[QUOTE=Violent Designs;920771]It is pronounce “Jutsu” in Japanese.[/QUOTE]
Actually, that’s true.
[QUOTE=Kansuke;920775]Hidden. Hidden deep within the ‘authentic’ forms.[/QUOTE]
My forms are pretty **** authentic.
Trust me there are no sweep, butterfly guard, kneebar, or anaconda choke.
[QUOTE=Violent Designs;920780]My forms are pretty **** authentic.
Trust me there are no sweep, butterfly guard, kneebar, or anaconda choke.[/QUOTE]
No, no, you have to look deeeeeeeeeeep into the forms.
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;920766]and yet some never learn
really? guard passes, leg locks, guard sweeps, etc etc etc are all found in kung fu? Really :rolleyes:
Really? ACCORDING TO WHO? You? :rolleyes:
First, learn the difference between a “Do” and “Jistu” in JMA
Then, learn that the differentiation does not exist in CMA[/QUOTE]
My goodness. So condescending. There is nothing new under the sun, and everything stated is accurate.
You are probably one of those people who would say, “Those people who think they know everything really bother those of us who do”.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of bad kung fu and kung fu instructors out there. It is very difficult to find a good kung fu teacher. With that being said, they are out there. Your location, Beverly Hills, has some wonderful instructors in the area such as Buck Sam Kong who teachers Hung Gar. Also, Kung Fu San Soo is popular in southern California, and it is very combat oriented. Before you judge further, I would suggest you check out schools that are associated with this person and styles.
[QUOTE=Dim Wit Mak;920846]
My goodness. So condescending.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, not at all, just the truth apparently bothers you a lot :rolleyes:
So, can you answer any of my responses? EVERYTHING IN MMA IS IN KUNG FU? REALLY? :rolleyes:
I have strong academic credentials (Master’s in Chinese history from George Washington Univ) and I can show you documentary evidence that kung fu was pretty much ALL about fighting until very recently…
Care to respond, or just make flippant coments?
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;921022] (Master’s in Chinese history from George Washington Univ) [/QUOTE]
Did you concentrate on any particular period?
[QUOTE=Kansuke;921040]Did you concentrate on any particular period?[/QUOTE]
Everyone doing a masters takes “core courses” which include broad overviews, with particular emphasis on late Qing (decline of Qing)
My initial area of interest was Natoinalist China under Chiang
But academic politics being what they are, I ended up writing my master’s thesis on the 70’s/80’s transitional politics under Deng
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;921022]Nope, not at all, just the truth apparently bothers you a lot :rolleyes:
So, can you answer any of my responses? EVERYTHING IN MMA IS IN KUNG FU? REALLY? :rolleyes:
I have strong academic credentials (Master’s in Chinese history from George Washington Univ) and I can show you documentary evidence that kung fu was pretty much ALL about fighting until very recently…
Care to respond, or just make flippant coments?[/QUOTE]
To get an MA in Chinese History takes a lot of hard work, and congratulations on the Kung Fu (diligent effort) you put into getting it.
I have two degrees beyond my BA and several martial arts rankings, but I make it a point to never use them to bolster an argument.
The following comments are NOT about you, necessarily. They are mentioned to show why I sometimes have disdain for people with high IQs, doctoral degress, and the common sense of a People’s Temple cultist. I have sat under these guys listening to their nonsense. I have learned that my Great, Great, Great…Granddaddy was an amoeba, there is no God, socialism is the answer to all societal problems, drugs will bring enlightenment, and the list goes on and on.
I have also sat under some outstanding professors, and Marilyn Vos Savant proves that some brilliant people do have common sense. So pardon me for being skeptical of higher education bringing someone more useful education, necessarily.
I do not have a degree in Chinese history, but I do read about Chinese history. History is full of facts, interpretation of facts, myths, and speculation. I have heard historians say that there is no proof that Jesus or Confucias existed. It seems some people, as you noted, refuse to look at facts and some twist facts.
