Kung Fu fight strategy in the ring?

[Merryprankster]

Ok.

I've come to the conclusion that Kung Fu fight strategies (ie, how your style chooses to deal with a particular attack/series of attacks/category of attacks) seem to be very similar to those in "sport" arts. The "dance and jab" style of boxing, for instance emphasizes capturing the centerline and using it as your path of attack and slipping as you move establishes your line to your opponent while taking you off his. Combinations once the opening is found drive your opponent into a defensive vice offensive posture so you can finish things. Wing Chun, while using different methods to clear a path of attack, uses the same principle of capturing the center and forward pressure. Different tactics, similar strategy.

Shuai Chiao might enter with a strike or block or evade something, but then wants to throw you. Hard. Not unlike a Judoka or a wrestler, etc.

It seems to me that the fight strategies themselves are not incompatible with ring fighting--while specific techniques might be illegal, the overall strategy would still seem valid. I'm sure that a good CMA guy could modify that eyestrike/throat strike into a shot to the face, a kick directly to the knee to the thigh, a knee to the groin to the stomach, etc.

What do you think? I know that there are good people out there who train hard that could apply these strategies in the ring, like the WT guy who is in the Danish article on the WC forum (it's a link in a post). So where are they? Or do you think I've got this all wrong?

[Tinman]

Definitly, Ballet Fu is all wrong for Ring Fighting.
come to think of it Ballet Fu sucs for any kind of fighting.

Thats why you don't see them in U.F.C. or N.H.B.

Your best bet would be to study san shou. Thats still cma.:)

[Merryprankster]

Sigh.

Please don't hijack my thread. I'd rather they post to the question I posed. Thanks!

I like San Shou though. Good stuff.

[premier]

I think you're right. Even if you can't grab or claw or finger jab your opponent with the gloves on, it doesn't mean you can't do anything. You still have 95% of your tools available.

[dubj]

I have thought the same thing. Most kung fu styles have high level fight tactics and strategies that would pose a nice problem for ring fighting styles. The eye and throat strike argument for not fighting in tournaments is just an excuse because I train to have less deadly or harmful strikes along with the ones you would use if someone attacked you with a knife. I would like to see how a bagua guy would do in a boxing or kickboxing ring. The problem with fighting with gloves on is that it makes a lot of the grabbing and hand techniques that kung fu trains hard or impossible to pull off.

[Merryprankster]

But it doesn't make them impossible to apply in MMA events. The gloves are open fingered. They are designed to let the user grapple.

[Shooter]

Ring strategies that are simple and in accord with Tai Chi's basic positional concepts work best for MMA in regard to Tai Chi at least.

[Braden]

"What do you think?"

I think you're right. Although I don't know where this idea that kungfu was about eye and throat strikes came from. Er... well, I do... it's just not correct.

"So where are they?"

Those with the inclination and ability are in the ring competeing.

[Merryprankster]

It's not all about eye and throat strikes--but if that is a common follow-up to something, then you'll have to "train it out" for the ring. That's all I meant. Sorry.

Of course, posts like "if I were on the ground, I'd just eye-gouge him," don't help :D

Braden--if you have some links to some mma fighters who claim a Kung Fu background who have competed a lot, and seem to use the kung fu they've learned, that'd be cool. I already know about Jason DeLucia. :)

[Braden]

Well, we both know how much merit THOSE kinds of posts have. ;)

Are you asking if there's kungfu guys in the ring, or are you asking if there's mixed martial arts guys in the ring who have some background in kungfu, or are you asking if there's kungfu guys in a certain ring event, or are you asking if there's mixed martial arts guys who have a background in kungfu in a certain ring event?

These are all different questions. Some of them are kind of silly.

