just wanted to join in on the silly sux threads…thats all
[QUOTE=hskwarrior;913189]just wanted to join in on the silly sux threads…thats all[/QUOTE]
I agree with you. All who say that kung fu sucks, suck and should go and post in other none kung fu forums.
I think people who think MMA does not relate to Kung-Fu suck.
I think people who don’t investigate, research and understand the “MMA” aspects of their own kung fu style before going on to crosstrain it with irrelevant MAs, suck!
I have it on good authority (“hardwork”'s former sifu) that in fact, “hardwork” just plain sucks…
He just wasted two years of his time trying to be a Shaolin Wing Chun master!
I don’t see anything wrong with going outside your system to develop more tools. It usually leads to being more aware of what you already have in your hands, and it teaches you how to deal with outside system’s methods.
Just so long as you miantain that attitude, it’s fine.
Then again, it might also lead you to discover that your instruction, may have been inadaquate. This could be due to the instructor, or the student, or both.
Not all systems are complete, in fact many are specializations.
Wong Fei-Hung combined many things from various teachers to create Guangdong Hung-Ga. Many systems are a result of combining other techniques and styles. Look at Seven Star Mantis, different families of Bot Kua, Tai-Chi Ch’uan,etc. MMA has been going of since MA were created. Nothing new.
What is “new,” is more practical training methods are being recognized by people who are faced with a demilitarized MA, and wish to bring it back to a fighting art.
People are realizing that forms collecting does not lead to fighting skill, but drills, hands on, pressuer testing, and fighting do.
When are you people going to realize that you are arguing over nothing?:mad:
[QUOTE=TenTigers;914089]I don’t see anything wrong with going outside your system to develop more tools. It usually leads to being more aware of what you already have in your hands, and it teaches you how to deal with outside system’s methods.
Just so long as you miantain that attitude, it’s fine.
Then again, it might also lead you to discover that your instruction, may have been inadaquate. This could be due to the instructor, or the student, or both.
Not all systems are complete, in fact many are specializations.
Wong Fei-Hung combined many things from various teachers to create Guangdong Hung-Ga. Many systems are a result of combining other techniques and styles. Look at Seven Star Mantis, different families of Bot Kua, Tai-Chi Ch’uan,etc. MMA has been going of since MA were created. Nothing new.
What is “new,” is more practical training methods are being recognized by people who are faced with a demilitarized MA, and wish to bring it back to a fighting art.
People are realizing that forms collecting does not lead to fighting skill, but drills, hands on, pressuer testing, and fighting do.
When are you people going to realize that you are arguing over nothing?:mad:[/QUOTE]
Ten Tigers,
I agree with all of your post.
The fact that most, if not all, kung fu styles are products of cross training. The difference is that when it comes to kung fu, the different aspects are brought together to fit an individual style’s concepts and principles thus giving it its individual essence.
Take Wing Chun for example. It has influences of the Snake and the Crane (also, Tiger and Dragon) together with Chin-na, but when one sees it, he recognizes that it is Wing Chun. The same goes for Northern Mantis. More often than not all these styles were developed and evolved by masters.
What I object to is a bunch guys training god knows what kung fu with god knows who, while crosstraining it with a dozen irrelevant(clashing concepts and principles) MAs and then going on to imply that the result is “improved” kung fu.
Having said that, this type of crosstraining may improve an indivual’s fighting ability but going on to classify the end product as kung fu or somehow an “improved” version of a given kung fu style, whose “surface” most of these guys would have hardly “scratched” is too big a pill to swallow for traditionalists such as myself.
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;914092]
What I object to is a bunch guys training god knows what kung fu with god knows who, while crosstraining it with a dozen irrelevant(clashing concepts and principles) MAs and then going on to imply that the result is “improved” kung fu.
Having said that, this type of crosstraining may improve an indivual’s fighting ability but going on to classify the end product as kung fu or somehow an “improved” version of a given kung fu style, whose “surface” most of these guys would have hardly “scratched” is too big a pill to swallow for traditionalists such as myself.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think they are saying that they have improved Kung-Fu in general, but that they have improved their Kung-Fu.
They have found training methods and techniques which improved on the techniques they had already learned, and thus made what they had, more practical for them. lkfmdc has often stated that he took many of the Lama principles and incorperated that into his teaching. He has acheived success with his method and he is putting it out there. You may not agree with the delivery, but the message is clear.
