How many of you have tried your style against other styles?
For instance, say you have studied CMA for x years and you want to test it against Jujitsu. Have you tried? What were the restrictions you faced? Did you find that you couldn’t use techniques or that techniques didn’t work for you the way you thought they would?
Lately I have had the opportunity to try out my Kungfu against Karate, MMA and Jujitsu and it faired well in all areas.
These were all friendly exchanges, I didn’t use eye pokes, limb attacks or throat strikes and strictly relied on position, evasion and takedowns from a cma method perspective. the ma’s I was playing with all have reasonable backgrounds in their respective arts but when it came down to brass tacks it was really about two things from my perspective:
Heart
2.knowledge and application of it
So, I have surmised:
You gotta have heart to succeed. You also have to have knowledge and ability to apply it.
Style is secondary to these at most levels of combat amongst most practitioners.
heart is innate, you cannot give a person heart, you can maybe inspire them, but if they don’t got it, they simply don’t got it.
knowledge on the other hand you can provide, with your work and practice comes the ability to apply what you have learned. No practice=no ability to apply.
Pretty cut a dried approach to it. What do you think?
You gotta have heart to succeed. You also have to have knowledge and ability to apply it.
Agree
heart is innate, you cannot give a person heart, you can maybe inspire them, but if they don’t got it, they simply don’t got it.
Kind of disagree. I believe that heart can be developed and by the same token also lost. Sometimes not being given the option to fail will help a person to find it.
Also being put into situations a slight bit over your head can also help you find it, develope it or realize that you don’t have it. Not ever being tested or by being totally beaten down over time are two things that I’ve noticed that can kill heart in a fighter.
Trying kung-fu against jujutsu is interesting.
When you realize that jujitsu was made up of kung-fu (as some veterans put it out) it gets even more interesting.
Feel free to disagree,if you feel this theory is hogwash.
It is always interesting fighting against other styles. I find that if you have an art that covers more than one area then you can almost always win (if winning is what matters).
For example boxers like to go into a clinch but hate to get thrown/swept once they are there.
Kickers hate haveing their kicks caught and again dislike throws.
Grapplers cant generaly punch and if you can punch moveing backwards then you are onto a winner.
This list could go on forever but the only one i think is really important is that if you are beaten on skill in all areas you better be very fit and agresive…then you can still win.
Isn’t style born of knowledge? Isn’t style developed from knowledge (physical and mental), which really are refind techniques, expressed by the exponent and recognized others? To have style, one need not be extremely knowledgeable. But to teach your style (replicating the result), one has to be extremely knowledgeable on every neuance.
So I am not sure if style really means nothing. Quite frankly, nowadays most people know very little about styles (refined techniques) nor themselves; therefore, they altogether by pass it in saying style is meaningness. BTW, I don’t mean that’s in Kung Lek’s case.
in general i agree. but on one point: i find that very often the very persons who (at least initially) take up a martial art are those who are looking for that heart you speak of. many have been in fights, and lost, or been victimized.
i think that they find it, and thats what keeps them going (amongst other things: determination, etc.) or not, so they quit.
I work out with other stylists regularly, and do ok. I agree that heart, determination and skill are more important than style. So is a dose of humility. If you are so intent on defending your style that you can’t learn from others, you get nothing out of the experience. When they do something that works, I compliment them on it and try to analyze what happened and why my response failed. I have run into some who feel the need to explain to you why what you did really didn’t work or even happen. Fine, if that’s their definition of ‘winning’. I also ask for honest critique from the person I’m fighting as well as onlookers. You get some really good insights and a whole new perspective that way. And most of the fighters really like it when you do that, and start asking as well.
I rarely spar with anyone that practices kung fu (except my students). I spar every chance I get with anyone who will do it from any style. It is CRITICAL to do this as part of one’s regular training. Let me explain why.
Have you ever seen a kung fu practitioner go up against a BJJ practitioner? Did the kung fu practitioner get hammered? Probably, but why? What usually happens is the kung fu practitioner is not accustomed to the freight train approach. The KF guy may open with a punch or kick to test the waters, and expects his opponent to do something similar. Instead, BJJ guy just waits for the opportunity, then plows his opponent to the ground.
How does the kung fu guy handle this? Like a deer in headlights. The KF guy is just so surprised at the attack that he doesn’t think to do anything about it until it is too late. BJJ gains this great advantage over opponents from other styles. However, it is easy to defeat this tactic if you are mentally prepared for the attack.
In real life, the ideal counter to this sort of attack is a fast hard kick to the easiest exposed target (usually the face). When fighting a BJJ opponent, you KNOW what their first move is going to be. Don’t fall for it. Make them commit to this HUGE freight train movement, then get out of the way and counter. Whatever you do, do NOT let them get ahold of you.
