Traditional-Fist

I am not making any excuses. I fight when a fight comes to me and when I have no other choice. You may not do it for medals, but many do. I am competitive in nature but regarding things that I think are relevant to my way of life. I am not saying that competing does not have its benefits when it comes to fighting, however I do not believe that it is a necessity but rather a choice for some martial artists. I know many traditionalists who have never competed but when given no choice will fight very effectively. When I have had to fight I have used the techniques that I have practised for long hours e.g. block move in and punch the neck simultaneously and follow up until I don't need to. In my school we rarely use the opponents jaw or boney facial areas as targets. If a boney area is targeted on the head then it is usually the temple. We train to hit the weakest areas as powerfully as possible. The object and the mindset is to finish the encounter as quickly and as efficiently as possible. To conclude, those who like to compete then they should and good luck to them. If their usual training does not make them effective fighters then maybe they need the competition experience to fill in the gaps and improve their fighting ability. I personally see it as irrelevant and this may be due to the style of Wing Chun that I practise and the way I practise it. In short why should I waist time WATERING DOWN what I have learnt and continue learning, just to "fight" in competitions, specially when what I have learnt has served me very well in the few occassions when I have dad to defend myself .

Thankyou, a very interesting and informative read.

The way WC is taught in my shool you are told off if you "hunch" your back. You sink your stance but the posture is kept straight.

A lot of "traditional" practioners like to hide behind that 'we are too deadly for the ring" excuse because most of them could not fight their way out of a paper bag, and again, that is because what they practise and the way they practise it is a watered down hybrid of what they claim to be practising (see Mcdojos/kwoons). I and many other traditionalists do not practise to win competitions and medals, for us that is irrelevant to what we do and not because "our technique is too deadly" - eventhought it probably is. This is because the art I practise and most importantly the WAY I practise it, I do not need to win competions to know or prove that I am effective or not, and therefore I do not see any need to "adapt" my technique for other "environments/rulesets" which I find irrelevant. In the way I am taught Wing Chun, 99% of the strikes are aimed at vital areas (some obvious and some not so obvious, in the advanced levels) and we drill these techniques all the time. By practising this way the sometimes difficult to hit areas and the techniques required are ingrained within the psyche of the students. Obviously the techniques are controlled during contact sparring but the essense of the techniques and the arts are not lost. Trying to re-adapt this training to the competition arena requires unnecessary effort and takes us, the practioners away from the essence ( including the quick finish techniques) of the art and thus complicates the learning process required for the its mastery. This is a big price to pay for something that in my school is regarded as irrelevant for growth in kungfu. Having said what I just said, I wish the best of luck and success for those who enjoy participating in these types of competitions, and to be honest they sure are entertaining to watch.

If kungfu (and karate) fighters stuck to the older methods of training which were geared towards the idea of anihilating the opponent in as short a time as possible (1 to 3 moves in many cases), then we would not be having this discussion. The problem, as some one pointed out correctly, is that these arts have for the most parts been watered down. This is not the fault of the arts, but the fault of the McSensies and McSifus, who for the most part don't even qualify as intermediate martial artists, making a quick buck by "teaching" these complex fighting arts to gullible students. Some of these "experts" also enter and represent Karate and Kung Fu in MMA events, and of course they get nowhere thus giving these arts a bad name. Even when one watches one of these "geniuses" in a NHB event one does not see anything resembling genuine kungfu or karate techniques nor any essense of the arts these people are supposed to be representing. There are good kungfu and karate schools around but they are very very very hard to find. When you do find one, then you have to prepare yourself for very hard and longterm training to get any results - no 2 year black belt contracts, etc. Many people nowadays do not accept such conditions and as a result theychoose arts such as MT, BJJ, etc. where they can can relatively quicker results. Others unfortunately, join Mcdojos/kwoons to get quicker "results". In conclusion, there was nothing wrong with the training methods, before these arts were watered down and standardized. That is where the problem lies and not the arts themselves.

First of all white crane was not the only kungfu style to influence the Okinawan fighting arts. Secondly, when a whatever system of martial art comes in contact with, and is hence influenced by, an immensly rich and profound system such as Shaolin kung fu, then one assumes that at least most of the enrichment would be gainned by the less profound art i.e. the Okinawan fighting system that evolved into karate. This means that if I had to bet, my money would be on the okinawan central line theory being enriched by the CMAs and certainly not the otherway round. If you mean the pre-CMA influenced Okinawan fighting arts? Then no, I don't. Do you? Only in the context of Wing Chun. Enough to know that at one stage okinawan karate was known as "chinese hand". Also, as a kung fu practitioner I recognize many of the chinese influences when I see many of the techniques of Okinawan karate (and japanese karate) and there are many, believe me. I said I believe that their [okinawan fighting arts] Central Line Theory, was PROBABLY enriched....

