Reasons why Kung Fu will be endlessly debated

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

Lately I have been thinking alot about why the debates and aruments regarding Kung Fu happen and thought I would put them to writing:

  1. Kung Fu is constantly compared to MMA- Since MMA is the new age movement so to speak of martial arts it is completely understandable why the two are compared. But in the end MMA is simply a venue of competition and Kung Fu is a generic term for a style of fighting that at one time had connections to China. Feel free to beat this continuous dead horse!

  2. The Internal/External Debate- The concept of rooting priciples, fluidity in motion, using your opponent’s weight and/or strength against them, and relation of the body and advanced breathing prinicples are nothing magic, mystical, or secret. Internal is External, External is Internal, the Yin and Yang approach is well suited, and applicable to these training methods and ideologies. Chasing around ideas of mythical powers may be fun, but quite laughable.

  3. Cross Training in Kung Fu- Systems with deficiencies and more so people who are wishing to correct these deficiencies honor both their style and the masters who forged it by cross training. I do not consider purists like this do be traditionalists, they are collectors and keepers of relics which matter only to their interests and not that of the system as it was originally intended.

  4. I don’t see anything wrong with providing video proof of something to convince someone of it’s worth. If you make claims of something that someone here does not believe or that YOU want to prove to them, the burden of that proof falls on you. In this day and age, it is quite easy to record and upload something. If it is worthwhile, you may have spread your knowledge to other like minded Kung Fu stylists who now respect your opinion and can appreciate you insight, we all learn this way.

  5. Living off the past acheivements of masters- Perhaps your master was a great Lei Tai fighter who killed many evil foreigners who threatened his people. Great, so what have you done? What we do with our knowledge and power defines us as single men (or women). If you want respect, go out and earn it. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a wannabe no different than the fat ***** who sits on the sidelines of a football game and talks about how everyone sucks, even though he never played a day in his life.

We all walk a path we choose, but often times that path changes as life goes on. We see things for what they really are and experience things as they are meant to be experienced.

That or you choose to wander aimlessly through the woods.:slight_smile:

2

Very well put!

3

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]

  1. Kung Fu is constantly compared to MMA- Since MMA is the new age movement so to speak of martial arts it is completely understandable why the two are compared.
  2. The Internal/External Debate- The concept of rooting priciples, fluidity in motion, using your opponent’s weight and/or strength against them, and relation of the body and advanced breathing prinicples are nothing magic, mystical, or secret. Internal is External, External is Internal, the Yin and Yang approach is well suited, and applicable to these training methods and ideologies. Chasing around ideas of mythical powers may be fun, but quite laughable.[/QUOTE]

Oftentimes native Chinese speakers will call it “Chinese gong fu” not just gong fu. Now this is only my interpretation but the implication is that there are other forms of gong fu that are not Chinese such as Thai or BJJ or boxing. I’m reaching but it kind of makes sense.

I think the MMA debate is necessary and good however annoying and repetitive it may be. It forces an admittedly small percentage of people to look critically at their practice. Chinese gong fu SHOULD be able to compete in modern MMA and it is really the fault of the community of practitioners that it’s not. But people who hang out on gong fu message boards who have no other abiding interest than to deride and belittle gong fu culture are akin to a fat wannabe jock who couldn’t make the cut as a JV team bench warmer making fun of the wannabe nerds who couldn’t make the Jr. Science club.

These high minded ideals about internal methods are already present in ALL extant Chinese martial arts. The Song-Confuncian Buddhist Daoist syncretism, balance of hard and soft, jing, qi, shen, the taiji so on and so forth.

Those beholden to the superiority of styles labeled internal are mindlessly propagating a Republican era marketing strategy, nothing more. Obstinately defending obtuse cultural prejudices when they have not the faintest idea about nor any inclination to investigate the social, economic and political environments out of which they developed. The Chinese are bad enough with the cultural superstitions and myths, but once some [URL=“http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2011/10/22/northern-ireland-man-tries-to-create-gold-using-his-own-feces/”]westerners get a hold of it and start compounding it with their own wild misinterpretations. . .

4

Maybe there should be a discussion on why anyone should care?

I personally don’t care what anyone thinks about anything. I mean emotionally, I like others people’s opinions when they are fascinating for some or other reason, but the debate about whether Kung Fu is this or that, or that other thing over there, is immaterial to me, because it is any or all of them according to one’s person perspective.

The argument is usually boring, but information about history or theories or principles can be interesting to me.

5

Everything is cyclical. To me, MMA is simply putting all the elements back together that were separated in Japanese martial arts. Gong Fu has all this anyway.

