Is wushu effective?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

I’m rather annoyed with people making assumption that modern wushu is ineffective as a fighting art.

To say that one practitioner is better than another is one thing. But to say that an entire fighting system is ineffective is less than sensible.

Modern wushu is a variation of Cha Chuan with Shaolin and Hua Chuan techniques mixed in.

The old compusory form was created by a committee headed by Wang Lung-Yun, the legendary “God Dragon” who gained fame by defeating any and all who would fight him in no-holds-bar matches.

Madame Wang Ju Rong, daughter of Grand-Master Wang Tzu-Ping headed the committee which made the later modifications.

Was Wang Long-Yun an ineffective fighter?

Was Wang Tzu-Ping an ineffective fighter?

I think fact speaks for itself.

2

No, it’s not. Modern wushu doesn’t train for fighting. Even though people who could fight have been connected in some way to modern wushu, that has nothing to do with me. They are exceptions, and did not learn exclusively modern wushu. If I go to a modern wushu academy, I will not learn to fight.

“To say that one practitioner is better than another is one thing. But to say that an entire fighting system is ineffective is less than sensible.”

Absolutely true–assuming that modern wushu is a fighting system. That’s absolutely not true. Sorry.

3

Modern Wushu does not focus on fighting aspects. Wushu is based on grace, balance, agility, etc. It’s a visual performance competition.

That being said, good Wushu players are amazing athletes. They are very good at what they do and I couldn’t do 1/4 of what is required for their sport.

The problem only exists when Wushu tries to make claims as being valuable as a fighting art. It’s not. it doesn’t train for that. Most fighting arts are not particularly pretty or interesting to watch. Because they don’t train for those goals.

Now, of course, there is nothing that states that one cannot practice both arts (performance and fighting). But the training is different, and if you want to achieve a particular skill, you must train with that specific goal in my mind. I’m sure that there are many people that are accomplished in both areas. But that is because they specifically train in both areas. (And much props to them! That’s one helluva lot of hard training!)

4

I don’t know which wushu school you’ve been to.

I can’t think of any wushu school that doesn’t teach combat skills.

Fighting theory is a mandetory cariculum in any legitimate wushu academy in China. No proper wushu coach would teach forms without also drilling proper application with an actual opponent.

Even in America, Roger Tung ended every class with sparring and technique application. I know Eric Chen carries on this tradition. Alan and Ming Liu is very particular about the effectiveness of each technique. I’m nowhere near the calibur of these coaches but even I wouldn’t subject my kids to “fake wushu”.

Anyone who teachs wushu like it was some kind of ballett is doing a great disservice to the art, not to mention the students.

Please don’t make generalized statements you can’t back up with proof.

5

I can’t think of any wushu school that doesn’t teach combat skills.

I can, but I won’t name names :wink: There’s actually quite a few like this, but it’s still not nearly as bad a situation as Taiji, Karate, & Tae Kwon Do IMO.

6

OK here’s an example that might help explain what I’m trying to explain better. In my group classses, we take advantage of the fact we have bodies to work with. The class is devoted to body conditioning, learning to accept pain (banging arms, getting hit, getting thrown) without it stopping you flow in a fight. When we do throwing, I’ll throw and be thrown 100-200 times per class. Believe me, it takes a lot out of your body. Wehn I am taught forms or stance, they are taught to a level so that I can incorporate them into my solo training. The emphasis is on footwork, alignment, and desigend to be a good cardio exercise.

The majority of my solo training is desigend to develop attributes. I spend a lot of time and developing the strength in my wrists and grip, whole body strength, bag work, cardio, with only a fraction going toward the froms and stance work.

From what I’ve gathered about Wushu players, the required attributes are totally different. The flexibility it develops is simply amazing. The requirement of the forms and stancework are totally different. I don’t have the grace and agility I’ve seen at Wushu comps. different goal, different training.

Again, I’m not saying one is good and one is bad. They’re just different. Decide what you want to do and train for it. If you’re doing the fighting training, good. Nothing wrong with that. But if you’re not following a porogram designed to make yourself a fighter, understand and accept that. There’s no way I could even think about entering and competing in a Wushu comp, I would hurt myself. But I also don’t try to tell myself that if I had to enter a comp in 6 weeks, I could do it. I don’t train for that skill set.

7

Wushu as it is here is a flower. Real traditional kung fu is the mountainside it grows on.

8

Wouldn’t that be more on individual focus, rather than the actual system? For example, because the vast majority of people who do Taijiquan couldn’t fight there way out of a wet paper bag, does that mean Taijiquan isn’t a good fighting art? You’re just lumping all modern wushu schools together as being no good for combat without knowing what’s in the original system developed. It’s no different than someone labeling Taijiquan as only good for health after seeing all these for health teachers.

9

Exactly. It’s the actual training program that the school teaches.

The problem only exists when Wushu tries to make claims as being valuable as a fighting art. It’s not. it doesn’t train for that.

Hear you are refering to the entire system of modern wushu, not any individual programs that schools/teachers put together. My point that is that the actual system of modern wushu was not flawed in such a way to make it no good for fighting aplication when it was created. The lack of combat is the result of individual changes made to the training programs of schools over the years. In other words, a lot of wushu schools choose to focus on forms competition, and end up leaving out a lot of material in much the same way a lot of Taiji schools will focus entirely on health, also leaving out a lot of material.

