Some say it does, some say it doesn’t…I tend to think the latter. But let’s talk about WHY. In some 2000 years and 300 styles of kung fu this never occurred to anyone? Seriously?
EO
[QUOTE=Eric Olson;1139511]Some say it does, some say it doesn’t…I tend to think the latter. But let’s talk about WHY. In some 2000 years and 300 styles of kung fu
EO[/QUOTE]
Likely cultural reasons are the culprit.
[QUOTE=Golden Arms;1139514]Likely cultural reasons are the culprit.[/QUOTE]
Really? This would trump survival reasons?
EO
Going to the ground on a medieval battlefield is a GREAT idea.
It is certainly possible that ground fighting was practiced, perhaps circa the Tang dynasty, however it is clearly not extant and without historically verifiable proof it is all just speculation. It stands to reason that since Japan appropriated everything else from the Tang why not that as well. I imagine that the Emperors did not find watching two wrestlers lying practically motionless on top of each other particularly entertaining. Modern SJ competitions reset fighters after a few seconds if they aren’t fighting for grips or attempting techniques otherwise it is considered a waste of time. As I said, just speculation.
[QUOTE=Eric Olson;1139511]Some say it does, some say it doesn’t…I tend to think the latter. But let’s talk about WHY. In some 2000 years and 300 styles of kung fu
EO[/QUOTE]
The honourable thing in CMA used to be that when the ‘loser’ was on the ground, the winner was the one standing. It was a test of equals and a way to asses the character of the ‘opponent’.
To my understanding, groundfighting is a sport so the rules would be different from ‘actual combat’ keeping in mind that newaza (jiujitsu) used to be trained wth throwing and hitting but based on sportive rules, judo only allowed the throwing part as the decisive way to gather points. BJJ of Maeda. re-introduction. bought a past training method into vogue keeping in mind that the oldsters never stopped training that way.
I know one teacher who said they have it, but it’s “closed door.”
It turned out, most of what he called closed door, everyone else in the world was already doing, only he wasn’t aware of it.
It’s that way in a lot of TCMA schools. Frog in the well…
Seeing how Royce Gracie really upset all the strikers’ games, it makes sense (kinda) for people to have kept this stuff for insiders. This negates most people’s entire fighting strategy. If everyone is fighting standup, and you take them to the ground, they are out of their element, and will lose.
Generally speaking, being on the ground is bad in a real (i.e. life or death, no rules) combat situation.
Personally I feel what I’ve seen for TCMA ‘ground fighting’ is sufficient for self-defense, but insufficient for sport venues that allow prolonged ground fighting.
Greetings,
I believe that culture plays a significant role. It may not have been that popular.
If you had the opportunity to see the book “Kung Li Chuan” by Wang Tung Feng you will see applications done from the top mount position.
You also have to understand that kung fu is what one makes of it. If you want to evolve a ground game with your kung fu, it is your right to do so. You can take your chinna to the ground if you want to. You can take your kicks to the ground if you want to. Kung fu is like that; it is your discipline-- what are you going to do with it. You do need permission to try to create an effective ground grappling method. It simply has to WORK to be accepted. You might not be the first to do so. Others may have tried it in the past and died.
mickey
[QUOTE=Eric Olson;1139511]Some say it does, some say it doesn’t…I tend to think the latter. But let’s talk about WHY. In some 2000 years and 300 styles of kung fu this never occurred to anyone? Seriously?
EO[/QUOTE]
Some systems of kung fu do address the ground as a part of their curriculum. There are others who don’t. I suspect those who don’t will instead teach one powerful penetrative short/mid range strikes which would stop a grappler in his tracks.
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;1139523]Some systems of kung fu do address the ground as a part of their curriculum. There are others who don’t. I suspect those who don’t will instead teach one powerful penetrative short/mid range strikes which would stop a grappler in his tracks.[/QUOTE]
well, it would have to stop anyone in their tracks.
What people who have not studied grappling fail to understand, is that the grappler does not just “come at you” and then “try to take you down.”
The take down is usually done using striking as a set-up. This could be a real strike, or a fake, but the shoot, or the throw, comes more from infighting range (remember JKD’s terms, entering, to striking, to grappling)
to the Chinese, ground fighting is comparing 2 dogs fighting in the dirt… It is a cultural thing as many have said.
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;1139523]Some systems of kung fu do address the ground as a part of their curriculum. There are others who don’t. I suspect those who don’t will instead teach one powerful penetrative short/mid range strikes which would stop a grappler in his tracks.[/QUOTE]
This statement speaks volumes of how ignorant you are regarding grappling. Do me a favor, find yourself a person with six months of wrestling, judo, bjj or any other grappling art and see how well your short/mid range strikes stop him in his tracks.
I would ask you to video it so we can all laugh at you, (something you should be used to by now) but we both know that won’t happen.
Ground fighting was never popular until sport fighting came in to being. And most sport fighting is relatively new on the scene. There have always been wrestlers and such, but they did it for sport and intertainment, which puts it into a different category. Most TCMA was developed over a very long time and from a long time ago, mostly when it was a way to keep alive. In most conflict you would make every possible effort to get your a$$ up off the ground before someone came along and killed you. It was everyone’s goal to stay on their feet. Only an idiot would want to go to the ground in a real fight where you might be looking at others getting involved. Most could or would not be able to resist a kick to your head.