6

There were many JMA that were “complete” in the MMA way:
Jujutsu systems always covered all the ranges, regardless of specialization.
TCMA tended to also cover all the ranges but they typically were also specialized, you don’t see ground grappling in Taiji, you don’t see an over emphasis on throws in Wing Chun, to name two examples.
Correct kung fu should indeed include:
strikes
locks
throws
submissions
But you knwo what?
So should almost every other MA and most make the claim that they do too.
Context:
the MA of combat Boxing for example:
Has strikes (check)
Has throws (trips and sweeps mostly) (check)
Has locks ( locking up in the clinch) ( check)
Has subs ( submission via strikes and stand up chokes) (check).

7

Why Kung Fu’s the best!!!

I do kung fu so that one day I can be a bad guy like in an anime movie… an evil business man, armed with a jian, wearing a kick arse suit.

MMAers are at best the thug underling henchmen - they are never the evil syndicate boss like a kung fu man!!!

8

I think that if more TCMA would get out from under their little “bubble” and experience what other MA and modes of training have to offer, the vast majority of these debates would disappear.
One thing I have found is that those MA that have experienced a “world view” of MA do NOT have the typical “head in sand” view.
When you’ve seen first hand the different methods and results and exprienced them, you realize that it truly is the “same thing with a different label”.

9

at what point do you stop giving a shiite?

I honestly don’t care too much either way. Sometimes it’s fun to play MMA, sometimes I just want to go to town with my jian. I don’t want to achieve anything any more - just play-fu!

10

[QUOTE=MightyB;1139444]I honestly don’t care too much either way. Sometimes it’s fun to play MMA, sometimes I just want to go to town with my jian. I don’t want to achieve anything any more - just play-fu![/QUOTE]

You stop giving a **** when you are able to take the **** that others shovel.
Some can do it, others can’t.

11

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]

  1. Kung Fu is constantly compared to MMA- Since MMA is the new age movement so to speak of martial arts it is completely understandable why the two are compared. But in the end MMA is simply a venue of competition and Kung Fu is a generic term for a style of fighting that at one time had connections to China. Feel free to beat this continuous dead horse![/QUOTE]

For those of us who actually practice kung fu, the TCMAs still have connections with China and always will!

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]2. The Internal/External Debate- The concept of rooting priciples, fluidity in motion, using your opponent’s weight and/or strength against them, [/QUOTE]

So, you think that these concepts do not exist in External TCMA, or MA in general? I believe that like most people here you misunderstand the Internals.

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]and relation of the body and advanced breathing prinicples are nothing magic, mystical, or secret. [/QUOTE]
The fact that there are advanced methodologies of any kind would imply that not all people know them. This in turn would imply that more many, they are secret.:wink:

As for the magical or mystical, then I would say that those terms are heard more often from non-TCMAists while they ridicule Internal concepts that they have never trained, NOT from most Internalists.

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]Internal is External, External is Internal, the Yin and Yang approach is well suited, and applicable to these training methods and ideologies. [/QUOTE]

By the same token and using the Yin Yang principle, can one say that night is day, day is night, black is white, white is black? Of course not!

The yin and yang (Internal and External) are always related, which is different from being the same!

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]Chasing around ideas of mythical powers may be fun, but quite laughable.[/QUOTE]
Again chasing ideas of “mythical power” is something only the non-TCMA practitioners (including those who think they practice TCMAs), use to ridicule scientific training concepts that they have no experience in.

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]3. Cross Training in Kung Fu- Systems with deficiencies and more so people who are wishing to correct these deficiencies honor both their style and the masters who forged it by cross training. I do not consider purists like this do be traditionalists, they are collectors and keepers of relics which matter only to their interests and not that of the system as it was originally intended.[/QUOTE]

Traditional kung fu styles are seen as relics, only by those who have never practiced them in an authentic manner, and hence have ended up with inefficient methodologies.

As for cross training, as you, yourself imply, the old masters cross trained and created many of these styles. Of course, they fitted and accommodated given techniques within certain principles/concepts/methodologies that gave their particular style their distinct essence. Anyway, suffice to say that in China, the kung fu masters were crosstraining long before the birth of the beloved Ken Shamrock…LOL!

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]4. I don’t see anything wrong with providing video proof of something to convince someone of it’s worth. If you make claims of something that someone here does not believe or that YOU want to prove to them, the burden of that proof falls on you. In this day and age, it is quite easy to record and upload something. If it is worthwhile, you may have spread your knowledge to other like minded Kung Fu stylists who now respect your opinion and can appreciate you insight, we all learn this way.[/QUOTE]

Facts are facts, independent of the fact wether someone can provide a video of it for people who have never trained TCMAs in their lives. :wink:

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]5. Living off the past acheivements of masters- Perhaps your master was a great Lei Tai fighter who killed many evil foreigners who threatened his people. Great, so what have you done? What we do with our knowledge and power defines us as single men (or women). If you want respect, go out and earn it. [/QUOTE]

Past masters having won challenge matches, street fights, etc. proves that he systems are FUNCTIONAL. That is all that is important. It doesn not mean that their students need to go out and fight challenge matches, it just means that what they are learning is practical (if taught properly) if they ever need to use it. That is all!

