Difference between a Karate punch, and a Gung Fu punch

[KempoTiger]

Bruce Lee screamed out for change, when change was already, and 'constantly,' happening in the martial arts.

I agree with everything else said, only that with this part here I'd argue that change was indeed happening but not in the way that Bruce Lee envisioned.

Of course many new systems were being created, many of them breaking the rules and incorporating various techniques from different systems and making hybrid styles; but you also must remember that Bruce Lee sought to expose the alleged flaws in training with a system that encourages set movements. For those of you who saw the game of death, he even mocked the supposed nunchaku master for fighting in a manner of predictable attacks and techniques.

Bruce sought a more enlightened (at least in his opinion) way of fighting, that encouraged one to become in tune with themselves and find what works and what doesn't work for them through vigorous training and sparring with others. Instead of standing in front of a room learning a kata or form, they would pair up and just try different things on each other to see what worked.

Of course Bruce seldom seemed to mention that most traditional or conventional styles did give him alot of techniques and material to work into his classes, regardless though he didn't see it ultimately productive in the purest sense to teach any "style."

This explains why he changed his mind entirely about even JKD and closed his schools.

[y2_sub]

White Warlock:

Whenever I try and respond to this thread, you go and write a long, detailed post that states exactly what I wanted to say in excellent terms.

My hat's off to you.

Same case here , White Warlock is always one step ahead

[White Warlock]

*blushes*

Of course Bruce seldom seemed to mention that most traditional or conventional styles did give him alot of techniques and material to work into his classes, regardless though he didn't see it ultimately productive in the purest sense to teach any "style."

I agree with you KempoTiger. I believe that's what he thought as well. But, i don't believe he was right. One needs a base of knowledge in order to have a clue in the first place. Learning a style, or many styles, is the best means to obtain that base, or foundation.

Earlier physicists have presented theories and a clarification of existing laws that allow for modern physicists to make 'short-cuts' to their learning ventures, and thus come up with more complex theories and more detailed analysis of existing laws. If the work of earlier physicists was not available, learning would be a far greater task. Each and every experiment and mathematical computation that had been done over the past 3000+ years would have to be reconceived, and then recommitted... with no basis, no foundation.

It is said that when you obtain a black belt, you have gained mastery of the basics. I believe Bruce Lee failed to understand this, or at least focused on those persons who failed to see beyond that in their own studies. I believe this not merely because of what i've presented already, but because of some the comments in his notes. One in particular discusses the difference between the 'mechanical' fighter and the 'intelligent' fighter, wherein the mechanical fighter has a preset series of responses to a set of actions and the intelligent fighter is not set, thus able to change and become less predictable.

In that set of notes, it falls to me the awareness that he looked at a mechanical fighter, a technician, as someone who is steadfast and rigid in their actions and applications. In contrast, where the mechanic would have one or two actions to handle a particular assault, the intelligent fighter would have many.

Now, i'm aware that he said 'none,' but i come back to something i've mentioned in this board a year ago or so, which is that he didn't have 'no' background. He had a background, a series of actions and techniques that he had ingrained within himself through repetition, both physical and mental. When he 'responded' to an attack, in order to ensure it was virtually instantaneous, he had to develop his muscle-memory, to know what to do and when to do it. A set series of 'mechanics' to ensure dominance, lest too much time is wasted... 'thinking.'

In Bruce's analysis, being intelligent means to not be rigid and predictable. But, there is no way to be unpredictable to all persons. All one can do is obtain mastery of a multitude of 'actions' so that one can fluidly 'change' from one 'style' to another whilst looking for the area of ignorance of one's opponent. Like a debate, one cannot argue about something one is ignorant of, and thus one cannot pose a defense or a reasoned counter-argument.

But, and here's where i pose my revolutionary thoughts... like a debate, one doesn't need to be knowledgeable about a topic in order to win. Fallacious reasoning is the process of argument utilizing false logic, and in many cases it is very effective. Some examples of this are that of being offensive to the person, tossing out derogatories, essentially attacking the person rather than the argument and by doing so, throwing them out of their game. Others are that of presenting straw men, so as to direct the debate to an area of knowledge that the opposing debater is ignorant of as well. In doing so, the playing field is made equal.