I have read that Da Mo brought his wisdom and exercises to the Shaolin Temple to improve the lives of the monks. The exercises were about improving health with perhaps some self defense applications. I would think that people could argue this a long time without resolving it.
I have read the history of several kung fu systems, upheavels in China, The Boxer Uprising (I used that term instead of “Rebellion” because it is in vogue with the historian types), The Shaolin Temple being a nest of kung fu vipers ready to kill all who opposed them, or saintly individuals. Who knows? Much of the information is clouded in myth and legend.
I am also aware that kung fu has been about fighting, and that China was a savage place to live with no 911 to call. Fighting well made the odds of surviving better. I am also aware of the historical spirituality of many kung fu systems. I do not pretend to know them all as many became extinct after the Boxer Rebellion and the Cultural Revolution.
Martial arts and their history are every bit as controversial as religion and politics. I have a friend who is studying to be a priest, and is a very good Catholic apologist. We are both aware that the wounds of the Reformation will never heal, at least until The Millenium, and that numerous religious controversies will never be resolved.
When I was a student of Tiger Kung Fu, back in the 1980s, sifu taught us the guard, the mount, escapes from the guard, ground and pound, high branches, low branches, rear naked chokes, wing chokes, triangle chokes, arm bars, wrist locks, elbow locks, chin na, gi chokes, and the list goes on and on. Were these things stressed to the same extent as a system which is primarily a grappling system? Of course not. Kung Fu systems are are primarily stand up systems. But ground techniques were taught.
BJJ does not ignore stand up. It has many stand up tools. But the idea is to get you on the ground where you are in their ocean and they are the shark. It is all a matter of emphasis.
Microevotion is a fact. This is true of dogs, cats, people, horses, football, baseball, golf, and the martial arts. Martial artists study what others do and see things they like, and adapt them. You see this in Chinese history as some master would seek to learn from the fighting skills of some animal or other to enhance their own system. Sometimes it would be different footwork or trapping. Things are not stagnant, they change. Look at all those who have been enlightened by the Gracies. No one has the whole picture, but the quest for the universal martial arts which consists of every possible combination in the universe continues.
I’m sure this will be attacked as illogical rambling so have at it. I believe that we should have thousands of teachers, but those teachers are always condensed into one. that one is ourself. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Kansuke;920784]No, no, you have to look deeeeeeeeeeep into the forms.[/QUOTE]
If you want to go that way.
I can find sweep, armbar, rear naked choke, and ****ing, guard, and mount, in SEX too!!! :rolleyes:
When I was a student of Tiger Kung Fu, back in the 1980s, sifu taught us the guard, the mount, escapes from the guard, ground and pound, high branches, low branches, rear naked chokes, wing chokes, triangle chokes, arm bars, wrist locks, elbow locks, chin na, gi chokes, and the list goes on and on. Were these things stressed to the same extent as a system which is primarily a grappling system? Of course not. Kung Fu systems are are primarily stand up systems. But ground techniques were taught.
Which branch of Tiger style? There are plenty.
Nonetheless, simply because it is taught by an instructor, does not mean it is part of kung fu. Plenty of people teach “ground techniques” in their systems nowadays, with these ground techniques coming from BJJ, Wrestling, etc. - That doesn’t make them kung fu.
The fact of the matter is, there is not a single kung fu style that encompasses a comparable level of knowledge and effectiveness of ground game, that BJJ or Wrestling does. The only thing that comes close is shuai chiao.
Aside from that, “Everything in MMA is found in Kung Fu.”, is such a ridiculous statement if only for the fact that MMA is a concept, not a style or collection of styles. Not only that, but is also ever-evolving, with the latest training methods which are developed based on the latest, and most up to date knowledge of the human body.
Thats not to say there isn’t tons to derive from kung fu. Theres much that is relevant. But the MMA community is far different, far more scrutinizing, far more focused on combat and science, and thus you will find plenty in MMA that is not in kung fu.
and what does it matter? Your Gung-Fu should always be evolving. (the original MMA-remember?)
