Kung Fu = a better way to fight

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

I think sometimes there is a point being missed in all of these “Kung Fu vs. MMA” threads. I have seen numerous statements like “A good kick-boxer will destroy most so-called Kung Fu masters,” which beside being ridiculous, completely misses the point. We who practice Kung Fu, are looking for a better way to fight. Now, simple techniques work the best, but most of us are familiar with the jab, cross, uppercut, hook. I think there are very few if any Kung Fu styles surviving today that are more limited than this. Most Kung Fu styles contain these movements, and a lot more. Basically, honing your fighting abilities in the physical sense, comes down to conditioning and techniques. MMA schools are winning competitions because of superior conditioning, not a theroretically superior technique. If they have superior technique, it is because of superior training, not superior theory. The whole point behind studying a sophisticated style is to gain an advantage over your opponent, who has not. The point is NOT to learn a bunch of useless techniques that one will never remember in a confrontation. If this is happening then you really are wasting your time. We should really strive to make our styles’ techniques our own, so that when we kickbox for training, we are using both principles and modified motions from our Kung Fu arsenal. To me, learning Kung Fu gives me the superior theory, one that still must be tested as far as my own application of it, but nonetheless an advantage over say, the TKD theory (or lack thereof) that I got way back when. An avantage over boxing theory, which is already contained within most styles, but Kung Fu takes it several steps further.

Now, as far as training principles, traditional training has it’s place. So does modern training. The main difference nowadays is the availability of modern devices such as weight racks, exercise machines, stopwatches, jumpropes, bags, protective gear. These should be used by any serious martial artist whose art has any external component to it.

I’ll take any hard-sparring Kung Fu over kickboxing. I feel my brain can handle the extra knowledge.

-FJ

2

[B] I think sometimes there is a point being missed in all of these “MMA’ers vs. Kung Fu” threads. I have seen numerous statements like “A Kung Fu master will destroy most so-called MMAer’s,” which beside being ridiculous, completely misses the point. We who practice MMA, are looking for a better way to fight. Now, simple techniques work the best, but most of us are familiar with the jab, cross, uppercut, hook. I think there are very few if any MMA schools surviving today that are more limited than this. Most MMA schools contain these movements, and a lot more. Basically, honing your fighting abilities in the physical sense, comes down to conditioning and techniques. Kung Fu schools claim theroretically superior technique, but many places don’t seem to have the conditioning necessary to hold up in these competitions, so we never get to see it. If they have superior technique, it’s certainly not in their superior fight training! The whole point behind studying a sophisticated style like MMA is to gain an advantage over your opponent, who has not. The point is NOT to learn a bunch of useless techniques that one will never remember in a confrontation. If this is happening then you really are wasting your time. We should really strive to make our styles’ techniques our own, so that when we spar for training, we are using both principles and modified motions from our MMA arsenal. To me, learning MMA gives me the superior theory, one that still must be tested as far as my own application of it, but nonetheless an advantage over say, the TKD theory (or lack thereof) that I got way back when. An avantage over boxing theory, which is already contained within most styles, but MMA takes it several steps further.

Now, as far as training principles, traditional training has it’s place. So does modern training. The main difference nowadays is the availability of modern devices such as weight racks, exercise machines, stopwatches, jumpropes, bags, protective gear. These should be used by any serious martial artist whose art has any external component to it.

I’ll take any hard-sparring MMA over Kung Fu. I feel my brain can handle the extra knowledge. [/B]

And for my next trick, I’ll pull a table out of my arse!

:rolleyes:

3

Great post!

And I agree - I just put myself back on a hardcore conditioning regimine. Most fights are won in the will.

The other factor that works against the CMA scene is that there is a lot of bad kung fu. Some of it wasn’t bad to begin with, but teachers hold back and don’t train the students properly. That fact plus the mcdojo’s are a serious blow to our credibility.

4

hmmm… meh, fighting an unenlightened person knowing kung fu…

i’d say the person who knows kung fu is much more likely to win

if they both have same builds, it’s like having the same weapons.
the skilled swordsman fights the green swordsman. the skilled swordsman will very likely walk away unscathed.

(knife fights are much different but i liked this analogy)

5

I pretty much agree. But superior theory will not win you the fight. APPLICATION of superior theory will. Combined will conditioning, muscle, power and the almighty belief that you will tear the f*ckers god-da mned head off. :slight_smile:

And MPS only scoffs when he has no comeback. :smiley:

MonkeySlap: Too many schools have a commercial front with a good hardcore club exclusive for certain folks IME. Reduces the success pool really.

6

I fight with Gong Fu because I’ve developed the muscleature and jings to make it work for me. Before I was ready I used Jiu Jutsu and Shotokan. Two fine arts that kept me alive for years.