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]Otherwise, you are nothing more than a wannabe no different than the fat ***** who sits on the sidelines of a football game and talks about how everyone sucks, even though he never played a day in his life.[/QUOTE]
That sounds suspiciously like the MMA-ists or the pseudo-kung fu-ists that criticize the TCMAs, without ever having practiced them authentically…LOL!

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]We all walk a path we choose, but often times that path changes as life goes on. We see things for what they really are and experience things as they are meant to be experienced. [/QUOTE]
YOu have just described my kung fu path!

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]That or you choose to wander aimlessly through the woods.:)[/QUOTE]

Don’t get me started on those fellas!!!

12

Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, “Hey, there is an elephant in the village today.”

They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, “Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway.” All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.

“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg.

“Oh, no! it is like a rope,” said the second man who touched the tail.

“Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,” said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.

“It is like a big hand fan” said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.

“It is like a huge wall,” said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.

“It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.

They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, “What is the matter?” They said, “We cannot agree to what the elephant is like.” Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, “All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said.”

“Oh!” everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.

The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, “Maybe you have your reasons.”

13

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1139439]I think that if more TCMA would get out from under their little “bubble” and experience what other MA and modes of training have to offer, the vast majority of these debates would disappear.
One thing I have found is that those MA that have experienced a “world view” of MA do NOT have the typical “head in sand” view.
When you’ve seen first hand the different methods and results and exprienced them, you realize that it truly is the “same thing with a different label”.[/QUOTE]

This is very true. I find the saddest thing is that most all martial arts have some value to them and many are similiar in both approach and technique. There are only so many ways the human body moves, and many of these methods are the same.

For example:

Karate Reverse Punch- Comes from the back hand, held at the ribcage or at the head (depending on the target) the fist turns over as the punch is rotated forward, feet, legs, hips, torso all work together for impact power.

Boxing Cross- Same as above.

Pai Lum Side Thrust Kick- From front or side stance, back leg steps, front leg chambers, kick shoots out kicking with the heel and the hips turned over, re-chamber, back to stance.

Taekwondo- Same as above. (According to one lesser member here, Taekwondo has no value.:rolleyes:)

Muay Thai Plum- After entering your opponent’s space, hands shoot behind the neck for head control. Forearm press down across opponents collarbones, head control is key. Where the head goes, the body follows.

Shuai Jiao Clinch- Same as above. (This is merely a part of Shuai Jiao but the point is taken.)

Now ask yourself this, does it matter where something came from. I’m sure all of have worked out with a fellow martial artist that taught us something and we learned from it. Does that stagnate what you know because it came from another source??:confused:

In the end we are all humans with two arms and two legs, nothing more.

14

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139451]This is very true. I find the saddest thing is that most all martial arts have some value to them and many are similiar in both approach and technique. There are only so many ways the human body moves, and many of these methods are the same.

For example:

Karate Reverse Punch- Comes from the back hand, held at the ribcage or at the head (depending on the target) the fist turns over as the punch is rotated forward, feet, legs, hips, torso all work together for impact power.

Boxing Cross- Same as above.

Pai Lum Side Thrust Kick- From front or side stance, back leg steps, front leg chambers, kick shoots out kicking with the heel and the hips turned over, re-chamber, back to stance.

Taekwondo- Same as above. (According to one lesser member here, Taekwondo has no value.:rolleyes:)

Muay Thai Plum- After entering your opponent’s space, hands shoot behind the neck for head control. Forearm press down across opponents collarbones, head control is key. Where the head goes, the body follows.

Shuai Jiao Clinch- Same as above. (This is merely a part of Shuai Jiao but the point is taken.)

Now ask yourself this, does it matter where something came from. I’m sure all of have worked out with a fellow martial artist that taught us something and we learned from it. Does that stagnate what you know because it came from another source??:confused:

In the end we are all humans with two arms and two legs, nothing more.[/QUOTE]

The old adage:
When I was a beginner a punch was a punch and a kick was a kick.
When I become more experienced a punch wasn’t just a punch and a kick wasn’t just a kick.
Now that I am expereinced, a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick,

15

The old adage:
When I was a beginner a punch was a punch and a kick was a kick.
When I become more experienced a punch wasn’t just a punch and a kick wasn’t just a kick.
Now that I am expereinced, a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick,

Soooooo…wudduhya sayin? huh? LOL JK…

16

TCMA does not deal with the reality of ground fighting. What “some” have posted as “evidence” is flimsy speculation on things they have never done. You have to know something before you can comment on it in a knowledgeable manner. (ground) TCMA presents a bland overview of techniques that do not delve into deeper work in that sector. My opinion and it will stay the same unless someone can present me with “hard” evidence to counter. It’s not a bash on TCMA, most of the stand up is great, it has many priceless contributions in the MA world.