[Merryprankster]

Specifically, I'm asking if there are web links to guys who claim a Kung Fu background who are fighting in MMA events that you might know about. And more specifically, I don't want somebody who's done 2 years of oh, I don't know, Hung Gar, then 8 years of boxing, and 4 years of BJJ, and fights like a boxer who does BJJ :)

You know... Vanderlei Silva LOOKS like a thai boxer when he fights... Guy Mezger LOOKS like a kickboxer with an american kickboxing background. That sort of thing. I mean, they have a certain look to their styles that is identifiable.

I've only ever seen one "kung fu" guy competing that used an "identifiable" sort of kung fu maneuver, and he tried to chain punch into his opponent.

[Braden]

What's an MMA event?

[Shooter]

Before you'd ever see "an 'identifiable' sort of kung fu maneuver," you'd have to know what you're looking at. For the most part, what you'd be looking at can't be viewed through a technicentric eye.

[red_fists]

Originally posted by Braden
What's an MMA event?

An MMA Event is an open style Competition.

Any style can fight against any other style in the ring.

There are rounds, rules, scoring systems and similar to boxing.

Most of the MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) Guys, crosstrained in a large variety of MA(Karate, TKD, Muay Thai, Judo, BJJ,etc) to be able to compete better in the ring.

[Merryprankster]

I can watch a guy and tell if he's BJJ/Judo, wrestling, kickboxing, or thai boxer, sumo etc. If I look at something I've never seen anything like it before I'd start asking some questions: "Gee--that looked different. Wonder what that was."

Now an experienced CMA guy might be able to identify it--and if that's "Technicentric thinking,"--tough. There is a flavor each of these arts has--Renzo Gracie has an OBVIOUS BJJ background--even if I didn't know the Gracie name, but I did know/see/do BJJ, I'd be able to tell that. But if some guy says "I'm a [insert style here] guy," and I'm watching him BOX, it's not going to have that CMA flavor, is it?

So, *I* might no be able to tell, but somebody should be able to tell that it's CMA and not kickboxing, yeah?

MMA is mixed martial arts. Like the UFC or pride. It's the PC way of saying it :)

[Braden]

I honestly have no idea what "mixed martial arts" means. Every definition I've heard was kind of silly. Is what red_fists said what you were looking for?

[Braden]

Or is your question limited to the specific venues "UFC" and "Pride"?

[Shooter]

You're talking CMA in general. I'm talking Tai Chi.
Two totally different things in terms of Tai Chi's
tactical universality that your technicentricism
prevents you from appreciating.

Tai Chi isn't about techniques. It's about energy
management, and movement principles based
on very simple ideas and concepts, and how the
indivdual expresses them as aspects of
their own physical dynamic.


http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/mma3forums/thread.cfm?thread_id=298158&ThreadName=Tai%20Chi%20Push%20Hands&messages=12&forum_id=55

[red_fists]

Braden.

Check this Link.

http://www.fightlink.com/mma/FAQ.html

[Braden]

red_fists -> Thanks. I'm familiar with the popular concept. But it doesn't change how meaningless it is. Technically speaking, you study a MMA, as does anyone studying a northern preying mantis style, etc etc etc; however a guy calling himself MMA would never agree with this.

I just want to hear MP operationally define the term with regard to what he is asking in this discussion. I want him to say specifically "I mean only the event UFC" or "I mean any event which is open to any style", or whatever. Before he does that, he can prove any possible response I give (even any theoretical response - that is, any response that would even be true in a universe different than ours) to be false by simply using a different definition of "MMA" than the one I assumed when I replied. That's why in math, logic, and science the first thing you do is provide operational definitions.

[red_fists]

Braden.

I agree there.

Personally, I don't like the term "MMA" as it appears to have become solely associated with UFC, PRIDE & NHB Fights and their way of thinking.

That is one of the reasons why I don't like to call my style "MMA", but would rather say it is a "combined style".

Yep, different words same meaning, but a big diff for me personally.

Have a good one.

[Merryprankster]

In this case, I am using the term MMA to refer to Pride, UFC, or similar events.

I also understand that MMA doesn't explicitly mean this.

Touchy...sheesh. Or maybe I'm just tired.

