The de-volution of kungfu? (quite long)

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Shaolin Kung Fu
1

Does anyone own a copy of A Guide to Martial Arts by the late Wu Shu Master Li Tianji? Well, if you get a copy, inside it has a very enlightening history of the evolution of kungfu, depicting how it all began with wrestling type movements and on to what it is today.

However, I am a little conserned by the amount of stuff going around that shows a lot of similarity to this primitve form of fighting (wrestling).

There are many self-proclaimed masters who are opening schools of Wing Chun and “blending” the art with Brazillian Jiu Jitsu. Now why this is happening, I have no idea. Maybe money, who knows. But I do see a lot of it, and it concerns me that those teaching kungfu obviously have not understood it enough, and so with already a seemingly very limited understanding they are then mashing up its meaning even more by putting in something that too much represtents what kungfu orginally moved on from thousands of years ago.

Many teachers i notice justify this by saying “Martial arts must evolve with the times.” How is that evolving with the times? adding wrestling only really de-volves the arts. Wrestling was modified originally thousands of years ago to suit times because people found fists and so on a lot more useful. Plus the fact that people then began to have swords and spears, that changed a lot of what was deemed practical. Just because we have laws now, should we lessen the limitations of the art? Not at all. In a metaphorical sense it is like this saying: if you can kick high, you can kick low. Only practise low kicks and you cannot kick high.

So in fact, by adding wrestling, surely we are softening the art and not training ourselves at our true limits (the main purpose of kungfu).

I find as westerners we are always seemingly to be driven by a lack of desire to refine. We take the easy path always because we are lazy. “Fast food” arts are chosen above kungfu becaue the road is easier, and often justified by “If it works it works”.

But that does not hold for me. Surely, if we wish to become masters in the true sense of the word then “If it works, how can I make it work better?” should be the real goal?

One last thing as I mentioned self-proclaimed masters… how is it that in our modern society every Tom, Richard and Harry can become a Master? There are chinese sifu out there who make our masters look like babies. How is it anyone can be happy with being labelled a master when they are not? I seak of both East and West and i have seen many more chinese call themselves masters when i have met sifu who would eat them alive!

2

Re: The de-volution of kungfu? (quite long)

Originally posted by SmallAssassin
One last thing as I mentioned self-proclaimed masters… how is it that in our modern society every Tom, Richard and Harry can become a Master? There are chinese sifu out there who make our masters look like babies. How is it anyone can be happy with being labelled a master when they are not? I seak of both East and West and i have seen many more chinese call themselves masters when i have met sifu who would eat them alive!

It’s called money, and thats all these americans care about. I have seen masters with horrible kung fu/karate. there are a couple “masters” in my area, only reason they are “masters” is because they brought martial arts to thsi area. a lot of there moves are stupid and their performance bad. but people never saw a good master so they dont know what to compare it to.

Plus there is a school in my area that the sifu once said. I take their money and I make them happy, thats all that matters. I mean the guy lied to his students how he was promoted to master, yet he cant even do three butterfly kicks, wont even try it. his stances are week, but hes a good business men.

old saying “the good martial artists are bad business men, the bad martial artists are good business men.” not always true cause i have met good martial artists/business men.

3

Well it raises the question:

Do those who study the true arts stand idly by and allow the public, even those sincere to learn, be mislead, or do they say something?

We can ponder the idea that those who seek will find, and I suppose it is true since only the easily satisfied will be happy with the mediocre.

4

Re: Re: The de-volution of kungfu? (quite long)

Originally posted by Shaolinlueb
[B]

It’s called money, and thats all these americans care about.[/B]

Indeed. We Americans are greedy, lazy, ignorant, and quite gullable.

:wink:

5

There is always greed with humans

But this is really nothing new. I’m sure there were plenty of charlatans with the Jianghu, eager to part any fool with their money. Such is the way of warriors, or perhaps ronin might be a better term here.

