Kungfu asn an effective fighting art

[ravenzoom]

Traditional-Fist wrote:

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

Do you have to follow everything that anyone tells you? Be objective!!

SifuAbel wrote:

This is exactly what is wrong in the kung fu community. This whole mystical "super kung fu guy that doesn't fight but assures you he is invincible" stuff is a cancer that needs to be cut out.

Oh boy you are right!!

By the way I'm no Kung Fu basher, I've done some Wing Chun and I believe it can be very effective if one becomes proficient in it (which most aren't but clearly believe are). I believe with the emergence of MMA and all, Kung Fu needs to re-adjust their things a bit and possibly change some of their old training habits and beliefs.

[Nick_UKWC]

I've seen it from a lot of different styles, all chat and no proof. Akido masters that can fling people to the floor without even touching them, Wing Chun masters than claim to be the greatest fighters alive but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say.

[Traditional-Fist]

do you have to follow everything that everyone tells you? Be objective!!

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.

[SevenStar]

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.

boincing is incorrect. So, someone "adapts" another style's footwork and messes up - go figure...

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).

kung fu takes longer to become proficient with by design. it was made to be that way, in most cases. in other cases, like shuai chiao, they were designed to teach you to become effective faster.

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.

maybe. since you haven't seen them all, you really don't know. actually, we really don't even know if the accounts of all of these masters is even true. have you seen the vid of the crane master fighting the taiji master? it was laughable at best. these two were proclaimed masters, yet they obviously had very little actual fighting skill.

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.

like I said before, stances are transitory. being realistic, you don't NEED seperated static stance training to learn proper footwork, disruptions, takedowns, etc. you need stances, yes, but there is no NEED to be able to hold a horse stance for 10 mins, for example.

[Traditional-Fist]

....someone adapts another style's footwork and messes up..

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.

...kungfu takes longer to become proficient in by design..

if you mean because of its richness and profoundity, for the absorption of which there are no short cuts, then I agree.

in other cases, like shuai chiao, they were designed to teach you to become effective faster

I agree.

since you haven't seen them all, you really don't know

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.

...There is no NEED to be able to hold a horse stance for 10 mins, for example.

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.

[SevenStar]

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.

I don't disagree with that.

if you mean because of its richness and profoundity, for the absorption of which there are no short cuts, then I agree.

I don't know that I'd refer to it as richness... stance training, forms, weapons, strikes, kicks, chin na, qi development, iron body, etc... there is alot to learn, but it many cases, it's all separated, which is why it takes so long. with "sport" styles, all of this is combined. it makes for producing a proficient fighter faster - there is more focus.

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.

that's just it... you really have no inkling who actually used them, and to what extent. If I only have one fight in my life, and in that one fight I win by steeping on a guys bare foot, does that make it a sound principle? Some vicious fighitng technique for me to pass on? I think in this day and age we may sometimes get caught up in nostalgic things, like undefeated masters and such. undefeated against how many? can it be verified? what skill level were they? etc.

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.

a sound concept is a sound concept. last night in thai boxing, my friend and I (we teach the class) were making jokes because what we were doing was alot of the same stuff we did in our kung fu days. we use pak sao, tan sao, gan sao, simultaneous blocking and striking, etc. but it's all used in the frame of thai boxing. I may be parrying your incoming strike, but on the most recognizable level, it's a pak. after I throw a cross elbow to the head of a doubled over opponent, I reverse the path of my arm, using my obtusely angled forearm to redirect your head, as I get you in side plam and begin to knee you... I just did a tan sao. as someone throws a rear haymaker, I cover to absorb the blow and then elbow their bicep. When a comes in, direct the punch downward into your upward elbow strike - limb destructions.

So, are we doing thai boxing, or are we doing kung fu??

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.

"bouncing" is not in boxing or thai boxing footwork. They don't for the very reason you mentioned - power release. Also, while bouncing, you are more susceptible to sweeps and takedowns. That is one of the messed up adaptations I was referring to.

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 don't know that there are any... listening, absorbing, pushing, exploding, etc... these are all found in sport arts as well. The difference is that we don't define it. It's merely part of good technique. grapplers don't know what ding jing is, but they do a good job of using it. a judoka has no concept of peng, but he uses it...