Shooter-- I had a big long thing written, but it was WAY too sarcastic and negative... reflecting my frustration, not anything else.


It's "when you meet the buddha, kill the buddha." You learn techniques. The techniques lead to an understanding of the concepts. You forget the specific techniques because, as I often say "an armbar is an armbar is an armbar."

Tai Chi might be a concept in the way that Judo is "maximum efficiency, minimum effort," but it also constitutes a set of techniques used to take advantage of that concept. These would be identifiable to another Tai Chi player, yes?

[Archangel]

Braden,

How about an event that allows the three basic ranges of fighting. Striking, stand up grappling and groundfighting at the same time.

[Braden]

MP - I don't mean to sound touchy, I'm just trying to find out specifically what you're asking. I mean, I can't answer your question when it's not clear what you're asking. And you admit that the term MMA is extremely vague, and doesn't explicitly mean what you are saying.

I have difficulty dealing with this question when the qualifier is "a number of specific venues of my choice" rather than an objective description, such as "any venue which allows practitioners of any style to enter and allows full force attacks."

[Merryprankster]

Fair enough--I made an assumption that you were familiar with Pride and UFC to understand what a "similar" venue would be :)

But basically, a full contact fight that allows any "range" of combat, although certain technique restrictions might apply. How's that?

[Braden]

MP - That's better. ;)

I'm familiar enough with Pride and UFC. What makes me frustrated is that we've had this conversation here a bagazillion times, and what most people mean by MMA (I'm not saying this is what you mean) is "I belong to a cultural movement that subsumes these specific people and things, why isn't what you do part of this?" In other words, it is analogous to someone saying "I just finished watching Modern Jazz Countdown, and I didn't see a single Malmsteen riff... what's up with that?" I'm not putting down the proper philosophy of MMA. But like any movement which becomes popular, it becomes overwhelmed by people who are incapable of comprehending the original goals, and just want to belong to something and recieve external validification for what they do. And that's mostly what we see in these conversations.

I've got no interest at all in debating with people why they don't hear any Malmsteen on their jazz guitar programs. If you want to ask why we don't see kungfu guys do well in groundfighting venues, that's a legitimate question. Kungfu really doesn't have any adequate groundtraining. That's about all there is to say on that topic. (As an aside, there are people like Shooter here who get down and roll on the mats and train out taiji principles there, which is of course extremely valid. But I'm sure we'll agree - even if the kungfu nuts who will flame me for this don't - that that is different from the typical silly stance that their principles will magickally manifest on the ground with no training).

If you want to broaden the topic to ask about kungfu people working in open-style hard-contact competitions, we can talk about that. I personally believe that many kungfu styles (we have to remember here that there is as much variation between kungfu styles as there is from a kungfu to a non-kungfu style) are extraodinarily effective stand-up styles. Remember a thread you started a while ago where you said (and I agreed avidly) that ground-standing is an important distinction, but that close-far, grappling-striking weren't? Keep that in mind. Kungfu does great standing. The best standing contact open-style venue we have is koushu. Kungfu styles dominate it.

The only question left to ask is 'why haven't these idea been brought together?' Maybe you should pose this question to the people who claim to watch contact open-style events to scientifically pick out the best styles to train in. In other words, maybe you should bring this to the MMA people, not the kungfu people. The question to ask to kungfu people is clearly NOT 'what's up with your style and contact competition?' but rather 'what do you think about achieving some proficiency on the ground?' Since, logically speaking, that's where the discrepency is.

[Chang Style Novice]

Because all these other, watered down martial arts are derived from kungfu, what kungfu looks like in the ring is what you've already seen.

Okay, that's kind of a troll, but I'm betting there's a little bit of truth to it as well. Shuai Chiao throws are going to look a lot like Judo throws without the gi. Chin-na locks are going to resemble jujutsu locks. Tang Lang kicks are going to be similar to TKD or muay thai kicks. The most distinctive aspects of the movements as they appear in forms are going to disappear somewhat because of the presence of a resisting opponent, and are mostly meant for conditioning anyway (ie: you kick higher or stand lower in a form to develop the strength and flexiblity that will allow kicks and stances in a combat context to be stabler, faster and so on.)

