mouko_yamamoto Posted July 25, 2003 Posted July 25, 2003 which of those styles do you think is better? Whether it be in power, speed, whatever. Tang Soo Do/Tae Kwon Do....Oh yeah, and unofficially...KENJUTSU"There are five possible operations for any army. If you can fight, fight; if you cannot fight, defend; if you cannot defend, flee; if you cannot flee, surrender; if you cannot surrender, die." ~ Sima Yi
SaiFightsMS Posted July 25, 2003 Posted July 25, 2003 The purpose of this forum is not to discuss wether one style is better than anothor. If you would like to discuss the merits, similarities and differences of both forms this thread will remain open. Other wise it will be closed.
Red J Posted July 29, 2003 Posted July 29, 2003 Tiger: Goes through the opponent...Ripping, tearing, crushing, head on. The tiger shows no fear and plows its opponent. Dragon: Uses whipping motions, spinning, and sudden directional changes. The dragon uses a more thinking philosophy and builds momentum differently than tiger. I had to lose my mind to come to my senses.
Ironberg Posted August 6, 2003 Posted August 6, 2003 Hmm, I say Dragon, cuz dragons are much more larger and mythical. Tigers don't have the protective scale that dragons do, which is pretty much an armor. And Dragons have tails that are much more powerful than a tiger's wussy fur-coated rope. C'mon! If you want to compare kung-fu styles you must think much brighter than this. Think along the lines of Northern vs. Southern (ie, Shaolin Animal SyleS vs. Hung Gar or Wing Chun)... "An enlightened man would offer a weary traveler a bed for the night, and invite him to share a civilized conversation over a bowl of... Cocoa Puffs."
paolung Posted August 6, 2003 Posted August 6, 2003 shaolin animal style vs hung gar? you do know that hung kuen has the 5 animal styles in it and it was originally derived from tiger system? "It is not how much you know but how well you have mastered what you've learnt. When making an assessment of one's martial arts training one should measure the depth rather than the length". - MASTER "General" D. Lacey
Ironberg Posted August 6, 2003 Posted August 6, 2003 I didn't know that about Hung Gar. All I know is that it is a southern style, and it was developed by the legendary Wong Fei Hung. Please excuse my ignorance on that subject. I don't study kung fu but I attempt to keep tabs on it, cuz I find it interesting... "An enlightened man would offer a weary traveler a bed for the night, and invite him to share a civilized conversation over a bowl of... Cocoa Puffs."
MantisWarrior Posted December 13, 2003 Posted December 13, 2003 i say mix them a tirgon would look cool Fighting out of hate brings only disgrace.
Drunken Monkey Posted December 13, 2003 Posted December 13, 2003 actually i thought hung kuen was 'supposedly' developed by hung hei gung (then something to do with luk ar choi who taught wong kei ying who is wong fei hung's father). well, actually this is all rather shrouded in myth. we're not entirely sure if it is called hung kuen because of the guy's name or if it is because of it's ties with the boxer rebellion ('all brothers under the heavens are called hung'). anyway. back to the tiger and dragon. the two aren't really comparable because they have different intents. the tiger is primarily a 'power' style. like red says, it is ripping and tearing and going through the opponent. the dragon on the other hand is supposed to have an elusive feel; when you attack and he defends with a dragon movement he will 'absorb' your strike. lots of movement (for whipping and grabbing/turning) generated at the waist+hips. * * * as for the ng ying kuen. the movements are named after animals for their intent/essense/philosphy, NOT because of how they look. post count is directly related to how much free time you have, not how intelligent you are."When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite."
Rich_2k3 Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 This is an extract from the British Lau Gar Kung fu association: DRAGON: The dragon style represents the cultivation of the spirit. Pronounced back arches, side horse stances and twisting body postures feature strongly in the style. Flexibility and graceful movements are stressed. TIGER: The Tiger does not need to defend, it is the ultimate predator. It has no evasion techniques, no blocking or defence. In any confrontation it leaps into attack going for the quick and direct resolution of the conflict. The Tiger uses any simple and direct approach. It's techniques and methods are easily understood with not a lot of strategic thinking or planning; and absolutely no preparation. The Tiger is purely reactive. Either the world is OK or the Tiger will do something immediate and sudden. Well there u go, anyway I cant give an opinion at the moment because I dont practice Kung fu, but I will be very soon (Wednesday actually) untill then I couldnt say. p.s I think the tiger sounds pretty cool though... "When my enemy contracts I expand and when he expands I contract" - Bruce Lee
SevenStar Posted January 15, 2004 Posted January 15, 2004 Hmm, I say Dragon, cuz dragons are much more larger and mythical. Tigers don't have the protective scale that dragons do, which is pretty much an armor. And Dragons have tails that are much more powerful than a tiger's wussy fur-coated rope. C'mon! If you want to compare kung-fu styles you must think much brighter than this. Think along the lines of Northern vs. Southern (ie, Shaolin Animal SyleS vs. Hung Gar or Wing Chun)... there's nothing wrong with his comparison - these different styles have different characteristics. Tiger is pure, raw, directness and power. The dragon, as said before is stepping off line, whipping etc. according to the chinese, tiger is a low level style and dragon is a high level. That said though, I personally would prefer tiger.
Recommended Posts