Boxing doesn’t have ground work. You don’t see all these boxers getting all bent out of shape when they are told they don’t. They agree.

17

[QUOTE=Dragonzbane76;1139502]TCMA does not deal with the reality of ground fighting. What “some” have posted as “evidence” is flimsy speculation on things they have never done. You have to know something before you can comment on it in a knowledgeable manner.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting, as this concept never stopped the MMA-ists from cluelessly criticising the TCMAs and suggesting improvements. LOL!

QUOTE=Dragonzbane76;1139502 TCMA presents a bland overview of techniques that do not delve into deeper work in that sector. My opinion and it will stay the same unless someone can present me with “hard” evidence to counter.[/QUOTE]

Your “opinion” is just another among dozens of opinions of people in this forum who do not practice the TCMAs. IT will only carry weight when you decide to actually decide to practice authentic TCMAs for some years.

[QUOTE=Dragonzbane76;1139502]It’s not a bash on TCMA, most of the stand up is great, it has many priceless contributions in the MA world. [/QUOTE]
I would suggest that one of those contributions is the ability to stay on your feet when someone tries to take you down. :wink:

[QUOTE=Dragonzbane76;1139502]Boxing doesn’t have ground work. You don’t see all these boxers getting all bent out of shape when they are told they don’t. They agree.[/QUOTE]

So you do not see the difference between a methodology such as boxing and the hundreds of styles of many times profound TCMAs? I rest my case…LOL!

18

[QUOTE=Dragonzbane76;1139502]Boxing doesn’t have ground work. You don’t see all these boxers getting all bent out of shape when they are told they don’t. They agree.[/QUOTE]
When a

  • BJJ guy tells a boxer that boxing doesn’t have ground game, that boxer has so much shame, he gets a rope, finds a quite place, and hangs himself.

  • Boxer tells a BJJ guy that BJJ doesn’t have hook punch, that BJJ guy has so much shame, he finds a quite place, stands in front of a tree, smashes his head, and cracks his skull.

19

[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139405]Lately I have been thinking alot about why the debates and aruments regarding Kung Fu happen and thought I would put them to writing[/QUOTE]

  1. Discussing actual kung fu technique takes work.

  2. LKFMDC left, and why should YKW do all that work by himself?

That’s the truth. The discussion of actual technique has been nothing, everyone is debating this crap. 99% of which is guys who talk a lot about principles of kung fu, and only a tiny amount about techniques. You couldn’t fill a pamphlet with the principles of any system, all the old kung fu manuals are about techniques based around principles, but about techniques, yet somehow kung fu is this nebulous practice that teaches general motions, not specific techniques.

A few months of technical discussion between a few people showed me to be right, but we’ve reverted to a useless paradigm where technical discussion of kung fu isn’t happening, but ten year old debates whose only cure is technical discussion of kung fu, but no discussion.

Muay thai guys don’t fight and then learn their system, they learn their system and when they’re ready within the context of the system, they fight. Same with bjj, mma, kickboxing. Only people slagging on kung fu recommend otherwise, and some kung fu people listen, and of course, that doesn’t go well, because if you don’t train for the venue, you will be at a disadvantage.

The problem with pretty much all the kung fu fights online where the kung fu guy gets creamed, is the kung fu guy literally does nothing relevant to the fight, because they did not train to read another person pre-contact, post-contact, period. The solution isn’t “enter the ring”, the solution is train as if you are, then enter the ring if you so choose. The whole paradigm here now is the opposite, and it’s useless. I don’t care what a person’s fight history is, if we’re discussing kung fu, and they don’t reference anything more than a principle as what they use from the system, that’s not a system of kung fu, that’s an idea kung fu gave you. That’s what’s being espoused here now, and it’s effectively death to kung fu. Without more technical knowledge, there will never be more fighters coming from these systems.

Bleck.

And that goes for the suggestion that some people just slag on tcma, and that in fact all those people are merely conveying well formed arguments based solely around fantasy and never are first and foremost generalizing their judgment to all tma. Um, no.

20

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1139536]When a

  • BJJ guy tells a boxer that boxing doesn’t have ground game, that boxer has so much shame, he gets a rope, finds a quite place, and hangs himself.

  • Boxer tells a BJJ guy that BJJ doesn’t have hook punch, that BJJ guy has so much shame, he finds a quite place, stands in front of a tree, smashes his head, and cracks his skull.[/QUOTE]

I hope what you say is true, because then hopefully soon there will be less of them posting in this forum. :smiley: ;):slight_smile: