[QUOTE=pazman;1000657]If your gong fu is “shuai deficient” then it really isn’t gong fu, is it?
[/QUOTE]
You must have a low standard for what is an acceptable level of throwing skill.
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1000667]You must have a low standard for what is an acceptable level of throwing skill.[/QUOTE]
No…perhaps my standard for what is acceptable gong fu is too high.
Also, maybe I’m not aquainted with many styles of gong fu…are there honestly styles of Chinese martial arts that don’t have a signficant grappling or throwing component in them?
[QUOTE=pazman;1000657]I don’t have any problem with American schools using kickboxing and judo in their sanda programs. Afterall, most gong fu practitioners of the past 50 years have been passing up wrestling tournaments and full-contact kickboxing matches and instead donning silk pajamas, focusing only on taolu, and bringing shame upon Chinese martial traditions.
These schools obviously have to get techniques that work from another art.[/QUOTE]
This is by far the most retardedly racist, xenophobic, and ethnocentrically wrong comment I’ve read in so long…
Oh wait… I just read where you’re posting from. The land of lost recent history.
No…perhaps my standard for what is acceptable gong fu is too high.
Also, maybe I’m not aquainted with many styles of gong fu…are there honestly styles of Chinese martial arts that don’t have a signficant grappling or throwing component in them?[/QUOTE]
unlikely. Throws just aren’t a huge part of the art. There is a world of difference between GF and something like Judo or Shui Jaio.
There is a world of difference between GF and something like Judo or Shui Jaio.
Agree! The training priority are difference here. When you train SC, you first learn the application, you then learn how to enhance it by using the solo drill and equipment training. This is different from the traditional CMA form first and application later approach. Also when you learn SC, you 1st train the offense moves, you then train the defense moves, after that you start to learn how to use one move to set up another move (combo). If the CMA striking art can also use this approach (instead of solo form after solo form), the same result can be achieved as well.
In other words, if CMA striking art can use the 2 men drill approach (application) instead of the solo form training approach (performance), the combat result will be much more noticeable.
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1000730]unlikely. Throws just aren’t a huge part of the art. There is a world of difference between GF and something like Judo or Shui Jaio.[/QUOTE]
Then maybe I have trained the super-secret gong fu with the throws in it.:rolleyes:
And last time I checked, Shuai Jiao was gong fu.
[QUOTE=MightyB;1000697]This is by far the most retardedly racist, xenophobic, and ethnocentrically wrong comment I’ve read in so long…
Oh wait… I just read where you’re posting from. The land of lost recent history.[/QUOTE]
You just threw down a lot of loaded words there. Care to explain in more detail?
[QUOTE=pazman;1000738]Then maybe I have trained the super-secret gong fu with the throws in it.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I think that you are just way over estimating your understanding of throws in a San Shou match. Let’s be realistic. how many throws do you know and how often do you train them? If your answer is anything other than, “I know about 50 throws/takedowns and I train them at least once per week,” you should recant about knowing your trows. Great takedown ability is built upon mastery of usually of 5 throws, at most, with multiple variations and ability to use about 50 or so others.
[QUOTE=pazman;1000738]And last time I checked, Shuai Jiao was gong fu.[/QUOTE]
It is an unusual style that falls outside the general trend.
WCGuy,
I think you are missing my point and that we will actually agree on most things. I train Sanda at the sports university here in Wuhan. We train throws, entries, and leg catches specifically at least twice a week, on top of the daily sparring practice. I have a Judo and kickboxing background from when I lived in Japan. So, yeah, I know about 40 throws (but I can only do about 3 with ease:()
My point was that, traditionally, throws and takedowns were the bread and butter of many Chinese martial arts. I just noticed the WC in your name probably stands for Wing Chun…I have no experience with it so I apologize for generalizing. My primary experience with traditional Chinese gongfu is mostly Chen taijiquan and Songshan Shaolinquan, along with an introduction to Mantis. In both the taijiquan and shaolinquan, the majority of the moves in the taolu deal with stand-up grappling. And yet…the majority of traditional gongfu schools don’t really practice this. This is why I said “Shuai deficient” gongfu isn’t really a complete gongfu. (And I mean it in a way as a friendly challenge to other gongfu players to make their practice more meaningful:))
[QUOTE=pazman;1000798] the majority of the moves in the taolu deal with stand-up grappling. And yet…the majority of traditional gongfu schools don’t really practice this. [/QUOTE]
The traditional taolu may contain less than 5% of the throwing skill. The throwing skill can be divided into 2 categories, the “Sanshou throws” (face to face type of throws) and “body contact throws” (back touch chest type of throws). As far as I know, the “body contact throws” such as hip throw, leg block, leg lift, leg twist, pulling throw, bowing throw, embracing throw, … are complete missing from the taolu. Even in the “Sanshou throws” category, the spring, inner hook, outer hook, sharpening, knee seize, leg seize, … are also missing in taolu. Throws that exist in some taolu are foot sweep, front cut, shoulder strike, firemen’s carry, body control throw, … which are about 5% of the total throws. There are about 400 major throws. The taolu may contain no more than 20 throws (20/400 = 5%).
