Did UFC change the way of looking at trad KungFu and Karate?

[yireses]

Did UFC change the way of looking at traditional Kung Fu and Karate styles?

I meen before UFC, everybody wanted to be part of a traditional Kung Fu or Karate School, learn forms and make very nice stances, but since UFC, Schools have changed there way of giving class and does that haven't or losing students.

Am I Wrong?

[silksword]

i see what you mean, the problem is, nobody has enough guts to claim kung fu is their signature art. also chinese martial arts tend to be less competitive. i agree with your point, since ufc, things have been geared towards muay thai, and jj. very good arts, but in my opinion, not as good as kung fu.

[EternalRage]

It sure did change the way people looked at traditional martial arts. The main resulting criticism was directed at traditional arts' archaic and often watered down training methods. Form practice as a basis for combat applications were realized as obselete (in general). Live contact training, in sparring and drills (just to be making contact with something - bag, pads, person) were suddenly an issue. Also conditioning is now necessary (being able to take a hit, last 3 full contact rounds, etc). One of the biggest things that traditional arts suffered was that many systems do not encompass the grappling and clinch range. UFC and other NHB arts brought this weakness into the spot light.

Now some traditional arts have responded by inventing overnight gimmicks to try and pass off the art as being versatile to overcome environments like the UFC. Other arts choose to ignore it and embrace tradition. Some arts have chosen to update their training methods and integrate different arts in order to compensate for all ranges of combat.

[Chaz]

i see what you mean, the problem is, nobody has enough guts to claim kung fu is their signature art. also chinese martial arts tend to be less competitive. i agree with your point, since ufc, things have been geared towards muay thai, and jj. very good arts, but in my opinion, not as good as kung fu.

I agree

[SevenStar]

i see what you mean, the problem is, nobody has enough guts to claim kung fu is their signature art. also chinese martial arts tend to be less competitive. i agree with your point, since ufc, things have been geared towards muay thai, and jj. very good arts, but in my opinion, not as good as kung fu.

no art is better than the other. however, they can have better training methods. This is where the sport styles shine.

[Traditional-Fist]

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.

[EternalRage]

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.

Even if it was training for the kill, the rules of these tournaments specifically forbid any crippling or killing techniqes. That being said, a lot of traditional practictioners like to hide behind the "we are too deadly for the ring" excuse. However, as my Soo Bahk Do master always stated, if you are truly good at some system of fighting arts, and if that system is truly good, you should always be able to adapt to any environment, any rulesets, because it is just a matter of controlling your techniques.

[Traditional-Fist]

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.

[SevenStar]

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.

Even if it was training for the kill, the rules of these tournaments specifically forbid any crippling or killing techniqes. That being said, a lot of traditional practictioners like to hide behind the "we are too deadly for the ring" excuse. However, as my Soo Bahk Do master always stated, if you are truly good at some system of fighting arts, and if that system is truly good, you should always be able to adapt to any environment, any rulesets, because it is just a matter of controlling your techniques.

exactly.

[SevenStar]

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.

In the case of WC, you really shouldn't have to adapt much.... all forms of strikes are allowed, and there are only a few targets that are off limits. I think that falls in with the too deadly excuses...

However, there is nothing wrong with not wanting to compete - some people jsut aren't competitive by nature. IMO though, ALL MA should do it at least once, as being in the ring teaches you alot about fighting and about yourself.