Kung Fu In Combat

[bushido_man96]

i think its the martial artist and how they train. not the style.

When you think about it, the style dictates how you train. Sure, you can say "If you train like this on your own..." but let's be real - most people go about their normal lives after they leave the school. They WON'T do the extra training. In a typical sport fighting class, the very nature of the training will get you in competition shape (or close to it) for that event. It's part of the style. With the exception of capoeira, I don't see many traditional schools that do this. Consequently, yes the style does make a difference.

Very good point. I am not good at groundfighting, because my style does not cover it. And try as I might, a decent grappler is going to take me down if he really wants to. I have been trying to learn a little grappling, but on your own, the road is long.....

It is also difficult for me to get that extra training in after the classes that I normally attend, as elbows_and_knees mentions. The best way to combat this limitation is for the instructor of the style to adapt and add different training.

[PlasmaShock]

i meant to add that the dedication of the person will greatly affect the style they practise(for their own sake). so if the style is great for self defence, they work hard and develope a good sense of street knowledge, they will probably be good at self defence. its also the teacher that affects how you train too. if you have a good instructor that motivates you, helps you, then you will likely train alot on your own time.

[MizuRyu]

I agree that the effort put into the style does ultimately determine how much it'll help you when you're attacked.

When I have time, I drill on the trees in my backyard, do forms, cross-train with my friends, do whatever I can to make sure my time and money is well invested. When I go back to class, I have a much deeper knowledge of technique than I would if I confined myself to the class itself. There's a Muay Thai gym that's pretty prominant around here, and I have a few friends who attend that I spar frequently, it really adds a different level of depth to your training.

Basically, technique in the safety of class versus when someone's trying their hardest to put you down is a whole different world. The more you bridge the gap between the two, the easier it is to do what the art was meant to do.

[bushido_man96]

I agree that the effort put into the style does ultimately determine how much it'll help you when you're attacked.

When I have time, I drill on the trees in my backyard, do forms, cross-train with my friends, do whatever I can to make sure my time and money is well invested. When I go back to class, I have a much deeper knowledge of technique than I would if I confined myself to the class itself. There's a Muay Thai gym that's pretty prominant around here, and I have a few friends who attend that I spar frequently, it really adds a different level of depth to your training.

Basically, technique in the safety of class versus when someone's trying their hardest to put you down is a whole different world. The more you bridge the gap between the two, the easier it is to do what the art was meant to do.

Your last point is very solid, MizuRyu. The value of cross-training and making the training as realistic as possible is irreplaceable.

[Traditional-Fist]

Your last point is very solid, MizuRyu. The value of cross-training and making the training as realistic as possible is irreplaceable.

Talking about kung fu, I would like to make a significant comment. All major styles of kung fu contain, what westerners might call cross-training aspects. However, they have these within principles and methods characteristic of given styles. That means Northern Mantis ground fighting will fall within principles of that style and not of North American or Greco Roman wrestling. So will their takedowns, takedown defenses, hand/arm, foot/knee/leg strikes. The same is true for Wing Chun and other major Shaolin Arts. In short, most major kung fu styles are complete fighting arts that cover all realistic scenarios. Does this mean that each art contains every fighting technique under the sun? Of course not. What it does means, is that they have applicable defenses and principles that cover all scenarios.

So what is the problem? The problem as always is the lack of decent kung fu schools with decent kung fu masters, not to mention dedicated and patient students who are willing to put time and understanding into such a profound art.

That is why so many McSifus go around introducing outside aspects/techniques into their arts that already do exist within their kung fu, if they only knew.

However, being McSifus, many of them introduce aspects that are in conflict with the original principles of their style of kung fu. Of course, the new additions are marketed as "Modern", "New and improved","More Effective", "Quicker to master" and so it continues. The image created is that Kung Fu is somehow lacking important aspects, such as would you believe ground fighting, 'boxing hooks' etc., where the only thing that kung fu is lacking is good authentic schools and teachers. Don't get me wrong, there are good schools, but in the minority. That means that they are not the image/opinion makers.

So to conclude, the chinese WERE crosstraining (within given principles and methodologies), thousands of years before the this type of training was discovered by today´s NHB fighers and modern kung fu "Geniuses"/"Gurus", fighters.......Mc,Mc,Mc.

[kzshin]

VERY WELL WRITTEN!!!! Traditionla Fist. Finally someone made it clear.

