Sick and tired of people putting down kung fu....

[bushido_man96]

Kung Fu San Shou, is Cung Le's style, I believe. I think the major difference between what Le does and otherwise typical Kung Fu training are his training methods.

Here is Cung Le's official website.

[Treebranch]

Many MA's if trained the way the were meant to be trained are very effective and some very deadly. Lots of TMA's are trained softer than sport arts, because not everyone wants to be a fighter they just want to learn a MA in a semi-safe environment. They want to learn it as self-defense or as a hobby. Also lots of TMA schools are afraid of law suits and are in the business of making money. Go to China and train Kung Fu there and I guarantee you it will be alot different from getting trained in the US. They don't mind beating you up a bit so you get better.

[The BB of C]

What Treebranch said is very true for the most part. I may be beating a dead horse, but it's good to keep in mind that not all North American schools are bad.

[NightOwl]

Kung Fu San Shou, is Cung Le's style, I believe. I think the major difference between what Le does and otherwise typical Kung Fu training are his training methods.

Here is Cung Le's official website.

Although his style is usually simplified to 'kung fu', I believe he started out in a Vietnamese MA, not to mention that he has a background in TKD and wrestling to boot. Yes, he has used kicks and techniques in the ring that have not been used before (or at least very successfully), however he isn't exactly a kung fu stylist per se. Kung fu will get more respect when a mainstream group decides to integrate resistance training, get away from too much wushu style form over substance, and dispel a lot of myths and legends around it. For instance, I've seen taichiquan groups that are very dedicated to preserving the art's original purpose as a fighting style. However on the whole they are not well thought of in the taichi world. Harder training (usually) = less students, more people would rather put on a neat training uniform and do forms that are fun to watch and learn self defense drills that they don't need to test than come home bruised and worn out every night.

You could argue that Sanda fills this role, however it is a modern CMA and many practitioners do not consider themselves 'kung fu' stylists.

[bushido_man96]

There is a point to be made about the hobby Martial Artists that Treebranch points out. It is important, as instructors, that we bring out the importance of what the arts convey to those who tend to practice them or view them in this manner. There is nothing wrong with the MAs being done as a hobby; the important meanings of self-defense and fighting need to be expanded upon as well.

[NightOwl]

Right, but then you can't turn around and claim that you can apply what you are learning in the real world. If your hobby is practicing a combat system (which is what martial arts are) but you don't practice much in the way of combat nor gain any advantage over someone in your weight/strength class but with zero training, then its equivalent to dribbling a ball on a basketball course but never trying a scrimmage or playing against someone else. Maybe you like basketball a lot and like the thought of playing, but that makes you an enthusiast, not a basketball player.

Likewise most people who partake in alive training don't have any desire to go pro (making them fit under the definition of hobbyist). However they train in a realistic manner because their hobby is studying a combative system which requires discomfort at times because fighting in of itself is often not a comfortable thing.

Now there are other reasons for studying styles based on martial arts:

Historical

Exercise

Spiritual/personal development

However stop in a historical based MA place not really applicable to the modern world, like ARMA or old Koryu samurai arts. Very rarely will you hear these people say they are doing it for self defense. They are doing it because they want to preserve and partake in a cultural tradition. Likewise few in cardio kickboxing or taebo would say that they could take on actual kickboxers. As for spiritual advancement that is mostly a modern sell -even the Samurai honor stuff in the Book of 5 rings was written after the warring states period in Japan (during the Edo period the samurai found their class increasingly useless and 'Rings' was an attempt to create a heroic image- it's a self pat on the back for the samurai community).

A lot of kung fu people either pursue it primarily for one of the reasons listed above, or for self defense without training in a manner which is likely to improve your ability if an altercation should occur. The problem then comes when at the same time almost all of those mentioned think/claim that they can perfectly well handle themselves in a fight. In fact, many times they actually look down on styles which engage in things like sparring and claim they their skills are so deadly that they could never train in an alive manner.