Gung-Fu is a personal journey. Your experience will be different than mine, as your needs, backround, enviornmnet, etc is different.
That is their journey, yours is yours. You don’t need to agree or dissagree.
How many MA practitioners does it take to put in a lightbulb?
Two. One to put it in, and the other to say,“Ok, but we do it differently”
-yeah, wish it was that easy, but people are people and we butt heads from time to time.
At the end of the day, you do your thing, I’ll do mine. If you don’t agree or like what I do, I’m ok with that. I like what I do!
[QUOTE=TenTigers;914100]I don’t think they are saying that they have improved Kung-Fu in general, but that they have improved their Kung-Fu.[/quote]
Or more correctly they have improved their fighting ability, but this does not classify what they do as kung fu or TCMA.
Which is fair, but again this does not mean that they are doing kung fu. And having dabbled in kung fu on their way to MMA expertise does not classify what they do as kung fu.
A kickboxer may claim to use some Tai Chi principles in his fighting but yet does that make what he does classify as Tai Chi or kung fu?
Any success he may or may not have achieved is in the sports arena. As far as I am concerned most, if not all, kung fu styles were designed for real combat.
I have seen some of lkfmdc’s fighters. What they essentially do is kickboxing. This is my personal opinion but none of his fighters have the fluidity nor the relaxedness of their Chinese counterparts who have at least taken this aspect of their kung fu into the ring.
I don’t even agree with their message. All I can say about that is that lkfmdc and people of his ilk go around badmouthing traditional kung fu and present the practice of a glorified form of kickboxing as the “solution”.
I am not denying the fact that anyone studying any traditonal Chinese/Japanese MA should adapt it to the ring. What I am saying ring fighting as relevant as it may be, IS NOT REAL FIGHTING!
So my solution is to practice kung fu as it was meant which involves the development of solid roots,training all ranges; Iron Palm; internals (relaxed power, sensitivity,fluidity, etc); Chin-na and understanding the concepts and principles and general application of everything using fixed sparring and san sao.
My solution is easier said then done as to study kung fu properly one will need an authentic sifu with a deep understanding of kung fu and an ability to pass this to his student. On the other hand the student must be dedicated and must have an attentions span well above that of a rabbit, otherwise he will get bored and will run along to the local MMA or kickboxing gym.
My disagreement is not with how they experience their journey but with what they call the MA that they practice which is anything but kung fu. Describing what they do as kung fu is false and misleading, specially for the newbies.
Furthermore it is insulting to the real kung fu masters who created, practised and evolved the various kung fu styles.
LOL!
Unfortunately those arguments will always exist. My problem with many of these people is not about specific techniques but about definitions, that is, what is it that some of these people define or in some cases MARKET as kung fu!
Who said I don’t agree with what you do?
I wasn’t referring to “you” specifically. I meant,“y’all.”
[QUOTE=TenTigers;914119]I wasn’t referring to “you” specifically. I meant,“y’all.”:D[/QUOTE]
Whoops, Sorry.
I understand what you’re saying, but you guys are never going to convince each other, and you will be in this eternal pi$$ing match on the forums.
[QUOTE=TenTigers;914121]I understand what you’re saying, but you guys are never going to convince each other, and you will be in this eternal pi$$ing match on the forums.[/QUOTE]
I am not trying to convince lkfmdc and his friends, Sanjuro ronin included, that what they do is not kung fu. I think that they know that fact already, but they have a vested interests in keeping the illusion alive.
I just want to make it clear to others here my position on this subject and perhaps even manage to prevent a few newbies from joining some glorified kickboxing school thinking that they are learning an “improved” style of kung fu.
Got to do the good deeds, you know.
Many “TCMA Old School Masters” went from province to province learning different styles from different teachers, learning what they thought was good, and discarding the rest. Many of the styles in existence today are pieced together from other styles. Why is it that if a Kung-Fu guy learned from different teachers 100 years ago it is history, but if someone does it today it is betraying the ethic of Kung-Fu?