The real difference isn’t so much the greed, since that’s far from new, nor is it laziness, which again, ain’t that novel. Gullibility has been with us all along too. It’s the technology of our time. For example, if you were a village farmer in days of old, you worked with your body all the time, building a great strong foundation for practice. There was no cars, no TV, nothing to distract you. Just work and practice. And that practice would be called upon when you had to defend your community from bandits. It’s just not like that anymore. You must keep your practice in the context of it’s period. In a gun world, it’s crazy to devote so much time to practice. Previously, it was crazy not to do so.

6

Right, then if we consider it crazy to devote so much time to practise in a gun world, then that is exactly my point… if we don’t practise enough, with the same quality of our predecessors, then we are substantially lowering the bar of the quality of the arts.

Just because guns are around, why should our journey down the road of kungfu be shortened?

Kungfu at its highest level is a Way of Life. Our envirnment should not effect our decision as to how high we should aim to reach.

My other point is that I haven’t once come across anyone with a gun in my 27 years of life. To lower my standard and shorten my goal with kungfu simply because the sun shines less or guns are more common, is not Chan.

7

Does anyone own a copy of A Guide to Martial Arts by the late Wu Shu Master Li Tianji?

Do you know where I could get a copy(in English)?

8

Nevermind, I found it :slight_smile:

9

Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear.

If a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it should be kept.

If it doesn’t, the belief should not only be discarded,but the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous.

In a nutshell, it is virtually impossible to make a claim that someone knows the entire construction and evolution of the path that we know as Kungfu training.

Kungfu has no single source but it does have strongholds. Those strongholds are it’s practitioners and there respectice communities.

To adapt and change and to always be flexible in content and theory is what marks “true”. To remain rigid in ones views and unmovable in perspective is only detrimental to ones personal growth and the growth of the art they are working towards.

no one uses an arquebus to hunt in other words :slight_smile:

no one uses a wooden castle crane to build a multi storied building.

and for the most part, no one trains the same way the shaolin trained 1000 years ago.

antiquation is the demise of traditions that cannot hold up to the winds of time. principles that are solid are the only thing that will remain. principles are known truths, they cannot be changed and they are owned by no one but discovered by many.

cheers

10

I tend to agree with Small Assassin on this.

Too many masters are not masters, they only think at the technique level of training, and then using many poor techniques at that. There is nothing wrong with this (except the poor techniques) other than the fact that a true master in the martial arts world should transcend techniques, moving on to realize there is something deeper within their studies. However, as Gene said, time is also a limiting factor. In this case, if one is not willing to put forth the effort and take the time necessary to truly master their art, why are they teaching it? Greed, as has been stated. These 'master’s will ultimately fail in their undertaking when their students meet one true master who can demonstrate his/her mastery through one technique or so, and then express concepts and principles behind that technique.

As for SmallAssassin’s original question about wrestling and how Kung Fu evolved from it, here’s a possibility as to why it’s being combined with BJJ. Many styles of Kung Fu, from what I’ve seen, do not address all ranges of combat, therefore leaving holes in the student’s education. Some schools will willingly combine arts or cross train in certain arts to compliment their initial styles training, to better prepare for the reality of combat. The problem here is the too many schools just cross train to say they offer xxx number of styles for the public. There is one school in my area that offers something like 10-12 different styles of martial arts including Aikido, Aki-jitsu, Wing Chun, Karate, Tae Kwon Do and some weapons styles such as Escrima and Kendo. The kicker is that the school is nothing more than a black belt factory, producing sub-standard BB’s, often several each month, who are not truly educated in the Martial Arts.

The main problem here is that many schools offering so many styles are simply technique farms. “More is better” they think, so it would seem anyways. As for those masters who offer such curriculums, how can they keep the individual styles straight? Also, is this not an attestment to the fact that they do not believe in the capabilities of their ‘mother’ art, so they have to rely upon learning more to feel more confident, to feel more at ease through knowing ### techniques?