They mess up a lot of the times, because a lot of the time the other style's footwork is meant to fit in with the other style's theories and concepts and not those of kungfu. if you mean because of its richness and profoundity, for the absorption of which there are no short cuts, then I agree. I agree. I know because I also know many of the theories and concepts in REAL action. If any of the old masters used such fighting concepts in real combat (and survived) then surely it would have been passed down through the ages and would be taught openly as kungfu without the exponents needing to "adapt" footwork from sport karate, kickboxing or boxing. Even such a scenario is unlikely because one does not fit into the other. As I said before, each major system(s) has its own theories and concepts. The kickboxing footwork works for kickboxing but not for kungfu. Of course, it will work for kung fu if the exponent disregards many of his arts' ESSENTIAL concepts and techniques, but in such a case he is not using kungfu anymore and is instead using perhaps an adapted hybrid system of his own making. Equally, you cannot expect a kickboxer to use kungfu stances and footwork in a match because this would not combine with his arts' theories and concepts - ie he would likely be beaten to a pulp. Another reason why it is very unlikely that any kungfu master "bounced" around a la TKD or kickboxing is that many of the techniques including those associated with internal power release will not work properly, if at all, using that kind of footwork. And of course we all know, don't we, that even many of the so called "external" schools of kung fu have, to say least, a significant internal side to them. Once one appreciated the deeper concepts involved in kungfu (shaolin as well as the Wudang systems) one understands why certain ways cannot have been used. I would say that if they have been used as perhaps experiments then they were discarded as they just do not fit within important concepts of kungfu. I believe that you have misundertood the main reason for sustained horse stance training. It does have a fighting purpose as this stance is used to deliver powerful hand strikes as well as develop powerful legs, etc.- but its major purpose has to do more with internal training and chi development...and more. I have not seen the video of the Crane master fighting the Taiji master but I believe that master Wong Kiew Kit has made references to such masters in the interview/link. By the way, I would still like to see the video and if you post a link for it I would appreciate it.

I don't believe that the opposite is that easy to argue. I don't believe that even many japanese would argue the opposite. Going back to the Center Line theory. I believe that it is very unlikely that the okinawans themselves didn't have a central line theory of their own before the interaction with CMAs, but I believe that their CLT theory was probably enriched through the contact and the resulting "mutation" which followed the CMA interactions. The same could be true for Jujutsu at some stage of its evolution, as there seems to be evidence of chinese influence at some point during its history. I don't think that anyone has said that one person or country was behind the Central Line theory, but rather the enrichment of this theory. After all it is possible to state that most things we do has an inherent central line theory attached to it.

No I never follow what everyone tells me. I will however follow what people qualified in their fields tell me which of course includes proof and explanations of any statements they might have made - hence I believe that I am being OBJECTIVE based on what I have been taught by REAL kung fu experts rather than through unseen myths. I also recognize the fact that there are relatively few REAL kung fu instructors around nowadays - this is also true for traditional karate as well, read Mc dojo. This means you are going to get relatively a few number of people learning kung fu and using it the way it was meant to be used. In most cases there is a deviation (the easy way) where many exponents adapt concepts from kick boxing, TKD, etc. Hence the "bouncing around" when fighting/sparring, where the kung fu stances are not used. This was one of the points master Wong Kiew Kit was making in the interview and it is a very significant point, because to fight using kung fu stances takes long hard years of training (both internal and external). Masters and warriors who used this art in the past and who made a name for kungfu and (and themselves of course) used this kung fu stances for fighting not the kickboxing, boxing nor the sport karate variety. Others see the modern "kungfu exponents" and wrongly assume that the traditional stances are not used because they don't work or think perhaps that they are not meant to be used and are for training puposes only and nothing else. Then these misconceptions breed others and as a result we have a situation where real kung fu masters are criticized and laughed at by lets say non-experts in the field, just for saying it the way it is.

I believe that to better understand the view point of this master one should read some of his books. There is also a lot of interesting material in his website. The point of view and philosophy that he expresses in his interview is no different to what I have been taught myself and hence my own philosophy.

Right choice. Just be carefull with your weight trainning, I.E. don't overdo it. Good Luck.

I am just wondering, could it be that the chinese influence on jujitsu can be equated with the CMA influence on the development of karate in Okinawa. And as every one knows there were fighting arts in Okinawa way before the chinese input. Could we perhaps say that the both karate and jujutsu existed before the contact with the chinese MAs but were somewhat "enriched" by them during their development and evolution?

I believe that to make a fairer assessment of the link, some of you guys should go back re-read the interview. I did not find the link funny nor offensive, not at all.