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'm aware of the benefits that horse stance training, standing, etc. provide. However, I disagree with one of those being building powerful legs. It is an endurance exercise. Also, the limited strength you do gain is only gained in one position - the one you hold it in. such is the nature of isometric training.

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'll try to find it. I used to have it on my server, but someone bought my domain, so I let the site go. I'll try to find it somewhere.

[Wong Fei]

It has been said that there has been a long standing opinion that most of the techniques in Gung Fu are nothing more than archaic nonsense. That it has lost it’s validity after years of being pasted down verbally and having its masters withhold information from there students for reasons of security and integrity. After hearing such claims to a high frequency, it seems that there is little reason for me to contest that a good amount, maybe not most, of the Gung Fu exponents out there have benefited from sources that have been modified or even completely rebuilt over time {I say benefited because regardless of what anyone thinks about the legitimacy of what someone knows or not, hard work is hard work. I fundamentally believe that this is one of the most important factors in good health along with concentration and relaxation.}

I feel like I should bring up Bruce Lee at this point as an example of someone who has walked the path through a variety of martial arts styles yet come back with a strong reverence for his Gung Fu beginnings. Bruce lee although understanding that the Gung Fu he had learned was not the end all of all styles, which in all likeliness no style is, still held a withstanding opinion that it was a more well rounded style and that the street fighting applications were more direct with the inclusion of attacks directed at the groin and such areas. These sorts of attacks that some other sports, namely traditional Judo or Aikido, do not normally practice and are things that when thinking of brawling at an early age can seem to be an obvious yet unappealing direction to take a fight. But then again, Aikido and Judo, I am sure, can have there techniques applied to street fighting quite well in some instances and Wing Chun, the style that Bruce Lee, as I recall, studied, does have quite the reputation for being brutal and in some instances has been referred to as a style better suit for a women to ward off a rapist. Mr. Lee did, on the other hand, maintain that like any other style it does have its weaknesses which he held one which was its stringent conformity to tradition. Another big thing that he felt set Gung Fu apart from other styles was the Gung Fu practitioner’s preoccupation with being and moving like water. This certainly contradicts, in some interpretations, a stringent conformity to anything. This one fact of the good fighter’s ability to adapt is a truism that can cross over into to any field of study and any facet of life just as much as the holding of ones ground and resistance that inadaptibility can provide. One more truism that past through this mans lips was that Humans are born under essentially the same circumstances with the same set of extremities. Though the supra human or highly talented individual may be able to take any style and raise it to the point that people are unable to argue its validity, a man only has two legs and two arms. The very specific applications and techniques may differ to a large extent but are all fundamental in premise. Aim, strike, guard, think, and dodge: these are the things that make up a fight. Torso, strong heart, arms, fists, spine, feet, legs and brain: these allow you to fight. Just Like A through A on a chromatic scale and subdivisions of time give you all you need to understand and play music. It is up to the individual to learn how to listen to others music and decide when to adapt or stand there ground. I believe that anyone who sticks too rigidly to any style whether it be in music and Martial arts will not be able to fair as well in group situation, be it a song or a fight. I will also go as far as saying that each human has a latent uniqueness in the subtleties of there movements and will never reach the carbon copy status of any style. All styles when learned and relearned are adapted. Thank God for this dynamic world!

In conclusion I would like to state that I do believe that using Gung Fu styles rigidly can yield good results, if you can call the outcome of any fight a good result. Though we are only arguing over this mans word and that he may or may not be right under the context of the article, I believe that I cannot dispute him or agree with him without seeing the examples that he has seen and spar with him myself. It does seem to me though, that if you study anything seriously it will be incorporated into the way that you think and move. A man born in Texas will always have a little Texas in him and no matter how diluted it may get over time, the trained eye will seek and find that little bit dieing to be seen. If you know Gung Fu you don’t suddenly forget it when you switch stances. Mohamed Ali is not a Gung Fu practitioner, but if he was I am positive it would reflect in his movements as Mohamed can be seen in the movements of Mr. Lee.

Edited April 22, 2005 by Wong Fei

[fallen_milkman]

Extremely well put.

[Wong Fei]

Thank you so much for your heart felt words, but you are too kind.

Thank you again