains like wc is useless. Doing connected mantis hooking on a guy who is just chi saoing with you is retard level 1 training. Not advanced year 9 training. Does mantis hooking work in sparring? Maybe. But training it like a kickboxers, against kickboxers and with no forms, would be more beneficial.
Maybe we are all taking about the same thing. Training method instead of style but too often style is taught instead of good training methods. And for god’s sake you do need clf’s internal form or Ving tsun’s third form to fight.
alright lets put an end to this. Southern Praying Mantis is the end all of end all kung fu styles.
on a serious note on SPM:
I saw this style at tai chi legacy one year. the demo’s of it were awful to watch, but i could see the moves. and when the guys sparred they did fairly well and they kept to their style. everything in the sparring floor looked the same except when the SPM guys got in there, and they won. didn’t get gold, but they advanced pretty far.
The reason is this: Learnibg a fighting method and learning a style are two different things. When a teacher starts teaching bug style or monkey style(imitating a real animal) then that is not fight training.
for some, they may act like a specific animal and all, but for others who know the real truth its not really about pretending to be an animal but rather absorb the essence of what a certain animal brings. for example, Tiger is about power, snake is about speed, and so forth. for me, just because im doing a tiger form doesn’t mean i’m pretending to growl act like a tiger. it means i will apply my form with aggreesion, power, and speed.
only those who are square to martial arts and fighting would try to act like De Tigre…
Choy li fut can be good if it is trained more like kickboxing and less like…well doing 5 million of the same exact, but slightly different variation, form. And dropping that “internal” form they have would be good too.
I highly doubt a “FORM” has anything to do with it. if people want to practice an internal forms its up to them. if they want to fight then they can focus on the things designed for combat. people that do forms actually get something out of it on a personal level, be it an animal form or internal. as long as you don’t claim the form can teach you to levitate then its all faif and game for anyone who wants to give it a try.
Maybe we are all taking about the same thing. Training method instead of style but too often style is taught instead of good training methods. And for god’s sake you do need clf’s internal form or Ving tsun’s third form to fight.
NO ONE has ever claimed TMK that “If your practice this form you will be a great fighter”…EVER. and if they have they should be shot. seriously.
But, as long as TCMA is around, FORMS will always be taught.
[QUOTE=RWilson;1143687]I am calling bs on this statement. The reason is this: Learnibg a fighting method and learning a style are two different things. When a teacher starts teaching bug style or monkey style(imitating a real animal) then that is not fight training. San shao does not teach a style of movement. It teaches barebones fighting. The difference is that the style way focuses heavily on forms and if not forms than stylistic drills that try to make your body look like an animal when doing technique.
Let me rephrase the question. San shao cannot be an answer because it is modern.
Which tcma style has less of a focus on forms and more on conditioning and fighting? Ving tsun comes to mind but we all know that Ving chun people just do bs chi Sao foreplay before the gay sex begins drills. Check out the Gary Lam thread on the wc forum to see how rediculous chi Sao is.
Choy li fut can be good if it is trained more like kickboxing and less like…well doing 5 million of the same exact, but slightly different variation, form. And dropping that “internal” form they have would be good too.
IMO any short hand style that trains like wc is useless. Doing connected mantis hooking on a guy who is just chi saoing with you is retard level 1 training. Not advanced year 9 training. Does mantis hooking work in sparring? Maybe. But training it like a kickboxers, against kickboxers and with no forms, would be more beneficial.
Maybe we are all taking about the same thing. Training method instead of style but too often style is taught instead of good training methods. And for god’s sake you do need clf’s internal form or Ving tsun’s third form to fight.[/QUOTE]
???
I thought Ben Gash had the correct answer. What you are saying is kinda goofey. Any system or style or person can practice effective self defense training. It does not matter system or style which you chose. The teacher, how they teach… do they teach sparring, do they have resistance drills, do they teach Shuai Chiao or Grappling, do they teach San Shou or San Da.
You can learn any of the above from the right teacher. Wing Chun, Southern Mantis, Monkey Fist all can give good self defense. You would be considered ignorant if thought certain styles are no good for real self defense. There are certain teachers who do not possess the correct information about fighting and how to teach it, is what you have to worry about.