And also, Chinese has fought war for more than 3000 years, and mostly are tradtional melee combat. Kung Fu was definately used in every single war in China, and even today, Chinese military were trained to use it. (I am sure they don't cross-train in Muay Thai, BJJ or Boxing) The effectivenss of Kung Fu in combat shouldn't be doubt. And with that long of history, and to think that Kung FU has not coverd the ground aspect???? I don't think so.

[bushido_man96]

Most of the Chinese wars, much like other cultures, were fought with primarily weapons, and the hand-to-hand combat was the last ditch effort when the weapon was lost. This was the same with the Japanese, and with the Europeans. Each would have offered about the same amount of techniques and counters, etc, to disarming and/or taking a weapon or armed opponent down and incapacitating them. As far as going into an all-out ground fight, grappling/wrestling style, that would not have been as common in wars. Laying prone would get you killed.

[elbows_and_knees]

VERY WELL WRITTEN!!!! Traditionla Fist. Finally someone made it clear.

And also, Chinese has fought war for more than 3000 years, and mostly are tradtional melee combat. Kung Fu was definately used in every single war in China, and even today, Chinese military were trained to use it. (I am sure they don't cross-train in Muay Thai, BJJ or Boxing) The effectivenss of Kung Fu in combat shouldn't be doubt. And with that long of history, and to think that Kung FU has not coverd the ground aspect???? I don't think so.

whether or not the ground aspect is COVERED, really isn't the issue. judo covers strikes, but would you train judo to learn how to strike? of course not. I don't know why a lot of CMA stylists tend to look over this. you will never hear a judoka say "Judo covers striking, so my training is complete" - the judoka will just go train a striking style if that's what he wants to learn. But CMA pride says "my style was battle tested and is a mix of several styles, so it is complete" - which while true theoretically, isn't always practical realistically.

The only CMA style i've ever seen that has a focus on grappling is di tan chuan. Several other styles cover it, but to me, that doesn't count for much more than possibly knowing more on the ground than your untrained street attacker.

As far as kung fu in war... I dunno... I don't think that's a fair assessment. If you are in a war where both sides train kung fu. SOMEBODY has to win, unless they all kill eachother. there is no comparison there in regards to how it fares against another style in general. THAT is what the ufc was intended for. (Before you guys start, no I am in no means saying that mma is the determining factor of what works and what doesn't) but that is what they were trying to illustrate. And in the beginning, it brought several styles, from kung fu to sumo. What you see now is the result of the early matches. What was successful (grapping and striking combos, like MT and BJJ or boxing and catch) is what is being used by most of today's competitors.

[TigerCrane]

Have you taken enough Chinese Martial Arts to make such judgements? Hearing, seeing, or researching - or a combination of all - are very different than actually taking the art yourself.

Back then, rebels and soldiers learned Kung Fu to save their own lives. Every form, every move, every skill was learned to make sure he or she could have the upper hand in battle. If one argues that Wushu seems like a "dancing role", then I could see why. But Kung Fu was studied and used in life and death situations. The soldiers and the rebels don't have time to learn an ineffective art.

A lot of skills in traditional Chineses Martial Arts are very subtle. A flashy form or movement is not just a good-looking move. It serves a purpose.

[elbows_and_knees]

Have you taken enough Chinese Martial Arts to make such judgements? Hearing, seeing, or researching - or a combination of all - are very different than actually taking the art yourself.

Back then, rebels and soldiers learned Kung Fu to save their own lives. Every form, every move, every skill was learned to make sure he or she could have the upper hand in battle. If one argues that Wushu seems like a "dancing role", then I could see why. But Kung Fu was studied and used in life and death situations. The soldiers and the rebels don't have time to learn an ineffective art.

A lot of skills in traditional Chineses Martial Arts are very subtle. A flashy form or movement is not just a good-looking move. It serves a purpose.

total with shuai chiao, longfist and jkd, I've got close to 10 years of CMA experience. Also in that time, I dabbled in WC but didn't like it that much.

What was or wasn't done back then really doesn't matter much today... the training methods and in some cases even forms and techniques - have changed since then. The intent has changed since then. that's why it irks me when people try to base the validity of their style on what some soldier or master did 300 years ago - it's not valid to what YOU can do TODAY.

Also, like I've stated before, I don't think CMA is totally ineffective. I think the way it's trained today in many places is lacking, but that doesn't mean that CMA itself is bad. They have good, solid concepts just as any other style does.