I just thought of something interesting…
You see a lot of schools nowadays that have their normal curriculum, but then have some techniques they classify as “the street fighting techniques”. So if all the rest of the stuff cannot be used at any given time in any given place…then what good is it for fighting?
I think that is because most kungfu is so watered down. Mainly due to many people becoming premature Sifu’s.
Most sifu’s never had a “street fight” in there life. That combined with kungfu knowledge understanding being limited. Usually because they haven’t trained hard enough. He then needs to make the kungfu he learned more “practical”. Happens all the time.
I feel if you have a deeper understanding of the art your learning it starts to seem much more practical to the user.
In normal kung fu training, whatever that means or can be taken to mean, needs to be understood as an example, within the context it is conducted under, as a way of reacting to an attack. A street fight or assault situation training would involve a scenario with limitation by the victim and then an attack simulated upon them by members of the kwoon. I believe that regular self-defense and hand to hand combat applications and sparring are for fighting one on one without weapons, however these can be added as well as mulitple opponents. But kung fu is meant for fighting, good kung fu anyway, so street versus against a nonresisting opponent is really just a method of training. If you do drills and know what the person is going to do and what you are going to do, you are conditioning your reflexes and your awareness of human bodies moving in aggressive manners towards your circle. But when you start to spar and progress along the lines of application and utilize the kung fu, you are in an alive environment. These two are examples of both ‘ritualized’ if you wish, training, and ‘live’ training. I feel both are not really as such as they are labeled by many, I used the terms for convention’s sake, but they are both training the body and especially the mind to maintain form, awareness, and possibly aggression and intent of doing harm.
I can’t really say if there is difference other than having most of your training being combat which is against another trained person of equal, lesser, or higher level, and that of someone from the street who may be a brawler.
Kung fu literally means “skill aquired through effort”. In that sense, it’s an excellent description of what a TMA is all about. One practices a TMA to aquire skill, polish technique, develop the mechanics peculiar to a style, condition the body/mind/spirit, develop character and the ability to resist adversity. All of these skills are excellent training for a person who wants to learn to fight. Good Kung fu is the result of training, but it is NOT to be confused with fighting.
Fighting is unpredictable, unchoreographed, and ugly. Once a person has begun to develop the skills associated with TMA training, it can be useful to begin to spar or randori in an unpredictable, unrehearsed way. The closer to streetfighting this unrehearsed training is, the more useful.
To sum up, IMO traditional training gives you a set of tools. It isn’t necessary to use these tools in order to reap the benifits of the training. On the other hand, for those who wish to use thier art on the street, training that simulates real fighting to the greatest degree possible is a useful step.
My two cents.
Van,
Many of the schools that have a “street fight” class do it because they are teaching a sport version of MA in the “regular” classes. There are many things that a particular MA may have that would be disallowed in the ring but are good for the street (elbows to the back of the head for example).
Another reason is marketing. Lots of people become involved in a MA in the hopes that it will allow them to win fights. Those people will want a more intense / violent training experience. Those who are not looking for that level of intensity go to the McDojo’s regular classes or Tai-bo /shudder.
So if all the rest of the stuff cannot be used at any given time in any given place…then what good is it for fighting?
Adding on to a style with “street” moves does not mean that the rest of the information was worthless without the “street” stuff. In fact most of the stuff I have seen in those street classes is misinformation.
Re: What’s the difference between “street” fighting and “gung fu” fighting?
Originally posted by Vankuen
[B]I just thought of something interesting…
You see a lot of schools nowadays that have their normal curriculum, but then have some techniques they classify as “the street fighting techniques”. So if all the rest of the stuff cannot be used at any given time in any given place…then what good is it for fighting? [/B]
what’s in a name?
in the sense that you are talking, it’s likely nothing more than a morality issue. When boxer’s are in a clinch, they may use shoulders or elbows. That’s fine to me, but what is the term? “dirty boxing”
I’ve been intentionally headbutted in judo competitions. most schools don’t teach such tactics, as they are considered dirty. Obviously though, there are those that do.
if you do real kung fu, nothing.
if you do that watered down trian bad stuff. a lot.
What’s the difference between “street” fighting and “gung fu” fighting?
The kicks. They’re fast as lightneing.
Oh-oh-oh-oh
Oh-oh-oh-oh
Oh-oh-oh-oh
Oh-oh-oh-oh
Everybody was kung-fu fighting
Those kicks were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit frightning
But they fought with expert timing
They were funky China men from funky Chinatown
They were chopping them up and they were chopping them down
It’s an ancient Chinese art and everybody knew their part
From a feint into a slip, and kicking from the hip
Everybody was kung-fu fighting
Those kicks were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit frightning
But they fought with expert timing
There was funky Billy Chin and little Sammy Chung
He said here comes the big boss, lets get it on
We took a bow and made a stand, started swinging with the hand
The sudden motion made me skip now we’re into a brand knew trip
Everybody was kung-fu fighting
Those kicks were fast as lightning
In fact it was a little bit frightning
But they did it with expert timing
…make sure you have expert timing
Kung-fu fighting, had to be fast as lightning
Another way to look at it>>>>
Much of what is taught in kung fu regardless of style may be considered theoretical or conceptual. For example the form is an example but how you do the application MAY not necessariliy look EXACTLY like the form. Similair to in school when you are taught math the sample problems are different from whats on the test but yet the same material is covered. A so called streetfigting class MAY be nothing more than explanation and EXPLICIT demonstration of how some things are taught would ACTUALLY or REALISTICALLY look against a violent opponent.