10

Hey, where’d your post go? Am I in the right thread? :confused:

11

Brad, to me, when I hear the term Wushu, that IS what I think of. If I am going to a “wushu” comp, I want to see the flashy moves, the kicks that go straight up in the air. I want to see the flash and the dazzle. I want to ooh and ahhh.

If I go to a Shuai Chiao tourney, I don’t expect to see anyone performing the shadow forms. I expect to see big nasty, bone crunching throws.

If I go to a boxing match, I want to see two mean very skillfully beat each other to a pulp.

If a teacher is teaching Wushu, he should be teaching what he claims. If a teacher is teaching for health, he should be teaching what he claims. And if he’s training fighters, he should be teaching what he claims.

I don’t have any problem what so ever with thos who teach for performance or health, even though my preference is that martial arts are for fighting. It’s only when someone claims to be able to train you to do one thing, but then delivers a program desigend to do something else, that I get upset.

I understand the whole caveat emptor thing, but people should have enough integrity to deliver what they say they will.

Again, I’m not saying that schools don’t exist that teach both Wushu AND fighting (AND health even) But a Wushu PROGRAM wont make you a fighter just as a FIGHTING program wont allow you to be competetive on the Wushu scene (All though both programs wiil be arduous enough to give you health benefits)

12

I deleted my other post. After I went back and read it, I realized it didn’t make that much sense and wouldn’t be productive toward the discussion.

-edit-
I’m also not trying to claim that modern wushu is “flawed” in any way what so ever. Solid Wushu is very good at what it does and I enjoy it a lot.

13

personally modern wushu makes me want to throw up. I hate to watch it and I think it sucks.

14

As simple as I can make it:

1 - wu-shu is any and all chinese martial arts

2 - “traditionall” wu-shu is all the “kung-fu” stuff, thus very much combat related

3 - “modern” wu-shu is a competition version of wu-shu, divided in forms (taulu) and fighting (sanda).
A - Forms are where competitors learn some standardized routines so they can be judged against each other. Routines are based on actual fighting styles but are developed for maximum visual impact not for maximum combat application.
B - Fighting is where competitors, well, fight. Full contact, throws allowed. All techniques are therefore learned solely for combat applications.

All of the above is wu-shu.

Good wu-shu schools should teach all of the above.

Some unfortunately only specialize on what “sells” most, which is 3-A.

Some athletes only specialize in one because they do wu-shu purely as a competition sport not as a martial art.

W

15

I heard this TRAD. wushu thing and Modern wushu too often. I spoke to my Si Gong about this. He said when he was a little boy, they called it Kung Fu. He is 71 and from hong Kong. It is very old slang. It is like the word “cool”. You can say “Hey, that is a cool car!” and then someone can say "No. It is not cool. It is a very nice car. Cool means “lacking in warmth”. “Very nice or very good is the right term.”

Kung fu to wushu is like Tang Soo Do is to sport karate (no disrespect). My friend teaching at a sport karate school in NJ. They also teach kickboxering and self-D.

Some people may say that back in the day modern wushu was like kung fu, but that was back in the day. Back in the day many Chinese women bound their feet but not now a days. What it was and what it is are two different things. Back in the day modern wushu was kung fu.

16

Dai Yoshida,

First off, welcome another southlander to the forum. Can you send me a private message with details of where the Pasadena Wushu Club you coach is located and times you meet? I would like to stop by some time. For the purpose of discussion, let’s agree that “kung fu” is traditional Chinese martial arts and “modern wushu” is a contemporary format of training and performance seen in competitions.

As a traditional, American, martial artist I have always admired modern wushu for what it is. I understand where your annoyance comes from. When people make negative comments about something they are not experienced with, they are usually off base and wrong. I might even be off base here. I’m sure there are many modern wushu athletes who can fight. I’m sure there are many who have also had traditional training. But to compare modern wushu to other traditional kung fu is a stretch. And the fact that Sanda is part of the curriculum doesn’t make the point either. Sanda is a great format for competitions and many of the allowable techniques are in Kung fu systems, but Sanda does not look like kung fu either.

What makes traditional kung fu, different has nothing to do with what it looks like to an observer. Forms don’t make kung fu. Methods do. It’s the how and why you train. Maybe “modern wushu” forms, with their flowery butterfly kicks and their spectacular aerials require great strength and balance but it’s from a different objective and the steps to get there are not the same. Hardly practical for fighting either. Many moves in modern wushu are purely aesthetic. With no purpose in fighting at all. No moves in traditional kung fu are without purpose.

For competition sake there has to be a division between the two. Good kung fu doesn’t look pretty to a judge that doesn’t understand the methods so modern wushu gets the advantage for it’s beauty. I have yet to see modern wushu players fight with their performance styles. But than, the majority of kung fu people practitioners don’t either.:stuck_out_tongue:

17

One thing that makes performance wushu inneffective in combat is that it is encouraged to hyperextend the limbs.