7

Kung Fu vs …

Personally I believe other styles can only beat a good form of kung fu in a controllend environment where we are not allowed to use many of the techniques we are trained in - I’m not talking about a 20 move combo or something, I’m talking about simpler things like the spear hand, etc.

8

trust me, MPS has a comeback. but there are only so many times you can make the same arguments.

i think fa jing made a lot of good points, but we keep falling back into the same… trap?

why is it that we can’t have a discussion about good theory, good training, good application, etc. without time and again dividing ourselves along stylistic lines?

kickboxers only win because of this. kung fu could win because of that. taekwondo lacks this. kung fu has that. (actually, to be fair, fa jing didn’t say that taekwondo lacked theory, only that his experience of taekwondo lacked theory, with which i can completely sympathize).

we keep retreading these same lines of rationalization. kung fu has more maneuvers and theory than kickboxing, therefore if kung fu people were well conditioned enough, they’d have the advantage.

to put it succinctly, i’m wondering why we have to insist on reducing every style to one or two ‘keywords’ and then give it no more credit than that.

kickboxing = little theory but good conditioning

that’s a big, useless crock of crap. and if we continue to discount other styles, people, training methods, etc. with this sort of lazy reasoning, then we’re never going to get any closer to the truth of the situation. we’re just going to keep spinning in ever smaller and dumber circles.

kung fu = looks pretty but no application

JUST AS BIG AND USELESS A CROCK OF CRAP.

for crying out loud, people, we’re smarter than this. aren’t we?! we’re homing in on some really good, solid understandings. but why on earth do we have to keep relying on the same shallow assumptions to get there?

‘a carefully researched and directed combination of theory, training, and application will yield a better martial artist than results from a training regimen lacking in any one of these areas (i.e., lots of theory with little application or lots of application with less sound theory).’

see that? a logically sound statement that didn’t require one iota of baseless assumptions or derision toward another style. how hard is that?

i’m sorry. i’ve gone on a tear. but i keep thinking about how much further we could go if we just got past this constant absurd bickering about what kung fu, kickboxing, taekwondo, etc. ad nauseum are capable of.

stuart b.

9

Perhaps things would be better if we didn’t keep turining all of martial arts into some bizarre, circular, pointless competition.

10

shaolinboxer,

if i get your meaning, i agree wholeheartedly.

stuart b.

11

NPMantis

Russia. Brazil.

No eye-gouging, no biting. All else is legal in several venues in those countries. Or are two rules too limiting? Or are we going to talk about how no self respecting KF guy would ever fight in a sportive event? Or perhaps we’ll discuss how the ring is not the street and you train for self defense and to kill? Heaven knows the KWOON is JUST like the street!
:rolleyes:

And more or less what Ap said.

12

Sorry to interrupt…

Isn’t that really what the Martial Arts have always been about?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending that ideology, I’m just pointing out the truth as I see it.

It seems to me that as long as civilization has had Martial Arts, it has had arguments over who’s MA is superior. From clans to villages to entire countries, Martial Artists have always claimed that the style they practice is the best one of all.
How many needless deaths occured in older times because of egotistic challenges and duels, or schools burnt down because of petty rivalries??

The time we’re in now is good. Bruce Lee has come and gone, but he left behind the idea that all styles should not only be respected, but not segregated into “styles” at all. And with the countless internet forums Martial Artists have to connect and talk, we can compare without the fear of hostility (physically, at least). The only blows exchanged are words, the only thing bruised are egos. So I believe that apoweyn (Stuart) has a very
valid point - we could be doing all of ourselves a favor if we could help each other out, and share tips and techniques, instead of trying to prove once and for all who’s style is better. 'Cuz if it hasn’t been proven beyond a doubt yet, it most likely never will be.

I apologize for rambling…

13

cheers bongtzu

stuart

14

Trolling Fa Jing? :wink: :slight_smile:

I agree with Ap and Bong. Hmm, I haven’t applied an ap to a bong for ages.

I can’t even be arsed to reply to this one, no offense Fa Jing but I can see the way its going to go. Been there, done it.

****, I’ll bite.

Just because kickboxing has less techniques does not mean that there is any less scientific applications of those theories or combinations that they could be thrown in.

No point carrying around twelve guns if you’re going to only be able to get 3 shots off.

Yes, its nice to have options, but how many options can you really rely on under pressure? That’s right, the ones you’ve trained well. So go and bloody train instead of b!tching about how kungfu is a higher level of fighting.