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1000805]
As far as I know, the “body contact throws” such as hip throw, leg block, leg lift, leg twist, pulling throw, bowing throw, embracing throw, … are complete missing from the taolu.
[/QUOTE]
This is NOT correct.
[QUOTE=pazman;1000739]You just threw down a lot of loaded words there. Care to explain in more detail?[/QUOTE]
Actually I’m probably more in agreement with you and the original post than I thought…
Basically San Shou as a competitive sport has only been around since 1979. It was a response by the China National Sports Committee to kung fu being perceived as nothing but a type of acrobatics because practitioners couldn’t fight.
But- here’s what’s missing from it’s official history… they didn’t have a solid martial kung fu base to build san shou on (because they were still recovering from the cultural revolution)- so what we call san shou borrowed heavily from non Chinese martial arts in it’s early development. We’re talking western boxing, western wrestling, Judo, and thai boxing. It did become more Chinese flavored with time, but the basic throws and strikes that are the standardized curriculem of San Shou — who’s to say where they came from or what they originally were.
As an example… You watch a match - you see jabs which never were big in Asian martial arts (Benny the Jet built his success in Thailand and Japan around introducing the jab to those venues… he was the first successful American in the Southeastern Asian full contact MA world… now find me a gym in Asia that doesn’t show a jab).
But- in the end, I’ll agree with you that San Shou might not be the best way to showcase kung fu as a fighting art. You should read the discussion on lei tai rules for mantis on the mantis forum.
[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1000737]Agree! The training priority are difference here. When you train SC, you first learn the application, you then learn how to enhance it by using the solo drill and equipment training. This is different from the traditional CMA form first and application later approach. Also when you learn SC, you 1st train the offense moves, you then train the defense moves, after that you start to learn how to use one move to set up another move (combo). If the CMA striking art can also use this approach (instead of solo form after solo form), the same result can be achieved as well.
In other words, if CMA striking art can use the 2 men drill approach (application) instead of the solo form training approach (performance), the combat result will be much more noticeable.[/QUOTE]
Love this- this is so true.
MB.
Muay Thai elements were not introduced until much later. Originally, non-Chinese kicking techniques that were imported came via Karate and TKD. You are correct that Western Boxing techniques and training methods were integrated right from the start. One of my coaches was a committee member of one of the original councils for the development of modern sanda and was responsible for developing a training program for the integration of Western boxing in the Shandong team. The throws really did largely come from shuaijiao though, and any true judo influence more likely came via sambo methods. In fact more technique was lifted from freestyle wrestling. To complicate things, the story was slightly different in each province- e.g Shandong’s development was different to that of Zhejiang and Guangzhou (Guangzhou Province team being one of the earliest to introduce Thai kicking methods). I’m not saying sanda didn’t import significantly, but of the major indigenous components shuaijiao was the largest. Of course how much shuaijiao had previously been cross-pollinated with judo (much earlier than the development of sanda) is another matter.
Of course there is propaganda around the founding and development of sanda/sanshou, but the fact remains that although the cultural revolution was a terrible event, martial development was not completely completely stopped or retarded during that period. It was not simply a case of the cultural revolution leaving China’s fighting styles without a ‘solid martial base’, rather that compared to countries such as Japan, Thailand and most of the West, there had never been a unified and well developed system of competitive fighting in place. Pre-Communist China had similar issues with deficiencies in full-contact competition (largely due to style disparity, lack of training methodology etc) and had begun to incorporate the hand skills of Western Boxing before the turn of the century. In fact the majority of Chinese systems didn’t even target the head much until the outside influence of Western boxing. If you have a look at the development of full-contact competitive fighting in Hong Kong and SE Asia, you can see that it went through the exact same process in terms of incorporating Western Boxing, Japanese and Thai styles. They did this much earlier and and more effectively, sending coaches and athletes to Thailand and Japan even in the 70’s. Why was this? Was it because the gongfu of Hong Kong was destroyed in a cultural revolution? They encountered the same problems as the PRC when trying to make Chinese boxing methods work in the ring with boxing gloves and with a generic rule set that would allow fighters from any style to compete.