[QUOTE=GreenCloudCLF;914136]Many “TCMA Old School Masters” went from province to province learning different styles from different teachers, learning what they thought was good, and discarding the rest. Many of the styles in existence today are pieced together from other styles. Why is it that if a Kung-Fu guy learned from different teachers 100 years ago it is history, but if someone does it today it is betraying the ethic of Kung-Fu?[/QUOTE]
The answer is simple, because as you correctly pointed out the people “piecing” together various styles were kung fu MASTERS and not some glorified kickboxers whose understanding of the kung fu basics were wanting.
Furthermore, as I stated before these KUNG FU MASTERS accumulated knowledge within principles and concepts that identified an individual style(s). That is, an individual ESSENCE relating directly to a given style!
It was not a case of “I am in a Mantis fighting stance and suddenly I am going to hop around like a TKD guy, using Wing Chun chain punching to set up a back spinning kick followed by a boxing hook and then a Thai Boxing clinch and knee attack and wow I am so clever, I invented my own style”:rolleyes:
I hope that you have understood my example!
First, only now do techniques look “related” in styles. Through rationalization and stories do we link techniques. Who is to say when the style was first created people didn’t think “man, those techniques don’t go together.”
Second, only by training with people better than you do you improve. So, the “Masters” went to people that were better then them to learn more. I mean what is the point of learning from someone if you could destroy that person in a fight? So the Masters learned from even better Masters…How is that different than me going to 2 or 3 different stylists to learn different aspects of fighting?
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;914123]
I just want to make it clear to others here my position on this subject and perhaps even manage to prevent a few newbies from joining some glorified kickboxing school thinking that they are learning an “improved” style of kung fu.
[/QUOTE]
and I’m just here to remind everyone that you’ve studied a grand total of two years, have been caught lying, have been disowned by your own sifu and basicly are an asshat
So anyone reading your posts won’t assume you have any idea what you are talking about, can ignore you and better themselves
got to do good deeds you know
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;914172]and I’m just here to remind everyone that you’ve studied a grand total of two years, have been caught lying, have been disowned by your own sifu and basicly are an asshat
So anyone reading your posts won’t assume you have any idea what you are talking about, can ignore you and better themselves
got to do good deeds you know[/QUOTE]
That was a valuable public service announcement!
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;914118]
Which is fair, but again this does not mean that they are doing kung fu. [/QUOTE]
Of course, only the two-year grandmaster can make that determination.
[QUOTE=lkfmdc;914172]and I’m just here to remind everyone that you’ve studied a grand total of two years,[/quote]
I see that you have not given up on your unsuccessful character assassination campaign.
As I have said before, even if my kung fu experience was of 2 years then that would put me 2 years ahead of you and your glorified kickboxer friends as far as authentic kung fu training was concerned.
However, the fact is that I have an 8 year kung fu training history, eventhough I still consider myself a beginner, my training in authentic kung fu puts me 8 years ahead of you. Live with it!
That is another lie that you have repeated all over the place in this forum. People are waking up to your tactics and attempts at character assassination.Lol.
And your lies continue and you keep repeating the same lies again and again out of some desperation without providing a single shred of evidence! lol,lol.
YOU WOULD LIKE THAT WOULDN’T YOU!
Your whole objective of lying and feeble attempts at character assassination has been to DISCOURAGE people from reading my posts.
You don’t want people to read my posts because you know that my posts say the TRUTH that is what you and many “Kung fu modernists” teach as “improved kung fu”, “practical kung fu”, “effective kung fu” is nothing but a form of GLORIFIED KICKBOXING.
There is as much kung fu in what you teach as there is in a typical MMA class. Yet you like to use the kung fu tag or the “improved” kung fu tag because of some percieved marketing benefit. Your are here to sell kickboxing and you don’t want anyone to get in the way of your marketing. You have one or two fellow “sifus”:rolleyes: who back you up together with the rest of the know nothing “kung fu” knuckleheads here.
However, what you teach in your gym is kickboxing and you are here to sell as some kind of “evolved” kung fu and you see people like me as a threat and have been going about inventing lies, misquoting my posts, inventing more lies and getting as many glorified kickboxers (all of whom are as clueless about authentic kung fu as you are) on your side as possible.
Well you can start your good deeds by not acting like a coward and lying blatently about a fellow forum member.
You should then stop claiming that you teach any kind of kung fu. You are a kickboxer and you teach kickboxing! That is your limit Mr Dave Ross!
So be honest about it!!!