The kung fu scene has a problem with this (although it can be found in all martial arts): schools that teach something which at best might be exercise or a cultural thing, but advertise that it will help you protect yourself; producing students who think the same thing. Had most of said places advertised as a cultural exercise or form of meditation just for fun, then I doubt that it would have such an image problem. At the same time, they probably wouldn't have as many students if they said they didn't teach a fighting method (or just for cultural reasons). People want to learn how to fight without actually fighting. I know because I've both been there and seen a lot of it.

As I mentioned before, the modern CMA sanda stylists don't really relate themselves to kung fu per se.

[Treebranch]

Here's the thing. I used to fight alot when I was younger and I only lost one fight and that's because it was stopped...I would have won. I've used TKD effectively, later I used Kung Fu Sansoo effectively, and now I study Budo Taijutsu and know I can use it effectively. I also study BJJ and I know I can use that effectively.

I'm not a pro fighter and have no desire to be. I am competing next week in BJJ, but I don't consider that fighting. I have alot of respect for pro fighters, but to be honest there are very few that impress me with their skills. Nothing can replace experience, but an experienced fighter with real skills are a great combination. I see BJJ claiming that it is a deadly MA to attract students as well, but I've never seen it used in a life or death situation. I don't know if I would choose to learn a specialized MA to defend myself if I lived in a violent environment. Saying that, I think the more you know the better. I imagine that when the Gracies were challenging people around the world that they only showed us their wins. I'd be very interested in seeing who they lost or tied.

If you can fight and have fought in real life, with no rules, where anything can happen. If you can do that and stay calm and defend yourself...that's all you can ask for. It doesn't make you a fighter, but you can fight well.

I'm making the claim that Budo Taijutsu is deadly, BJJ is deadly, Kung Fu Sansoo is deadly, Muy Thai is deadly...etc. In the right hands they can all be deadly. That is what most MA's are saying. I agree.

Now can everyone execute any of these MA's effectively in a real situation 100% of the time? Probably not. That's not the fault of the MA.

[NightOwl]

Here's the thing. I used to fight alot when I was younger and I only lost one fight and that's because it was stopped...I would have won. I've used TKD effectively, later I used Kung Fu Sansoo effectively, and now I study Budo Taijutsu and know I can use it effectively. I also study BJJ and I know I can use that effectively.

How many fights have you been in since you started training? I assume that you know that you can use them effectively because you pullled them off against a resisting opponent whether it was in a ring or parking lot.

I'm not a pro fighter and have no desire to be. I am competing next week in BJJ, but I don't consider that fighting. I have alot of respect for pro fighters, but to be honest there are very few that impress me with their skills. Nothing can replace experience, but an experienced fighter with real skills are a great combination.

So unless there is a chance of death it isn't real fighting? Does someone who has a good bar brawl record impress you with their skills instead? As I mentioned before most people who train realistically don't have any ambitions to go pro either, but that doesn't prevent them from training well (one of the reasons kung fu is put down a lot). If I may be so bold to ask, if someone like Anderson silva (MT champ and BJJ BB) or BJ Penn or Fedor doesn't impress you, what standards are you holding them to?

If you can fight and have fought in real life, with no rules, where anything can happen. If you can do that and stay calm and defend yourself...that's all you can ask for. It doesn't make you a fighter, but you can fight well.

And sparring (while NOT the same thing) helps to prepare you for this a lot better than training with NO RESISTANCE AT ALL. At least you'll know what resistance is like, although some of the adrenaline won't be there (although it can be heart pounding at first). I fail to see how doing one step drills has any less rules and restrictions (more really) than a sparring match. Going out and picking fights with people is stupid in so many ways- knifes for instance. Sparring (especially very hard sparring) can show you what it is like when someone wants to hurt you but the risk of death is removed (but not injury). That's a big step in preparing you for the whole thing.