15

"why is it that we can’t have a discussion about good theory, good training, good application, etc. without time and again dividing ourselves along stylistic lines? "

this smacks of Bruce Lee Ap! :wink: Although I am a fan of his films, and the man had some good ideas, I think he was missing some things, the same things most people who start this sort of argument. If I were to say to you that I had been studying MA for 16 years, would you believe the things I said to be true? How about if I died after making a few good movies? :wink:

Really though I think the problem is that as martial artist we grow, or mature in our art. For some, we reach a point where we realize that it isnt the weapon, its the wielder. True there may be some weak arts out there but in general if you have the will you will win. I could break your nose or your arm but if you have decided that even after that you are going to get me, you have a good chance of doing so, whether you are trained or not. Most people of course dont have that sort of willpower, and so we can overcome most attackers, hopefully.

A good skilled “Fill in the blank” can beat most people, thats why he is considered skilled. Will he win all his fights? Maybe, but probably not. Especially if he fights frequently. If he does his skill should get better right? Of course but he may have a bad day, or meet someone just that much better or has that much more drive to win. anyone with half a brain in the martial arts will humbly admit that the chance of a “Wail and Flailer” can beat them. i have a friend who is huge, if he tackled me and got his arms around me I would be done, he has no training, and I hope that maybe, just maybe the trianing will give me the edge I need to stay away!
Ultimately, if you practice an art, you probably believe it is pretty good, and sometimes believe it is superior. I dont practice Wing Chun because it is crap and it does not work. I dont think anyone on this forum practices an art they dont believe in.

Bongtzu - "Bruce Lee has come and gone, but he left behind the idea that all styles should not only be respected, but not segregated into “styles” at all. "

Are you trying to stir the pot a little? :slight_smile: Bringing up Mr. Lee is almost as bad as mentioning your art is the best! he had some excellent ideas. I think his idea of no more styles was a little too utopian. Some need the structure. I like to believe that he would have come to the belief that styles are necessary for various reasons, but our ultimate goal is to become formless. I talk alot about making an art your own. That I believe is the second step, the first is studying technique and style, the last is formlessness, most of us reach that in death.

16

red5angel,

well, i’ve been training for 17 years, and people don’t take what i say to be true. must be the lack of a movie career. :slight_smile:

there’s a reason that it smacks of bruce lee, yeah. he was a big influence. guilty as charged. and he pointed me in the direction of daoism, krishnamurti, and a bunch of other influences.

that said, my assertion stands. i’m not suggesting that people not like their style, not take pride in their style, etc. i’m suggesting that we stop making shallow assumptions about other styles in order to increase the prestige of our own.

you think that wing chun is all you’ll ever need. and that’s fine. it may well even be true. but i’ve never noticed you to make blanket statements about everything else to justify that.

stuart b.

17

p.s. bruce lee was in the habit of making derisive observations about other styles (some valid, some perhaps not so much). i try not to do that.

18

Hey Ap - admittedly he was an influence on my kungfu habit. He also had some very good things to say, but like everyone else sometimes did not practice what he preached.
I do agree with you on the pride of style. It is not necessary, confidence should be enough. I also agree with you on the shallow assumptions, as I stated before, normally some of us grow past that to truer realisations. As for blanket statements, if I have made one in the past I was deeply mistaken and or under the influence of something heavily mindbending!
I think ultimately we reach a state of respect, I can respect a tae kwon do man/woman, thier art is good for what they apparently need it for. I can respect a BJJ guy, his art seems to fit him well and works for him. I can respect both arts, for they exist and are propogated which means they can stand on thier own feet.

19

red5angel,

sounds fair enough to me.

as for bruce lee, believe it or not, i’m not a big fan of the movies. and while the books were an early influence, i’m not a huge fan of them either. i like the idea, but as is so often the case, the idea got big enough to be unwieldy.

stuart b.

20

Ap - I enjoy the movies, not for thier shining examples of martial arts :slight_smile: but for entertainment. When I was young, it was good, now that I am older, it has nostalgia. Other then Mr. Lee being fast, I have never seen an example of excellent MA from him, good, but not perfect. he was a very good and very dedicated athlete and he probably had good martial skill as well.
As for his books, well, he had some good ideas, some good concepts. Without getting into the murky darkness of JKD, I would say that these are all they were, he was forming philosophies and ideals that had ****her to go. Sadly he died before really accomplishing what he probably could have. his glaring weakness was his overconfidence in his ability. This lead him to believe that he had some understanding of the arts that those who came before him, a folly of youth I believe. It would have been interesting to see where he would have gone with age. Would he have fallen to the marketing monster and stuck to his guns or if he had a change of mind, would he have followed that path?
Regardless he has had a profound impact on the martial arts, if not just for the fact that he is an icon of modern kungfu.