But then I'm a newbie, so I could be talking out my cornhole on this.

[Shooter]

MP, I actually liked what you originally wrote and appreciated your candor. :)


The techniques lead to an understanding of the concepts. You forget the specific techniques because, as I often say "an armbar is an armbar is an armbar."

Actually, it's the other way around. At least in my school.

I don't view Tai Chi as a menu of techniques that lead the student to a conceptual understanding. I teach a movement principle by not teaching it directly. I skirt the core of the principle with extraneous aspects of the movement so that the player can draw from their internal experience of moving, and formulate an understanding that applies to their current level of relaxation and coordination (energy management) as they work within the parameters of Tai Chi's structure principles.

As the practitioner begins to learn about energy, they begin to look at the methods of acquiring refined energy management as a 3-dimensional model. I call it "stratification." It goes like this:

I show a student how to perform the basic figure-8 pattern of movement and recovery with their hands at first, as in Corn-grinding or another Chi Kung exercise we just call figure-8s. Corn-grinding is first introduced as a reciprocating circular pattern done with the hands. As we continue the exercise, I explain the ideas of centerline integrity, rotational and extension theory, and how the waist is used to initiate the pattern theyÕre describing with their arms and hands. This takes about 5 minutes, and they have the idea of movement being the essence of their energy managment and tactical possibilities/options.

The Figure-8 is one of the staples of Tai ChiÕs energy management. It allows smooth, eliptical recovery at all levels of movement from the center of the spine on outward to the full extension of the limbs.

The core of movement isnÕt the paradigm contained in technical execution, nor is it dealing with a concept or a particular movement method. ItÕs all three things being practiced in one. As the idea begins to take form, it supplies a paradigm for developing the concept which will imbue sound movement skills, and specialized techniques much like a Judoka's tokui-waza.

Corn-grinding is a ten-minute introduction to the 3-dimensional modeling of how to use hooks/circular hand method with relaxed, smooth recovery during a series of reciprocating rotations. As a form of tactical application, corn-grinding transcends the mental/intellectual contrivance-based approach to technique, and allows the practitioner to NOT fight - Just manage their energy as the body is set in motion. The opponentÕs targets are just things that get in the way of the movement.

The same approach applies to "submissions," fast-wrestling, and everything else combative in their Tai Chi.



Tai Chi might be a concept in the way that Judo is "maximum efficiency, minimum effort," but it also constitutes a set of techniques used to take advantage of that concept. These would be identifiable to another Tai Chi player, yes?

Yes and no. Another Tai Chi player may not visually identify with what I described, as in an MMA match, unless they trained with the person they were watching. But they would definitely feel it, as in an MMA match or sparring for same. :cool:

[Xebsball]

Hey Merry-P

I know this is off topic but since i know you are into mma...

The hot news is that just a few hours ago, Vitor Belfort got into a reality show. It is kinda like Big Brother but its done with celebrities from tv, music, entretainement, etc.

So the thing is, will Vitor fight Liddel??
He is inside the house and cant get out.

[SifuAbel]

Originally posted by Merryprankster


It seems to me that the fight strategies themselves are not incompatible with ring fighting--while specific techniques might be illegal, the overall strategy would still seem valid. I'm sure that a good CMA guy could modify that eyestrike/throat strike into a shot to the face, a kick directly to the knee to the thigh, a knee to the groin to the stomach, etc.