Steve

11

Re: The de-volution of kungfu? (quite long)

Originally posted by SmallAssassin
[B]

There are many self-proclaimed masters who are opening schools of Wing Chun and “blending” the art with Brazillian Jiu Jitsu. Now why this is happening, I have no idea.[/b]

It happened because people realized something… that they CAN be taken down. When they are on the ground, guess what? They got mauled, because they were in a style that overlooked grappling. plain and simple. That works both ways. Pure grapplers were starting to get mauled by guys who could strike and grapple - that’s where the evolution comes in. The beauty of MA is that you can test yourself and evolve.


Maybe money, who knows. But I do see a lot of it, and it concerns me that those teaching kungfu obviously have not understood it enough, and so with already a seemingly very limited understanding they are then mashing up its meaning even more by putting in something that too much represtents what kungfu orginally moved on from thousands of years ago.

Maybe kung fu should not have moved on from it… maybe more styles should follow the example of shuai chiao stylists and their training.

Many teachers i notice justify this by saying “Martial arts must evolve with the times.” How is that evolving with the times? adding wrestling only really de-volves the arts.

Go to a grappling class. learn how technical it is, then come back here and post your experience.

Wrestling was modified originally thousands of years ago to suit times because people found fists and so on a lot more useful. Plus the fact that people then began to have swords and spears, that changed a lot of what was deemed practical. Just because we have laws now, should we lessen the limitations of the art? Not at all. In a metaphorical sense it is like this saying: if you can kick high, you can kick low. Only practise low kicks and you cannot kick high.

what are you limiting? think about it… you use your “deadly” eye gouges and phoenix eyes, WHILE STANDING, against an opponent THAT YOU DON’T HAVE CONTROL OF. Now think of a grappler - I will throw you down, then control you. when I have you immobile, don’t you think it will be much easier to eye gouge you that it would be if you were able to move? by adding grappling to your arsenal, you are only expanding your capabilities, not limiting them.

So in fact, by adding wrestling, surely we are softening the art and not training ourselves at our true limits (the main purpose of kungfu).

please explain your reasoning behind this. Then post your training regimen and I will post mine.

I find as westerners we are always seemingly to be driven by a lack of desire to refine. We take the easy path always because we are lazy. “Fast food” arts are chosen above kungfu becaue the road is easier, and often justified by “If it works it works”.

the only thing you are doing is demonstrating that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Grappling is all about refinement. having as little as two inches of extra space can give an opponent all he needs to escape. Having your weight slightly too far forward means the difference between you keeping a pin and getting reversed… lack of sensitivity will get you submitted. you really should go to a grappling class before spouting obvious BS.

it’s not uncommon for people who have been training in excess of two years to still be white belts in bjj - it would take about 8 years or more to reach black belt level. In addition, you will not be promoted until you can prove that you can consistently beat the people who are a belt higher than you. I have never trained in a TMA that had that standard.

But that does not hold for me. Surely, if we wish to become masters in the true sense of the word then “If it works, how can I make it work better?” should be the real goal?

how can you truly be a master if you aren’t prepared for all of the situations that you can be?

One last thing as I mentioned self-proclaimed masters… how is it that in our modern society every Tom, Richard and Harry can become a Master? There are chinese sifu out there who make our masters look like babies. How is it anyone can be happy with being labelled a master when they are not? I seak of both East and West and i have seen many more chinese call themselves masters when i have met sifu who would eat them alive!

THAT is the true issue, not grappling. Look at bjj - there are no fraudulent black belts…you WILL NOT find any. because they are always putting themselves to the test. a fraud will be pointed out. In TMA, so many people make all these claims and then have excuses not to back them. And, people just pop up founding their own styles… because of this, CMA is de-volving itself. Grappling has nothing to do with that.

12

Originally posted by SmallAssassin
[B]Well it raises the question:

Do those who study the true arts stand idly by and allow the public, even those sincere to learn, be mislead, or do they say something?

We can ponder the idea that those who seek will find, and I suppose it is true since only the easily satisfied will be happy with the mediocre. [/B]

That raises the question:

what do you consider a true art?

Some individuals are never satisfied by the static standards set by the masses - the masses have always been lethargic; they will never achieve greatness because it’s beyond them to even comprehend greatness.

thai boxers, grapplers…sport fighters will rarely fall into that category because they begin training with the thought of competing and being the best they can. It’s an extremely hard road to go down and is definitely a way of life.