When I was learning I was taught many different techniques to escape from a take down or someone sitting on you or whatever, and for the most part, it works. It will almost always work once, but once it is used on a fellow he gets wised up some. The only purpose of taking someone down would be to submit him. That is not going to work in a real fight with someone that is determined to hurt you. He taps and you let him up? Then he jumps on you again. Keep doing that and eventually he is going to get lucky, or you are going to get unlucky. It would be fine to throw him to the ground or trip him or knock him down, but then rather than jump on top of him and place yourself in danger, you kick him as he tries to recover.
So, I think the reason is really obvious. TCMA was developed for warfare and not for sport. It does not work well as a sport simply due to that fact. I suppose that you could adapt it to sport like BJJ and MMA and Judo and lots of other competitive sports. But then you would have to develop some ground fighting and grappling and end up with what is called MMA again. Your beating a dead horse again.
The inherent flaw with the TCMA stance(pardon the pun) on grappling is its strictly coming from a dominant position and has very little in line of being supine on the bottom. Most of TCMA depends on you holding the line or staying on top.
Also, one underlying factor in Chinese culture that everybody overlooks is the habit of being armed all the time. True combat day to day had weapons thrown in. Everybody had at least a cooking knife and they used it if they had too. It was almost a given. Weapons were the rule of the day , not unarmed combat.
[QUOTE=Lebaufist;1139551]Also, one underlying factor in Chinese culture that everybody overlooks is the habit of being armed all the time. True combat day to day had weapons thrown in. Everybody had at least a cooking knife and they used it if they had too. It was almost a given. Weapons were the rule of the day , not unarmed combat.[/QUOTE]
i agree with this statement. to be practical, people would definitely train in armed combat first. and therefore majority of the training time who be devoted to this. different types of armor would have been involved as well (it would be stupid to believe otherwise) and therefore would influence the method of unarmed combat that would be trained had you lost your weapon.
One more vote in there for the armed combat connection.
Wrestling, Sport BJJ etc. it’s all ritualized combat. “Real” combat is done with weapons. Always has been.
Heck, most all today’s MA is for ritualized combat. A bar fight is generally even in that category. If you’re fighting over a perceived insult or because some one hit on your girl you are engaging in a standard “alpha male dominance” ritual and little more.
Fighting involved in robbery, murder, war, etc…just doesn’t involve a lot of groundwork.
[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139546][/B]
This statement speaks volumes of how ignorant you are regarding grappling. Do me a favor, find yourself a person with six months of wrestling, judo, bjj or any other grappling art and see how well your short/mid range strikes stop him in his tracks.:D[/QUOTE]
Even in your beloved MMA matches, there have been occasions when a striker has stopped a takedown attempt in its tracks, more than once I might add.
Secondly, you conveniently ignored the part of my statement that said that there are TCMAs that do address ground fighting, and went on to contest my suggestion that the ones that don’t, have powerful anti grappling arsenal as regards their short to mid range striking, and I should have added stand up grappling (chin-na/Kumna).
[QUOTE=Iron_Eagle_76;1139546]I would ask you to video it so we can all laugh at you, (something you should be used to by now) but we both know that won’t happen.;)[/QUOTE]
Kung fu clueless idiots have been laughing at me in this forum for a long time. The smarter ones are laughing less now, since people like Sifu Mike Patterson, confirmed the existance of ground fighting in TCMAs and gave validity to Internal practices, that those of us who actually practice kung fu have known about for years.
So yes, someone is certainly laughing now, but it ain’t you.
-
There are thousands of Kung Fu styles.
-
Most of the Kung Fu we are aware of in the west is from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan and is in no way representative of the mainland styles. Of these only a few have made a transission and the newer stuff is often heavily tainted with contempary wushu.
-
Almost ALL northern styles contain the elements ‘TIE SHEN KAO’ and ‘DI TANG GONG’ yet these two sets of technique are almost never talked about, I can only summerise most of the kung fu in the west has not got much of these elements. TSK means leaning against your body and is a lot of standing up grappling technique and close striking with shoulders hips and head. DTG is techniques ‘close to the floor’.
-
DTG techniques rarely contain SUbmission holds, but contains methods for when you have fallen down and are fighting someone who is standing up. It contains methods to take them down and stand up yourslef. It contains some techniques of grappling on the floor but no Submission holds. It contians breaks and strikes then stands up.
SO the main difference is this. Actually there is a lot of ground technique, but there are few submission holds. Typically it is a attack then stand up quickly.
WHY no submission holds? Because these are designed for a ring and rules sports situation. Why lock when you can break? why go down when you should try to stand up?
In SINGLE combat, grappling on the floor is supreme. This is great. But in real life you will rarely get an oppertunity where it is safe to fight with this method. Rarer still in ancient china when everyone is carrying a weapon of some form, shoes have metal spikes on the end and people don’t travel alone.
SO I ask; in ancient China, When would they ever use this? So yes there is less submission style wrestling, but a vast amount of ‘on the floor technique’ its called Ditang gong.
ALso in Kung FU we have the ‘San Bu Da’ as part of WuDe
Bu Da Hao Ren, Bu Da Pao Ren, Bu Da Dao Ren.
Don’t hit good people, don’t hit people who are running away, don’t hit people who are on the floor.
Actually this isn’t just a combat ethic. It also useful. When you attack someone who is in the running away posture there legs can attack with great power and if they are running it means they have become desperate and will liekly resort to the desperation techniques of nails and teeth which are dangerous even in the untrained.
It is very hard to attack someone who is lying down (if you are alone) and it is easy for them to take you down with them. If you go down you are in a very vulnerable situation as any one with no skill can sneak up and kick you in the head, stab you etc. You have no escape.