Although I agree with your supposition, I have to stress that to say all kung fu is about eye and throat strikes is misleading. The root of CMA is about accuracy and control. There is no real reason why a CMA person cannot take his/her skills to the sport world. CMA punches and kicks are pretty much like every other human's in the world, with little variations here and there of course. The "too deadly for prime time" is a myth. If you are good, you can fight. Period. There are techniques in CMA that are designed to do permament damage, but it's not the totality of the system and it is not the backbone of it either. If anything, CMA styles should be known for their extreme variety of technique and adaptability. The kung fu I grew up with was about being able to take a situation as it comes and flow with it. Kung fu is not all about "dirty" tricks, it's about power, speed, accuracy, focus and strategy. There are no "willow" people in my school. Just a bunch of hard hitting ghosts.

You don't HAVE to eye gouge a person, You don't HAVE to break a knee in order to be effective. Although it does make for interesting T.V., j/k.

[crumble]

MP, just some ideas to consider. I have a feeling that you are doing the same sort of investigating that I'm doing these days...

I've noticed that there are two levels of CMA strategy with good fighters. SifuAbel said it:


Originally posted by SifuAbel

The root of CMA is about accuracy and control.

I guess I would reverse the order, but let me sorta lay it out...

In the beginning, you are trained to control the opponent. For example, let's just say that you have thrown a punch high and your opponent blocks high with both arms, leaving his middle open. Do you punch? No, not if that punch would be another movement. You would instead make sure you could control one of the blocking arms and attack in the next moment. In CMA, you are trained that every punch leaves you open, so you don't strike until you control your opponent. (It's the same thing that boxers know, which is why you snap back your punches to cover up.) So basically, the CMA guy will bridge, never lose the contact, and control the opponent until he can off-balance and just kill the guy with a few fast, solid punches.

At the higher level, as you probably know, these "controls" are less obvious. Each attack is a block at the same time. This will essentially look like western boxing. But if the person hasn't gone through the training of control, then they will really just be trading punches, which is very risky in a street fight.

So I would say the main strategy of a CMA artist is to get the other guy to extend himself with a fake jab or something, to control that arm (which usually means moving in on him as he retracts the jab), and then from that close position (not quite clinching range, more like uppercut range) off balance and then strike the guy.

Hope that helps!

-crumble

[Merryprankster]

Yup sifuabel,

I understand that Kung Fu isn't a collection of dirty tricks--my only point is that IF a particular series you may have been taught, or a common follow-up in your school involves a groin strike as a target of opportunity, or something like that, then the adjustment to a legal technique shouldn't be too hard.

Shooter--I understand what you are saying--it's different in combat sports I guess--you learn techniques, and the concepts you gain via combat--you learn many ways of doing the same basic thing (like an armbar from several different spots) and then as you start to apply them more and more you stop thinking, I have to do this this and this to get the armbar from here and start thinking--

I need to control his shoulder, shut down space, and keep his head pushed away while driving my hips into his elbow. THAT'S conceptual--now you can hit the armbar from any of the positions you could apply it from, because you can SEE where you're headed by applying the concepts.

And the reason I kind of asked this question in the first place is because a lot of CMA guys insist that a kung fu guy sparring shouldn't look like a kickboxer, so that leads one to wonder what it SHOULD look like. :)

[Merryprankster]

Braden-

I agree totally about kung fu being fine for full contact fighting. San Shou and Kuoshou are great examples.

Why they don't bring groundfighting and kung fu together, I don't know. However, the question remains, where are they in venues like pride and ufc? I understand maybe they don't want to do it.. that's fine. But somebody out there no doubt DOES!

Most of us who follow this stuff are DYING to see Cung Le or somebody of similar caliber in action in Pride, UFC, etc.
We also know that he'd need to work the ground a bit before doing it, but I'm in the camp that thinks San Shou fighters
at that level would tear some people apart.