[QUOTE=RWilson;1143687]I am calling bs on this statement. The reason is this: Learnibg a fighting method and learning a style are two different things. When a teacher starts teaching bug style or monkey style(imitating a real animal) then that is not fight training. San shao does not teach a style of movement. It teaches barebones fighting. The difference is that the style way focuses heavily on forms and if not forms than stylistic drills that try to make your body look like an animal when doing technique.
Let me rephrase the question. San shao cannot be an answer because it is modern.
Which tcma style has less of a focus on forms and more on conditioning and fighting? Ving tsun comes to mind but we all know that Ving chun people just do bs chi Sao foreplay before the gay sex begins drills. Check out the Gary Lam thread on the wc forum to see how rediculous chi Sao is.
Choy li fut can be good if it is trained more like kickboxing and less like…well doing 5 million of the same exact, but slightly different variation, form. And dropping that “internal” form they have would be good too.
IMO any short hand style that trains like wc is useless. Doing connected mantis hooking on a guy who is just chi saoing with you is retard level 1 training. Not advanced year 9 training. Does mantis hooking work in sparring? Maybe. But training it like a kickboxers, against kickboxers and with no forms, would be more beneficial.
Maybe we are all taking about the same thing. Training method instead of style but too often style is taught instead of good training methods. And for god’s sake you do need clf’s internal form or Ving tsun’s third form to fight.[/QUOTE]
maybe this arguement is the same as, “what your TCMA is lacking one?” honestly if you are covering the three zones in your teaching and doing it in a realistic manner, you are on the right path. I do not promote that I know all the styles and what they contain, but a lot of them in the TCMA and many other MA’s do not cover all the zones. Thats apparent on many levels with a basic overview of the curriculum.
[QUOTE=RWilson;1143687]I am calling bs on this statement. The reason is this: Learnibg a fighting method and learning a style are two different things. When a teacher starts teaching bug style or monkey style(imitating a real animal) then that is not fight training. San shao does not teach a style of movement. It teaches barebones fighting. The difference is that the style way focuses heavily on forms and if not forms than stylistic drills that try to make your body look like an animal when doing technique.
Let me rephrase the question. San shao cannot be an answer because it is modern.
Which tcma style has less of a focus on forms and more on conditioning and fighting? Ving tsun comes to mind but we all know that Ving chun people just do bs chi Sao foreplay before the gay sex begins drills. Check out the Gary Lam thread on the wc forum to see how rediculous chi Sao is.
Choy li fut can be good if it is trained more like kickboxing and less like…well doing 5 million of the same exact, but slightly different variation, form. And dropping that “internal” form they have would be good too.
IMO any short hand style that trains like wc is useless. Doing connected mantis hooking on a guy who is just chi saoing with you is retard level 1 training. Not advanced year 9 training. Does mantis hooking work in sparring? Maybe. But training it like a kickboxers, against kickboxers and with no forms, would be more beneficial.
Maybe we are all taking about the same thing. Training method instead of style but too often style is taught instead of good training methods. And for god’s sake you do need clf’s internal form or Ving tsun’s third form to fight.[/QUOTE]
So you think you could beat down a chimpanzee (in his prime) of lesser weight in a cage match with your real skills? Yes, no? After tearing you limb from limb he would bite your face off your lecturing head.
Personally I beleive that if you have a good instructor then the style is unimportant.
Once you have been studying under a decent instructor for a few years you come to realise that the form is secondary and that although you are an exponent of a particular style, you must adapt your art to the strengths and weaknesses inherant within yourself to make it an effective fighting method for you.
A good instructor and a worthy student will seek and share knowledge even if that knowledge falls outside the curriculum of the school or club to which they belong.
I have regular private lessons with one of the senior instructors at my club and we often talk about and experiment with techniques from a range of styles. If we think it looks like it might be effective then we’ll try it and see if we can use it or if there are any weaknesses within the technique.
[QUOTE=RWilson;1143658]1. We can all agree that forms do not produce fighting skills.
Which kung fu style do you all consider to be the best for those that want real skills in a shorter period of time?[/QUOTE]
I don’t agree.
There is no “best style”. It’s the individual that makes the “styles” effect or not effective.
Based on your statement I’m assuming you have little experience at all with any form of martial arts. My recommendation is to get proficient at one first. Do your research and pick one that suits your personal goals and mindset. After developing a solid base in one art start expanding your knowledge by training in other art forms.