My revolutionary thought... is to study fallacious reasoning... and in doing so, obtain a 'transference' of understanding to that of the martial arts. I believe they are 'directly' applicable for those moments when you are presented with an opponent utilizing techniques you are ignorant of, or fighting in a phase that is not your strong suit. For when you are 'out of your game,' you're simply going to have to get 'into' your game, get your opponent out of his game, get your opponent to not be able to focus on his game, or one of the many other 'transferences' of fallacious reasoning into that of the martial arts.

Open up a new topic maybe?

Edited August 16, 2005 by White Warlock

[Sauzin]

More on topic:

Even with Okinawan te created since before 1470, karate was actually more a product of the 20th century, with many Okinawan and Japanese versions being founded between 1900 and 1960. It's important to remember that the Okinawan systems were all 'heavily influenced' by Chinese kung-fu masters that fled from China... to Okinawa. So really, i don't find much 'water' in Bruce Lee's generalizations. It was, as i said before, more a commercialization stunt than anything else.

You know here's a point that I wish was better known. There are less differences between Chinese styles of Kung-fu and Okinawan Karate then I think many people really know. Not only did much of Okinawan karate originate from Chinese masters settling or stranded in Okinawa, but many founders of some of the most popular Okinawan Karate styles studied in China for decades before coming back to Okinawa and founding their style. In other words, aside from Okinawan tendencies to like no nonsense fighting, being well rooted, extensive use of low kicks, and throws that work well against very big people, Okinawan karate really is Chinese Kung-fu with gi's on. You just can't say things like "A karate punch is an iron bar and a kung fu punch is a ball and chain" because a lot of karate uses the same ball and chain punch you see in some Kung-fu. Of course I've seen some kung-fu guys that punch more like an iron bar so there you go. There really is no difference in punching between Okinawan karate and Kung-fu that you can find across the board in all styles.

[ovine king]

...which is exactly why i get so narky when anyone puts any style from any country on a high horse and refer to things such as a "chinese style punch" or a "thai style kick" or a "judo throw".

with few exceptions, none of these things are exclusive to any one style/country.

[KempoTiger]

Well I must say Warlock, I now see why you seem to garner such respect from so many on here

You seem to know what you're talking about, and have put much thought into this. Your commentary on Bruce's comments on a mechanical vs. intelligent fighter were pretty dead on in my opinion. Yet only that in Bruce's defense I don't think that he was criticizing the concepts of muscle memory and saying that it's impossible to react in a variety of ways, but rather that too many systems in his opinion taught a few ways to react to a stimuli which would render the fighter helpless once his opponent picked up their style or pattern.

As you said earlier Bruce was essentially being the loudest mouth speaking truth's that we've known for some great time, exposing it to the average lay-person. I respect him for it, so that's pretty much all I have left to say in this thread.

[White Warlock]

*blushes* part deux

Yet only that in Bruce's defense I don't think that he was criticizing the concepts of muscle memory and saying that it's impossible to react in a variety of ways, but rather that too many systems in his opinion taught a few ways to react to a stimuli which would render the fighter helpless once his opponent picked up their style or pattern.

Agreed. On the other hand, if a fight goes as it should, things get busy immediately, so 'figuring out' your opponent isn't all that good an idea. What i mean is, in a spar, in a competition, time is taken to 'analyze' your opponent so you exploit their flaws, enter between their rhythm. But, in a 'real' confrontation, unless both participants are somewhat afeared of each other, the action is going to be fast, heavy, and immediate. Under such circumstances, i think focusing on your own game is the better route. At least at the onset and if things don't drag out.

I guess what i'm saying is, i don't disagree with Mr. Lee on that, but i also don't think it's high priority.

I respect him (Bruce Lee) for it, so that's pretty much all I have left to say in this thread.

The guy definitely had spunk.

[ovine king]

hey... what did you expect?

He stared off as a wing chun guy; over theorising is a wing chun speciality.

[White Warlock]

Ouch! hehe

[ovine king]

hey, I'M allowed to mock wing chun......

Did i ever tell you about the time I was trying to convince someone that the bong sau has a weakness during chi sau? We were at it for about an hour, with him telling me exactly what he would do and why the bong sau wouldn't be used if it didn't feel right. It took less five seconds for me to show him the gap. There was no need for him to say a word, not to mention that I know the reasoning behind it anyway...... I still haven't told him what I did to get past the bong sau.