Kung Fu In Combat

[jmd161]

The simple fact of the matter is this... 98% of CMA stylist are inapt for various reasons such as... phoney teachers, bogus styles/arts, sorry students that don't train etc...etc...etc...

Out of the other 2% only .5% truly train for actual combat and work on all phases of their training including applications. With those odds there's no wonder why CMA has such a bad name. It's not going to change anytime soon either because you have so many teachers out three that have no clue, thus their students have no clue.

It's something i as a CMA stylist hate to admit, but it's the truth.

jeff:)

[Traditional-Fist]

The simple fact of the matter is this... 98% of CMA stylist are inapt for various reasons such as... phoney teachers, bogus styles/arts, sorry students that don't train etc...etc...etc...

Out of the other 2% only .5% truly train for actual combat and work on all phases of their training including applications. With those odds there's no wonder why CMA has such a bad name. It's not going to change anytime soon either because you have so many teachers out three that have no clue, thus their students have no clue.

It's something i as a CMA stylist hate to admit, but it's the truth.

jeff:)

I am in agreement with you, although I am not too sure about the percentages, . I would also add that many potential students having attended an authentic kwoon and not having participated in full contact sparring and other "dynamic" activities in the first 2 sessions, never come back and instead choose the local kick boxing gym where they will go on to learn "real fighting". So our culture in the West has a lot to do with at least some of the shortcomings in the CMA arena.

I am glad to say there are real kung fu kwoons around, not many, as you mentioned,but they can be found by those who are really interested in learning real kung fu. The old saying: "when the student is ready the master will appear" seems to be relevant when it comes to kung fu training, at least for some people.

[mantis.style]

I would also add that many potential students having attended an authentic kwoon and not having participated in full contact sparring and other "dynamic" activities in the first 2 sessions, never come back and instead choose the local kick boxing gym where they will go on to learn "real fighting".

So are you saying that if your first two classes of a Chinese martial art does not involve and sparring or dynamic drills, you are not in a proper authentic Chinese martial arts class?

[bushido_man96]

I would also add that many potential students having attended an authentic kwoon and not having participated in full contact sparring and other "dynamic" activities in the first 2 sessions, never come back and instead choose the local kick boxing gym where they will go on to learn "real fighting".

So are you saying that if your first two classes of a Chinese martial art does not involve and sparring or dynamic drills, you are not in a proper authentic Chinese martial arts class?

No, what he is saying is that this is how some people view their first few experiences in the Kung Fu class.

[mantis.style]

Please excuse me for an error in my last post. What I meant to post was: So are you saying that if your first two classes of a Chinese martial art does involve and sparring or dynamic drills, you are not in a proper authentic Chinese martial arts class?

[bushido_man96]

Please excuse me for an error in my last post. What I meant to post was: So are you saying that if your first two classes of a Chinese martial art does involve and sparring or dynamic drills, you are not in a proper authentic Chinese martial arts class?

Ok, I see. I don't think this is the case. I think it is a difference in teaching philosophy and methodology.

[elbows_and_knees]

Please excuse me for an error in my last post. What I meant to post was: So are you saying that if your first two classes of a Chinese martial art does involve and sparring or dynamic drills, you are not in a proper authentic Chinese martial arts class?

by design, traditional styles take longer to learn - that is no secret. the only exception I know of is shuai chiao. SC is very hands on - you start drilling early and you spar a lot. they follow a similar model to what modern fighting systems follow, and they always have followed that format. Many other styles are the opposite - master technique, learn the forms, start iron body training, etc. the emphasis is not placed on fighting in the beginning. It's placed more on development of technique, which is not a bad thing, it's just slower than doing them both at the same time.

I know a guy who did nothing but stance training for 3 months before he was shown anything else - then he was only shown one punch. He progressed from there. IMO, this is ridiculous, but back in the day, things like that were the norm.

[mantis.style]

OK then, let me rephrase and add some back story. One of my earliest classes involved me getting peppered with punches by a senior member of the class to see how I naturally deal with things. Before my sifu was officially taught, his teacher paid some kids to beat him up. Hard training is done after basics, that is true BUT my basics was simple sparring. Everytime I was taught a move, I was then shown it in application as well as in singular drill and it's place in the form and how it differs in the form and why it is different. Does my more "dynamic" class mean it is not authentic? Is the inverse true? Are all non-dynamic and non-heavy sparring classes authentic?

No offence but three months of ONLY stance training smells like either proper classical styles like traditional longfist styles or one of the breathe/hard schools of shaolin, the origins of which in terms of fighting are dubious anyway. No school I know of has students ONLY doing stance training for the first three months. On the other hand, I did spend months learning how to short bridge punch but that's not really the same and it wasn't like I never did anything else as well as that at the same time, especially seeing as part of the short bridge punching training involves sand-bag work and blood-sand.

Traditional styles do take a long time to learn all of it that can be taught but does that mean it takes ten or more years to even just learn basics because that is what is being said by some. Would you consider Wing Chun to be a traditional style? Historically, the style was designed to create fighters in less than five years with even the basics being applicable from day one. I mean, put it this way, the moment you are taught to punch, you are by the nature of what is to punch, taught to intercept and to step and basics of timing; at least you should be. In my first class of wing chun, that was what and how I was taught. In my first class of mantis, I was taught in the same way. How does my "dynamic" way of being taught in a non "practice this for months young grasshopper" way indicative of its authenticity or suspicion?

[bushido_man96]

You are making a very good point, mantis.style, and I feel that your way of learning would be very authentic. I don't think authenticity has really anything to do with lineage, tradition, or standards of training. What it has to do with is effectiveness. And if your learning experience is effective, then you are getting authentic training. The fact that you started with sparring concepts in training doesn't mean that it was not "authentic." On the contrary, it could in fact verify the authenticity of your training.

[Rainbow_Warrior]

I am sure that this is a western problem , monks do sparring every day, and last several hours.

And for sure , again , this is a Mc dojo problem.

Wing chung is traditional,comparing to other derivated forms. In my kwoon , we learn some chi sao , that is close combat derivated from wing chung, punches and blocks very close to the oponent and very fast , including elbows hits occasionally. It is very good to me , because I am not a very good blocker in short distance.