Likewise on the otherside of things, having your life constantly be in danger and getting used to the fear of death doesn't a good fighter make either. Seriously, go to any war torn third world country and set up a fight with a local to the death. If your training is on par they've probably never trained to fight in their life and you should be able to beat them unless there is a huge strength/size descrepancy. Likewise for people who go in the military. Yeah, you can handle yourself in a firefight. That doesn't help troops in bar romps from what I can tell.

Now can everyone execute any of these MA's effectively in a real situation 100% of the time? Probably not. That's not the fault of the MA.

No, but it is the fault of the MA if the majority of techniques either are likely to fail (anything could work if you are lucky) or not trained properly to the point where they can be effectively used. Lumping a roundhouse kick to a standing joint lock because they both are not 100% effective is not fair.

Mostly though, the problem has to do with poor training methods. Look up Lei tai kung fu matches. Fighting has been a part of good MA practice since way back when (including in kung fu). When you take that out, make up excuses for being 'too deadly' in order not to train things that aren't deadly at full force, and introduce fake history and mysticism, things are going to go downhill. Sanda/etc has gone ahead with training methods, and many KF groups have been pushing to take away the misconceptions about kung fu and bring about a strong training regimen. However many have not, and until that changes, the negative images of kung fu that are out there aren't going to change much.

[Treebranch]

Look you make alot of good points and I agree with what you are saying. It's really the training methods not the art itself. All I have to say is don't dismiss techniques that you think don't work. Some techniques have their specific place and work great with a MA'er that has trained them correctly. Putting down MA's you don't understand is just ignorance.

Different MA's were created for specific purposes in a time when you had to fight that way. Look at the history of that MA and it will give you an understanding of why they fought that way. Weapons based MA'ers move differently for fear that maybe someone has a weapon. You can't shoot in on someone on the street..they could be hiding a knife or you just didn't notice it was there. The mindset of weapon based MA's are different, the goal is different. Capturing balance first is far more important than anything else in these types of MA's.

Also you have to understand Sport MA's take lots of training and the techniques get harder and harder to pull off when the other person is studying the same thing. He knows what's coming. The idea of MA's that I've studied is to never let the other person know what's coming. We hide our intent, we hide our punches we hide our kicks we move to places that make you slower and confuse the opponent. I've used this against sport Artists with alot of success. There are higher levels of fighting out there. Even the Sport Arts can be modified over time to be even more efficient than they are now, but this would have to come from a seasoned pro that understands what the short cuts are after having done it for many years. Sometimes younger people want to use their strength and size to over come and opponent, but if the other person has more skill and preserves his energy the other will tire and loose.

Some MA's are more difficult to learn because they involve more time and practice than others and some people that don't have the dedication and patience to bare with it will not learn it and dismiss it. I have enough fight experience to know that I can hold my own with most people. I spar, I roll, I practice throws with resisting opponents, I train with a cage fighter so I understand what you are saying. The problem is you are too quick to dismiss MA's that you don't understand. Take Kung Fu Sansoo and Budo Taijutsu for example. You can dismiss them if you want, but I've used one in real life and the other against resisting opponents for the last 6 years. I can make them work because they work. Just because other people can't make it work doesn't mean it doesn't work.

I'll tell you who I think are actually Martial Artists that fight in the UFC. Silva, BJ Penn, St. Pierre, Crocop in his day. I believe these fighters can hold their own in more scenarios than just the ring certainly more than the ground and pounders out there. The other fighters fight carelessly and wildly with no fanesse or grace and they eventually loose. Courtoure is a specimen and a rarity. He's like the Lance Armstrong of cage fighting so I don't really put him in the same category.

I hope this helps you understand my point a little better.

[bushido_man96]

I don't know why the "ground and pound" fighters always get knocked on. The way they fight is just as legitimate as any other style. Yet they get knocked because it doesn't look as "good" as other styles.