In combat, this is a no no of the major category. Never hyper extend. It looks great on floor gymnasts and wushu gymnasts but it will get yer limb busted in a for real go.

Modern competitive wushu does not have martiality as it’s focus.
And it can be said that anyone who thinks that it has martial applicatiuons is in for a rude awakening when they try to use it as a combative.

The focus is on higher leaps, artistic expressiona dn gymnanstic skill. The focus is NOT on martial applicability. The whole purpose of the invention of wushu in the PRC of teh seventies was to give the chinese people some reasonable facsimile of the beloved martial arts that are ingrained into their culture without giving them the ability to use the martial aspects which is a threat to the communist government and it’s local bureaucrats.

imagine, a vilage of people thoroughly trained in a true martial art? That would not bode well for local officials when the try to impose their wills on the folks would it? And that’s what Mao and his cronies were thinking when they gave this to China as teh national sport. Since then, it has becoma na art form and the traditional Kungfu is sometimes taught alongside so that those who do wushu that want to explore true martial arts can.

of course the inventors of it had to draw from the real arts. How would they be able to sell the idea to the people? And so, during the 1970’s they busted out the new martial arts for china and ping pong fell as the national art (kuo shu). IN the 1990’s, the curriculum was revised again to include some southern flavour and it was standardized into the performance routines we see today.

All these performance routines are practiced and preformed in exactly the same way with the emphasis placed on performance and not on martial applicability.

Masters of traditional martial arts fully recognize the differences between the two and the masters are not afraid to make these deliniations when they teach.

they will ask, what do you want to learn? this or that? sometimes, some students want to learn both and in the west, you can learn both a traditional and martially applicable art and you can learn the contemporary wu shu.

Contemporary wu shu actually borrowed heavily from the northern style Cha Chuan because of its large movements and specctacular kicks. I would say that in a western tournament, a Cha Chuan stylist or a Bak Sil Lum stylist could give a wushu stylist a run for their money in the looks of the form.

But I have to say that a 720 or a 540 aerial crescent kick is absolutely the most useless thing you can bring to a fight. UNless of course you are fighting a catatonic :smiley:

You would be luckly to get away with a 360, and in many cases, even a 180 crescent kick is difficult to pull off in a for real fight without massive ability and training.

anyway, it is what it is and it has value as what it is. Don’t try to sell it as something else, the masters don’t so why are you?

cheers

18

Tell it like it is…

What makes traditional kung fu, different has nothing to do with what it looks like to an observer. Forms don’t make kung fu. Methods do. It’s the how and why you train. Maybe “modern wushu” forms, with their flowery butterfly kicks and their spectacular aerials require great strength and balance but it’s from a different objective and the steps to get there are not the same. Hardly practical for fighting either. Many moves in modern wushu are purely aesthetic. With no purpose in fighting at all. No moves in traditional kung fu are without purpose

Great comment, Count. I am of the same opinion as Water Dragon and Count. BTW there are practical applications with the butterfly kick in kung fu. I doubt the the wushu “coaches” would know it though. :wink: What gets me is that Wushu keep trying and trying to sell a faust bill of sale. I suppose if you try hard enough people will eventually buy into it. What is worst is that it also tries to belittle kung fu by ways of using “scholarly” definitation. So I would say book worms don’t do Kung Fu neither. Pragmatic practice do. It is all about the method which sometimes seems to be pure madness. It is insane to just copy and to imitate the madness without true understanding of the method.

Sweet dreams, wushu.

Mantis108

19

People always pick on the hyperextension aspect…and this is where they miss a valid idea…and this is not only the Traditional folks but Modern as well.

Classical Chaquan (Zhaquan) DOES extend the limbs and use low low stances.

The saying " one inch longer - one inch stronger" and “Train low, use high” are heard in Chaquan all the time.

The thing that is missed is that you train to extend so you can get all of the power out. Then, you train to hit something so you know how far to extend and how far NOT to extend to maintain flow and balance. This is the age old distinction between form and function. The idea is you do both. Problem is, many Traditional folks ignore the form part of the training for the extension so they do not get the flexibility down as deep into the sinews. Then the modern folks don’t train the next stage to hit things so they don’t get the understanding of the application.

Both are incomplete approaches.

Stances are trained low for strength, speed, flexibility, and mobility. They train low and lower because it is 100% natural to NOT go so low in use…you simply ‘forget’ and fall into natural movement. However, if you have strength from low stances…and fall into natural movement, you will likely be more fluid, more rooted, more explosive, because you have more to draw from.

But, you have to take the next level of training …and many do not do that.

20

3 - “modern” wu-shu is a competition version of wu-shu, divided in forms (taulu) and fighting (sanda).
A - Forms are where competitors learn some standardized routines so they can be judged against each other. Routines are based on actual fighting styles but are developed for maximum visual impact not for maximum combat application.
B - Fighting is where competitors, well, fight. Full contact, throws allowed. All techniques are therefore learned solely for combat applications.

Standardized routines are not used competitively, except for international competition. In National or Regional competition individual forms are mostly used. There’s also standardized, novice, beginer, intermediate, and advanced forms used mostly for training resembling more taditional longfist forms.