13

Re: There is always greed with humans

Originally posted by GeneChing
[B]But this is really nothing new. I’m sure there were plenty of charlatans with the Jianghu, eager to part any fool with their money. Such is the way of warriors, or perhaps ronin might be a better term here.

The real difference isn’t so much the greed, since that’s far from new, nor is it laziness, which again, ain’t that novel. Gullibility has been with us all along too. It’s the technology of our time. For example, if you were a village farmer in days of old, you worked with your body all the time, building a great strong foundation for practice. There was no cars, no TV, nothing to distract you. Just work and practice. And that practice would be called upon when you had to defend your community from bandits. It’s just not like that anymore. You must keep your practice in the context of it’s period. In a gun world, it’s crazy to devote so much time to practice. Previously, it was crazy not to do so. [/B]

Gene is correct. Nowadays, it’s like “why should I train when I can play video games and use characters who trained?” People would rather play games, go to movies, etc. than to train in an MA. And given the times that we are in, it really doesn’t matter. Chances are that out of all the MA who post on KFO, not even half of them will EVER be in a street confrontation. Consequently, they aren’t putting their all into training. As the times changed, so did the quality of the instruction. “Why should I train with you and spend three hours in horse stance per day? Chances are I’m never going to use my MA anyway, right?” teachers watered down their instruction, were more lenient on students, etc. What we are seeing today is the result of this. We are products of our own environment.

Then you have sport fighters, for example. IMO, they are the ones closest to what training was probably like back in the day. between judo, SC, bjj, muay thai and weight lifting, I spend about 20-25 hours per week training. I have to, because I know that the other guys are out there doing the same thing. I can’t win if I don’t put in the time. I have to continue to push myself. To test myself. To evolve.

14

I never understood why some styles are billed as less effective. Tiger is known as being a fierce style, as is southern mantis. All styles SHOULD be effective. you won’t hear any MT guys saying “Alex Gong’s MT style is good, but Rob Kaman’s style is crap. However, the best style is that taught by chai sirusute…” It’s all thai boxing and it’s all effective. same thing goes for bjj. A person doesn’t have to worry about finding a “good” muay thai style, however, you have to search high and low for “good” kung fu…

15

Originally posted by SmallAssassin
[B]Well it raises the question:

Do those who study the true arts stand idly by and allow the public, even those sincere to learn, be mislead, or do they say something?

We can ponder the idea that those who seek will find, and I suppose it is true since only the easily satisfied will be happy with the mediocre. [/B]

I read somewhere that 1 in 10,000 people actually gets martial arts. That’s a lot of people that don’t get it and I think they are the ones that keep these self-appointed masters in business. We have plenty of people that open schools here, that have middle belt level skill, but they have a full class. Poor stances and performance are the weapons of the day.

A genuine student’s gut will tell him the difference. Others just need a hobby.

16

THAT is the true issue, not grappling. Look at bjj - there are no fraudulent black belts…you WILL NOT find any.
I’ve heard many times about people claiming to study with the Gracies, or claiming they have such-and-such ranking under a famous fighter, only to find later that they only took a seminar, or never even studied with the person they claimed to have studied under. It happens all the time. BJJ is not exempt from these types of people. Not every BJJ instructor “lays it on the line” and competes.:rolleyes:

17

Originally posted by MasterKiller
I’ve heard many times about people claiming to study with the Gracies, or claiming they have such-and-such ranking under a famous fighter, only to find later that they only took a seminar, or never even studied with the person they claimed to have studied under. It happens all the time. BJJ is not exempt from these types of people. Not every BJJ instructor “lays it on the line” and competes.:rolleyes:

  1. big difference between claiming to study and claiming mastership, black belt status, etc. That wouldn’t last - it’s all kept up with WAY too well. BJJ BB’s are rather rare, and people flock to train with them. If one came along that wasn’t legit, it would be made known. quick.

  2. I don’t think you’re gonna find a bjj black belt that has NEVER competed.