So, now my Gung-Fu has groundfighting-from various sources-wherever I can take them; BJJ, Silat, Shuai-Jiao/Seut-Gohk, Ne-Waza, Joi Bot Sien, Yo Mama Ryu, whatever. And whoever I teach will learn it, and pass it down, and so on, etc.
This argument no longer exists.
what is a guard pass but getting at a guy who’s lying on his back?
how about a soccer kick to the head while he’s down there?
How about hitting him with a club or a chair while he lies there waiting for ou to come grapple.
Kungfu, by definition is beyopnd sport. It is not sport. It includes martial art devlopment, but that martial art development is not restricted to the aspects of what can or cannot be done under sanctioned rules in 3 rounds by 5 minutes each.
sport fighting has it’s place and can definitely be used as a part of martial arts training and indeed it is.
no martial art has everything. No kungfu style has everything and no mma practice has everything.
to bring it down to the argument of mma v traditional is to lose sight of the point at hand.
To think that kungfu is only a martial art and is not inclusive of the holistic development of a human being is like doing yoga only for the postures. It is suffice it to say incomplete.
just pointing it out.
and what does it matter? Your Gung-Fu should always be evolving. (the original MMA-remember?)
So, now my Gung-Fu has groundfighting-from various sources-wherever I can take them; BJJ, Silat, Shuai-Jiao/Seut-Gohk, Ne-Waza, Joi Bot Sien, Yo Mama Ryu, whatever. And whoever I teach will learn it, and pass it down, and so on, etc.
This argument no longer exists.
The argument isn’t that you won’t find it anywhere. Its that in general, you won’t because it isn’t part of the curriculum.
The problem isn’t with your personal gung fu, or a single good gung fu school. The argument is that in general, you won’t find it. To give credit to gung fu where there is none, is ridiculous.
Thats great that you incorporate techniques from these various styles - In general, this SHOULD be the attitude of teachers and students. The unfortunate reality is that it isn’t, and in general, most kung fu guys don’t even feel the need to consider the ground, at all.
Kungfu, by definition is beyopnd sport. It is not sport. It includes martial art devlopment, but that martial art development is not restricted to the aspects of what can or cannot be done under sanctioned rules in 3 rounds by 5 minutes each.
MMA is not restricted to sport fighting.
Mixed Martial Arts is the concept of cross-training in anything that is relevant. And the MMA community as a whole has a focus on BJJ, Boxing, Wrestling, and Muay Thai which, while they do have rules, have a ridiculous amount of fundamentals that most kung fu out there dont.
But just as there is that minority of gung fu people that train realistically. There is also the mma people who train for the street.
I can’t tell you how many bouncers i’ve met who use their BJJ, muay thai and wrestling effectively.
[QUOTE=TenTigers;921246]and what does it matter? Your Gung-Fu should always be evolving. (the original MMA-remember?)
So, now my Gung-Fu has groundfighting-from various sources-wherever I can take them; BJJ, Silat, Shuai-Jiao/Seut-Gohk, Ne-Waza, Joi Bot Sien, Yo Mama Ryu, whatever. And whoever I teach will learn it, and pass it down, and so on, etc.
This argument no longer exists.[/QUOTE]
The evolving nature of Kung Fu is very important to keep in mind, as you pointed out. It has always evolved. Adaptation is a huge part of the survival scenario. But then again, this can be said about many areas. Look at how people are scurrying to adapt to the current economic climate.
Kung Fu has always has both the jitsu and dow aspects. Ancient China was a savage place, and monks had to survive as well as seek spiritual enlightenment. In modern Kung Fu, the jitsu has shrunk a bit, while the Dow remains strong.
Many do not have the patience for Kung Fu and prefer the “Me learn smash plenty quick.” systems. Nothing wrong with that. Different strokes for different folks.
Many do not have the patience for Kung Fu and prefer the “Me learn smash plenty quick.” systems.