If you have never fought this kind of opponent (which most KF guys haven’t) you probably wouldn’t respond very well.
(Before BJJ guys read this and get all bent out of shape - Yes, of course there is more to BJJ than this. I’m just making an example to illustrate why it is important to train against other styles. BJJ is successful against other styles because it takes away all of the advantages of other styles, and brings the fight to BJJ terms. However, it is entirely possible to defeat this approach if you are accustomed to it.)
To become good at sparring you need to spar (and by sparring I mean full contact). If BJJ guys only practiced techniques (which means you take away the conditioning and sparring (hell, they might as well be doing Kung Fu)) you wouldn’t be seeing them man handle CMA guys the way they do.
I’ve gone to a BJJ class a couple times, was good on my feet, and was starting to become pretty hard to take down. I’ll give my WC another year just to get a better foundation then I’ll start X training with the BJJ. It’s not so much about learning the BJJ but how to deal with it, and getting used to ring fighting, so hopefully I’ll be able to use my WC successfully in an NHB competition one day.
Knowledge does build a style and subsequently comes from it.
I am no discarding style, your style is your knowledge base. How much you understand and are able to apply relates directly to your own practice and application of knowledge gained in your particular style.
My notation was, that style is “secondary” in sparring or actual combat and that your ability to express your style supercedes this.
Yes I have. sometimes it works,sometimes it doesn’t, sometimes I feel like I know what I’m doing, other times I feel like can’t do a thing (I know how you feel MP).
“Before BJJ guys read this and get all bent out of shape - Yes, of course there is more to BJJ than this. I’m just making an example to illustrate why it is important to train against other styles. BJJ is successful against other styles because it takes away all of the advantages of other styles, and brings the fight to BJJ terms. However, it is entirely possible to defeat this approach if you are accustomed to it.)”
My training partner with the Kung Fu background has some decent knowledge now about sprawling, getting his hips away from the clinch, etc. He’s now “mixing” those tactics with some of his stance-work and footwork of his kung fu.
Few days ago we sparred the clinch at full contact (me just clinching, and him doing whatever he had to in order to stop it, boxing gloves on, etc.)
He was able to stay on his feet a lot longer then he had before. And in one instance, escaped my clinch while I was pressing the pressure.
For me, I had to alter some of my takedowns to get him down faster, and find various ways to open him up for my clinch and takedown. Having a trustworthy partner whom you can simply “fight” at anytime you want to test something keeps you really honest about your conditioning and application of theory. Plus it makes me have to improve too as he improves. I really think resistent sparring is key in martial art. Also you’ve got to mix it up with different people too Not just the same guy over and over again
I started sparring against other styles in college (which was before the first UFC and therefore before the term ‘MMA’, though not before JKD, eclectic training, etc.)
Fact is that the school I attended was so small (1,500 students) that there weren’t enough people for a taekwondo club, a karate club, a boxing club, etc. We all trained together. At that point, I’d done taekwondo and eskrima for about 10 years cumulative.
In terms of empty hand, my fighting was still largely taekwondo, but with some solid eskrima footwork and low kicks thrown in for good measure.
Win some, lose some, to make a long story short. Good fun though. And educational. Especially the bouts versus a guy from traditional karate (shorin ryu, I believe). His sensei had told him to move forward like a freight train. My guro had taught me to get off the tracks and come in on angles all the time. It was a study in contrasts. Very informative.
I agree that heart is very important. With out heart, skill can’t be aquired. Heart is what drives one to go further with their training, it’s what seperates the 3 year trainer from the five year from the 10 year from the lifetime. It is what also drives one to go out there and test for real. I have seen it many times where a young martial artists with a decent background can come into a new school and dominate the seniors after a year or two – because he is a true martial (war thinking) artist, where as they are simply martial hobbyists. It’s the same heart that digs in when push comes to shove and they come out on top.
I also like what dnc101 said. That is the exact approach I have always taken. Go out there and see first hand. See what works and why. What doesn’t work and why. Ask the other. Go back and replay situations and study them.
I do disagree with brent carey, not so much on what you said, but where you are coming from. You said: “kung fu practitioner is not accustomed to the freight train approach.”
This is the problem. Labeling CMA as Kung Fu. Hsing-I is a freight train. The heaviest, most massive train their is and it will run right through you. It would want nothing more then for soemone to come and try to grab them.
Where as Wing Chun may not handle that unrush so well (see the McDojo video clip of the two WC “masters”:rolleyes: )
Can’t label all Chinese styles kung fu, they approach problem solving very differently. What Taiji has a hard time with Hung Gar may enjoy.
This is the problem. Labeling CMA as Kung Fu. Hsing-I is a freight train. The heaviest, most massive train their is and it will run right through you. It would want nothing more then for soemone to come and try to grab them.