IMHO the advantage of other styles of martial arts is they MAY spend more time practicing what thier final product looks like in a confrontation.
I have higlighted the word MAY because I dont believe what I am saying is an absolute rule.
i’m upset. i got to this thread too late to add the song reference.
s**t!!! good job to the ones with expert timing and sarcasm!!
Another way to look at it…
When one studies to be an artist, one might take a veriety of classes. Still life, impressionism, photograpghy, sculpting, ect. You could argue that the natural photographer who never took those kinds of classes is better than one who did have all that training. You’d be right. But does this meen that everyone else sucks, for this reason alone? No. Dose it mean the still life photographer who won numerous awards is better than the war corrispondant/photographer who only won a sinlge Pulitser? No, of vourse not. One is “traditional”, the other is “modern”. Is one better than the other? That would depend entierly on whether you would rather look at still life photos or human tradgedy photos. But does your preference make one better than the other? No, of course not.
The stuy of matial arts can be classified the same way. When one studies to be a martial artist, one of the things that is tudies is how to fight. But if the individual is not interested in competeing, they will not likely put much enphisis on this aspect. If the schhol does, they will look elsewere. If one wishes to learn for the sake of belonging to something as majestic as a pure lieage, one seeks out a school/teacher with a pure lineage. But does possesing that lineage make this artist better than the tai boxer from a mixed background? No. It is only different.
So what is the difference between “streat fighting” and “kung fu fighting”? Mostly just the venue. I have never seen a broken bottle on the floor of my kwoon.
I don’t really like the word “art” used within the context of personal combat. If a so called MA isn’t primarily concerned with victory in combat then IMO it’s degraded to the point that it’s become a mere empty ritual, sort of like a tribal dance that simulates combat, but isn’t confused with actual combat within the context of the tribal society. The only thing different IMO between a tribal society’s approach to ceremonial combat and modern society’s approach, is that the tribal society has a religious or social necessity for ceremony, whereas we in the U.S., for example, do not.
We aren’t practicing MA in order to apease the gods, or to influence the weather or the outcome of an important battle, we’re practicing the MA in order to acquire a specific skill. That skill is fighting. If a MA dosen’t effectivly teach that for the modern practitioner, it’s obsolete IMO.
kung fu fighting!
i’ve trained in kung fu my whole life and it’s the only way i know how to fight, and let me tell you growing up in New york city, is not a game if you don’t how to defend yourself, you can wind up dead. i my teachers never taught kung fu for street fighting type classes they just taught kung fu, they knew that on any given sunday we would probably have to use what we learn so they knew that what they were teaching was real kung fu. and as for young sifu’s my Lung ying kuen sifu was only 26 years old when he opened his school, and he was known in my hood as one bad sob. and for a chinese guy to get respect in a prodomantely black and hispanic hood, means he knows his stuff. it’s not how old you are it’s how much you know and what can you do with that knowledge!!!
Originally posted by Samurai Jack
I don’t really like the word “art” used within the context of personal combat.
It was a metaphore, knucklehead.:rolleyes:And wasn’t it Sun Tzu who whote “The Art of War”? If he gets to call it an art, so do I!:mad:
That skill is fighting.
Agree 100% on all but this line. The purpose of the art is to teach fighting in a ritualized way so’s even nincompoops can figure it out without having to walk into a biker bar yelling inapropriat things. But not all who study the art wish to be grand-googamooga level fighters. Just as not everyone who studies painting wishes to become Picaso. The skill is fighting, and it is the responsability of the teacher to make sure the art remains practical as well as true to it’s roots. This I agree on.
If no ones said this yet, the difference between a schools “street/reality” techniques and it’s regular cirriculum is marketing. Recently the reality/street label has become all the rage so some of the schools have cought on and started advertising these types of classes. Usually they just weed out thetraditional training stuff, like forms, and go straight to working all the “Deadly” and “Brutal” techniques of the art.
and I’ve been working hard towards my grand googama certificate for years now.
Tydive said:
Tai-bo /shudder.
Ty,
Something really funny about that - I remember seeing Billy Blanks around the tournament scene in th 80’s (you know, pre-UFC).
The dude could fight.
Dave
Wayfaring- I can see were both of you are comming from. Billy Blanks could fight. I checked out the Tai Bo video series- and ended up buying a couple- 'cause they are a great condensed workout for times when I need a bit of motivation to get my bum moving. But every one of them tapes includes a “how to use this in a fight” sceen. There is absolutly no way someone without some serious formal training could pick up and use these techniques. But he sells it as “Do this workout 3 times a week and be able to defend yourself in six weeks!” This, unfortunatly, is pure B.S. And most of the people he markets to buy into it 'cause they just don’t know any better.
Lets be real billy blanks should more than know that the people who at least think they are semi serious about learning some kind of self defense arent going to look for answers in tae-bo.
And the the people who do look for it in tae bo arent really interested in doing what it takes to try to learn some self defense.
Thisis not a knock on billy blanks, he found a way to make money selling exercise to people. Look at how many dojos offer “cardio kickboxing” to help pay the rent? Billy Blanks, and taebo are no worse.
I remember all those Billy Blanks/Jalal Merhi kung fu movies from the 80’s and 90’s.
I am ashamed to admit that I enjoy them. But Tae Bo is not a martial art. Billy Blanks knows that fully well and is happily raking loot off the rubes.
Out of curiosity Needs Practice - what is a “wall of shame”? I don’t think I am familliar of it in this context since my context is usually to do with polaroids of shoplifters (at my favorite used bookstore).