1.) Understanding of a technique is what allows people to teach and learn styles like boxing, bjj, muay thai, wrestling, etc. - If more kung fu teachers understood their techniques on a more technical level, you would see the progression into fighting ability at the same pace. Unfortunately the ignorance of the technical and scientific aspects are translated into the teaching, “if you practice it constantly, it will come to you”, or if you just do it, someday you’ll understand it.
This is an extremely ineffective method of teaching, and the reason much kung fu is in such a horrible state.
2.) Kung Fu(and I say it as a single entity, because it applies to ALL styles, karate, tae kwon do, anything) - when taught properly will, as implied above, be as combat effective in the same amount of time as your so-called “Me learn smash plenty quick” systems - which, btw is an extremely disrespectful way to describe systems which offer incredible depth and which you obviously lack an understanding of.
3.) Effectiveness is in simplicity. The greatest so-called “Secrets” to martial arts that I’ve found, aren’t in complexity or something that would take years to understand. To be honest, they’re simple, direct and effective methods. They don’t take ten years to learn. All of the methods i’ve found that aren’t over-complicated to the point of ridiculousness, can be learned in the same amount of time that it takes to learn how to jab, cross, uppercut, or throw a combination.
4.) Patience? A Persons time is extremely valuable. Especially when you’re being charged $100/month for someone to teach you who has no verifiable fighting ability. Thats not to say they don’t have skill or teaching ability - But people will be patient for something they believe is valuable to them. Many kung fu instructors are too incompetent to pass on this value. Whereas you’ll find plenty of boxing and mma gyms who offer quality fighting instruction and the value for people to devote their time and energy to.
[QUOTE=AdrianK;921281]The argument isn’t that you won’t find it anywhere. Its that in general, you won’t because it isn’t part of the curriculum.
The problem isn’t with your personal gung fu, or a single good gung fu school. The argument is that in general, you won’t find it. To give credit to gung fu where there is none, is ridiculous.
Thats great that you incorporate techniques from these various styles - In general, this SHOULD be the attitude of teachers and students. The unfortunate reality is that it isn’t, and in general, most kung fu guys don’t even feel the need to consider the ground, at all.
MMA is not restricted to sport fighting.
Mixed Martial Arts is the concept of cross-training in anything that is relevant. And the MMA community as a whole has a focus on BJJ, Boxing, Wrestling, and Muay Thai which, while they do have rules, have a ridiculous amount of fundamentals that most kung fu out there dont.
But just as there is that minority of gung fu people that train realistically. There is also the mma people who train for the street.
I can’t tell you how many bouncers i’ve met who use their BJJ, muay thai and wrestling effectively.[/QUOTE]
so you’re a fanbois then. excellent. lol
[QUOTE=David Jamieson;921396]so you’re a fanbois then. excellent. lol[/QUOTE]
Not really.
He’s actually quite dedicated to the Chinese martial arts . . . . just happens to be realistic about the limitations of CMA.
Which aren’t really “limitations” if you never plan on competing in wrestling, MMA, BJJ, etc . . .
But saying that CMA teaches ground fighting at the level of BJJ, is ****ing ridiculous.
so you’re a fanbois then. excellent. lol
Thats especially funny because I don’t really watch MMA anymore, nor do I attend an MMA gym or hold any rank in any grappling art.
But I see the weaknesses that are extremely prevalent. These weaknesses are just as prevalent in most karate schools as well.
I know who the legitimate kung fu instructors are, in my area. And I can tell you that there are ten times as many kung fu schools out here in california that are complete bull****. This goes for around the country as well, all you need do is check out what these people are offering on their own respective websites with their own videos and such. Good Kung Fu is hard to find. Good MMA on the other hand, is pretty easy to find where-ever you go.
Thats not to say there aren’t plenty of MMA Mc-dojos, but because of the more open nature of boxing, muay thai, bjj, sambo, wrestling, etc., its harder to find as much complete crap as say… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVTQMYeS5kg&feature=related
[QUOTE=Dim Wit Mak;921364]Ancient China was a savage place, and monks had to survive as well as seek spiritual enlightenment. [/QUOTE]
is that a fact or just hearsay?
Ancient Europe was probably even more ‘savage’