[Braden]

MP - My feeling is that a MMA community evolved which chose early on which arts it supported based upon it's limited exposure to good quality martial artists. Since then, there has been a growing 'bad blood' between that community and other martial arts communities. Of course, the 'bad blood' comes from both directions - stupidity and dogmatism are equal opportunity predators. Regardless, because of this, alot of groups have been slow to pick up on some of the positive aspects of the MMA sub-culture. I think this is slowly changing, and you're starting to see a wider scope of opinions on the subject in communities like the CMA one. If you asked the board here what they thought about groundfighting, you'd get a wide range of responses like Shooter who trains out CMA concepts on the ground, other people who think the concepts will emerge spontaneously without training, others who are allready supplementing in BJJ, and some people that think there's no need at all for ground training, and at least one person (me) who thinks the need for groundfighting issue is wildly exaggerated but still viable and will supplment when and if they have access to a decent quality intructor! ;) . I'd rather see a healthy cross-section of opinions like this than see everyone agreeing. Although I think we still have a long way to go before we reach the equilibrium.

Anyway, as for UFC proper, the ground fighting thing directly addresses that. We both know how well someone who's never touched the ground will do in UFC. ;p

I'm one of the people who would say kungfu sparring should look much different than kickboxing; although again you have to keep in mind the vast stylistic differences within kungfu here. Some are very distinct, others are more widely interpreted, others are very much like kickboxing.

[Braden]

I'm sure I've posted these before... unfortunately there's a terribly tiny assortment of decent CMA vids on the internet, but this isn't that bad. It at least gives you an idea of how some a certain CMA style (xingyi aka hsing-i) creates combinations.

http://www.hsing-i.com/pics/WTaiApp1.mpg

Shows some same arm check-strike combos and striking while continually moving at an angle.

http://www.hsing-i.com/pics/WTaiApp2.mpg

Shows combinations and continual forward pressure.

(both from www.hsing-i.com)

Ignore the sweeps, big sticking movements, and victim's reactions if you want; just picture them as striking combinations.

Xingyi is a cool art. It's based around one posture (which would look much like a more extended kickboxer's posture to you) and five one-step strikes much like boxing. These clips are sequences from a slightly more complex form which is supposed to teach how to use the same power generation as the five basic strikes to power different techniques, and to generate combinations and give the practitioner technique ideas. Although I'm sure someone who actually knows what they're talking about will correct me. ;)

Anyway, it might show some tactics which are different from what you'd expect from a kickboxer. And no anti-CMA guy can call bull**** on these clips (as they are apt to), because this guy's students have stepped up and proven their stuff in the ring.

Here http://www2.sinowushu.com/taiji_04.ram is a clip of one kind of push hands which you could think of as an energy drill from taiji (aka tai chi; although it's more than just an energy drill). While not sparring, it might give you an idea of the attributes being trained, and their application.

(from http://www.sinowushu.com/xinshang/xinshang.php?page=0&whichone=video&lanmu=ÎäÊõ&leibie=ÆäËû where there is also a couple dozen clips of sanshou matches )

Here is another xingyi clip, showing some rooted stepping, then a two man light contact striking exercise. http://www.brainsalad.com/mov/clip06.mov

http://www.brainsalad.com/mov/clip02.mov is some external style throws and takedowns - but it's all stuff I think will look familiar!

(from http://www.emptyflower.com/xingyiquan/index.html a great site on xingyi!)

[Merryprankster]

Braden--

The need for groundFIGHTING is highly exaggerated. The need for groundDEFENSE is not. I don't advocate becoming a competent groundfighter if you don't want to. I advocate positional escapes, sweeps, and submission defense. That's the bare minimum, but if you know it, you'll do fine. We call those types of fighters "sprawl and brawl." They defend takedowns, know how to escapeand get up, know how to avoid submissions. So they can get back up and continue administering
damage.

I think the reason sportive styles do/did so well is because they came in, in shape, with a gameplan
and a set of techniques they had commonly practiced full speed all the time. They also were more "used" to that type of competitive atmosphere (not to be underestimated). Unfortunately, I also agree that that has closed many people's minds to what works and what doesn't.

I shouldn't expect ANY guy who doesn't train for ring stamina to stand up to somebody who does in a fight. And that's what happenned in a LOT of those early events.