Where as Wing Chun may not handle that unrush so well (see the McDojo video clip of the two WC “masters”
I think you’ve just highlighted an excellent example of the odd nature of style. Kung Lek mentioned that the idea of style is subordinate to the ability to apply the techniques in your repetoire. And I personally think that’s a very good point.
I noticed, though, that you’ve personified your description of xingyi. ‘It wants this’ and ‘It will do that.’ In the same breath, you mentioned that wing chun failed to do these things. But in terms of style, wing chun looks on paper to be perfect for the ‘freight train.’ Wing chun theoretically wants you up close and personal and it wants to occupy the centerline (the same centerline that the freight train is presumably occupying).
But in the real-life performance you mentioned, ‘it’ (wing chun) failed to deliver. So why the discrepancy? I agree with Kung Lek that the discrepancy is due to the execution of technique. But in that case, then xingyi is in the same boat. A given xingyi practitioner may or may not what you to try and grab them. And that practitioner may or may not succeed in defending themselves if you do. So, again, style is subordinate to performance. To my mind, what a given style is theoretically capable of doing isn’t the point. What a person has done is the point.
Originally posted by No_Know What skill is there without a Style?
If I read Kung Lek right, he’s suggesting that the successful execution of skill counts more than the theoretical attributes of style.
On paper, say a boxer and a taekwondoka go at it. Who wins? Neither grapple. Both strike. The taekwondoka has a longer reach, so he wins. Or the boxer can get too close for kicking and then KO the taekwondoka with his hands. End of story.
Does any of that have any real bearing on life? Does it decide the outcome of every match between taekwondoka and boxers? Nope. Those outcomes will be decided on the day. Not before. They’ll be decided by actual actions, not by the labels we use.
Taekwondo has lots of kicks. Does every taekwondoka have great kicks. God, no. Style affects skill, obviously. But it isn’t the final word. And I think that’s Kung Lek’s point.
Originally posted by Spirit Writer I do disagree with brent carey, not so much on what you said, but where you are coming from. […] This is the problem. Labeling CMA as Kung Fu. Can’t label all Chinese styles kung fu, they approach problem solving very differently.
Certainly different styles handle situations differently, just as different individuals do. However, I could also make the statement “dogs can bark”. You could point out that the Basenji, an African breed cannot bark, but the generalization that “dogs can bark” is pretty true.
It’s not terribly useful to split hairs. It is not generally characteristic of CMA to include rushing techniques. Certainly they exist, but this is not generally considered characteristic of CMA in general.
Are you making a distinction between kung fu and CMA? What then is the distinction?
It seems that people claim a style but Try to win (or not lose too badly). If a Style has closing techniques that seems to include attacking air–feints if you are lucky or practiced. When in range of a style’s technique, the moment you are using a technique the dynamic changes if there is a shift in your opponent and unless you pull or evolve the discontinued technique into another technique of the style it can get very stoppy which can get you very hittyied. It seem that people do Not fight style, they fight to win. Non-understanding of the style allows people to do peer-pressure punches–they fight like they see (television, the neighborhood…) When it over they say I take Kung-Fu (whatever they take). But just now, in the fight their Style Fu out the proverbial window.
The Styles are not subject to the people. And the people do not alway subject themselves to the style. On Paper it can be meticulous and you have to intricately know the styles (like a card game (they put down a hand, call it something big, say they won and take the pool, if you didn’t Know what beats what you can get cheated.~)) and the average person’s durability. Your guard was here for that technique so I beat your defense and struck there which takes one third your strength. You now do less damage when striking me. I do Qigong posture 34 of the _____manual and regain my strength in four rounds… [roll players, sound familiar]?
So (needle and thread), there might be better styles, because when talking styles one Is referring to the Ideal. But, what you most seem to be talking is people fighting or sparring or learning… who Claim a style, not fight with a style; besides a style-of-their-own. A make-shift media databased haphazard collection of half-hearted partial notions selected by Fear or Panic or Appeasement of the opponent the onlookers or some dead idol…
Saying it’s the person does Not detract from the style. It does not really address the style. Merely the wannabe perpetrator Claiming to be doing something they require more study of learning about and practice-in. Perhaps at least some can do it partially. But the other part is that makeshift happenstance of which you many are REAlly referring.
When you Grasp it enough and traied enough and Practiced enough it gets makeshift too. But the database is different and It’s this database that determines if you are doing a Style or a style-of-your-own.~ And are merely a person doing Stuff and making a claim.~
Perhaps some-such some might say Possiblly…very good
My training partner with the Kung Fu background has some decent knowledge now about sprawling, getting his hips away from the clinch, etc. He’s now “mixing” those tactics with some of his stance-work and footwork of his kung fu.
Not just the same guy over and over again