Maybe the problem was that CMA were never developed with competitive fighting in mind and therefore did not translate well to the ring? Also the massive amount of diversity in CMA meant that it had always been difficult to standardise and set milestones/yardsticks in place. It is interesting to note that the Guomindang/KMT were the original major force in the development of standardised CMA (both fighting and forms) and the communists drew heavily on their work. So yes, although there is a lot of garbage told around the founding and growth of sanda, things are not as simple as they may seem. Of course there are those that would like the romantic view that sanda is 100% indigenous Chinese to continue, but there is almost no one involved in the sport these days that doesn’t know and publicly acknowledge that it has heavily incorporated foreign technique and training methods. It is a bit hard to hide, as PRC teams (particularly the professional and military teams) have been importing Thai coaches and going to Thailand to train since the 90’s.
SS/SD may not be the best venue to showcase CMA but apart from brawling in the street (which in my opinion and that of every teacher I’ve had, is what it’s really for), but it’s better than nothing. Personally though, the open-finger gloved versions of it are even better.
BT
Off topic but - The 5th San Shou Vs Tai Boxing tournament was held in Chongqing, from 19-20 of March. China apparently won 4:2, with three Thai boxers KO’d. This Thai team was meant to be a good one too. I haven’t seen the bouts yet but there’s apparently already a few clips up on the net (at least one on youtube).
BT
[QUOTE=B.Tunks;1000904]Off topic but - The 5th San Shou Vs Tai Boxing tournament was held in Chongqing, from 19-20 of March. China apparently won 4:2, with three Thai boxers KO’d. This Thai team was meant to be a good one too. I haven’t seen the bouts yet but there’s apparently already a few clips up on the net (at least one on youtube).
BT[/QUOTE]
That’s not surprizing. Thai boxing is inferior to San Shao. From a striking perspective, kiung fu contains much more knowledge than MT. Second, those who are trained to throw typically have better plumb/clinch skills.
[QUOTE=B.Tunks;1000901]MB.
Muay Thai elements were not introduced until much later. Originally, non-Chinese kicking techniques that were imported came via Karate and TKD.
BT[/QUOTE]
There honestly isn’t that much in MT that kung fu fighters don’t already possess. If MT fighters were smart, they would start watching san shao.
The only thing that gives MT an edge in the U.S. is that they are more organized as a full-contact sport.
There is a pile of mis-information in this thread at this point.
Nothing in China is free of politics and agendas, sanshou/san da history is no exception
The roots of sanshou lie in the 1920’s in attempts to modernize China and in the movement to create a modern political party. Sun Yat-Sen imported Soviet advisors to help organize the party and set up the military academy in the south. The original san shou program dates from this (ie approx 1926)
OF COURSE, the current communist government would never want you to know this
NOR, it should be noted, did the Deng government want to give much credit to Mao. Thus the often cited “1979” date…
The fact remains that the first “official” public book called “sanshou” was published in China in 1956
While the program began in the 1920’s it did not really take a good shape until the 30’s and the war with Japan. Instead of rival schools/men pai you had fellow Chinese battling a common foreign enemy. The environment was much more open and more TCMA fighters shared their valued material
The early Sanshou material largely show fighting WITHOUT GLOVES, often CHin Na, Shuai Jiao with jackets, and weapons work…
Neither the communists nor the cultural revolution killed it, it just STAYED INSIDE THE MILITARY.
In the military, originally an open finger kind of bag glove (similar to the current MMA gloves) was used…
In the late 70’s and early 80’s they experiemented with making a public sport out of San Shou. Boxing gloves were then implemented as the standard
By the time they were ready to take teh sport “public” internationally (1991) they removed knees to make it different than Muay Thai
[QUOTE=HumbleWCGuy;1000914]That’s not surprizing. Thai boxing is inferior to San Shao. From a striking perspective, kiung fu contains much more knowledge than MT. Second, those who are trained to throw typically have better plumb/clinch skills.[/QUOTE]
muay thai is exactly the same as sanda
All good points, thanks. To clarify, the ss/sd I am generally referring to is the boxing glove wearing modern sport variety that grew out of military sanda. I would argue though that the older forms of sanda do not very closely resemble the modern variety.
Out of interest, the open finger gloves were still used in chuantong sanda comps in Shandong and Henan into the 90’s.
HWCG
I don’t know about the superiority of SS over MT. If that was the case, why did the Chinese go to the Thais for leg technique and later in pro-sanda for knees? SS clinching is not better than MT either. SS has a few unique skills that stand out in comparison, including the lead leg treading/side kick and throws (as far as takedowns MT also has highly developed skills).