[Braden]

I still think you're exaggerated the need for positional escapes and GROUND specific submission defense for self-defense. I percieve A need, it's just pretty low on the priority list. As for takedown defense, that's for sure. Remember I see a ground-standing dichotomy, and no other. Takedown defense = standing. But that's all ok, we probably disagree on lots of stuff. ;)

[Merryprankster]

Well Braden, then that's just a difference of opinion we'll have to live with :)

I'm not bothered if you aren't!!!

[Braden]

If I lived in a city with a larger concentration of BJJ practitioners, I'd probably hold a different opinion. ;) As it is, I think the best we have is maybe 8 blue belts... I'll just be sure to buy them all beer or something; probably alot less time-intensive and cheaper than honing up my sweeps.

Anyway, I dunno if you're at all interested in any of those clips, but I'm sure someone is. Some of them are pretty interesting if you're interested in CMA, but I can see why they might be boring for someone else. It's not quite the same WATCHING someone do martial training. But on the other hand, it's such a shame when someone asks for information on a discussion board and no one has anything to offer!

[Merryprankster]

Watch out for angry half-drunk frat boy wrestlers too... :)

[Merryprankster]

saw the vids braden... I liked them. I'll watch them more closely later on!

[Water Dragon]

MerryPrankster, you are looking in the wrong place. You wont see someone who "looks like Gong Fu" in any event. I look closer to a Grec-Roman wrestler than anything else. There ARE differences, but they're too subtle to see unless you know exactly what to look for. And in the combat of the ring fight, you wont catch them.

What makes Gong Fu unique is the training methods. If you want to see how Gong Fu is different, go see what's done in the gym, not what's done in the ring.

i.e. if you see me in action you'll say, "Oooh Judo and Greco-Roman, pretty cool." If you see me in training, THEN you'll see the Gong Fu.

[Merryprankster]

ok.

But does that hold true across the board?

And also, why would it look different in application in the gym than the ring? Or are you specifically referring to the training methods? and NOT the way the application looks?

[Water Dragon]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
ok.

But does that hold true across the board?

Unfortunately no. There are some arts that do have a very noticeable "style" to them. Southern Mantis is the art that pops out in my head. But, especially with the Northern styles, the stance work will look very similar to western wrestling, even the striking styles. The big problem is that a lot of teachers will show you the stance or the form, but not the usage for it. I'm not sure why, but I do know it has a lot to do with the whole Chinese secrecy thing.

And also, why would it look different in application in the gym than the ring? Or are you specifically referring to the training methods? and NOT the way the application looks?

Well, you'll see me hold stances in training. You'll see me walk through them in execution. Basically, the stance appears for an instatn and then disappears. The point is to make your body automatically MOVE in the correct fashion. Stance holding burns the shape into muscle memory. Also, remember that if I train in big long stances, I can also move in small tight stances although the reverse does not hold.

As far as technique, it's the same as BJJ. Although the actual execution of an armbar will be very similar to how I work the technique, the actual set up will rarely look like the textbook version. i.e. armbar is not a technique, it's a principle.

[Shooter]

But does that hold true across the board?

No, it doesn't. You'll notice a great difference in the statements from those Kung Fu guys who compete in MMA and the opinions of those who don't. MMA is afterall, what we're discssing here. My first reply to this thread wasn't an opinion. Read it again.


it's different in combat sports I guess--you learn techniques, and the concepts you gain via combat

Once again, it's the other way around in my school. When I train people for the ring, we never drill anything other than Tai Chi's basic positional concepts. Beyond those, we just spar and review points of failure as they apply to the guy's particular affintiy to movement and his current level of energy management.

Back to the corn-grinding thing for a moment; One of my first-year training partners fought last month, and he nailed his opp in the face with several "left-hooks" (corn-grinding Chi Kung) against the opp's attempts to shoot in. We'd never practiced that movement from that positional strategy before. It just happened for him as an adjustment to the opp's particular alignment as he shot in. The reason he was able to adapt on the fly is because he had good recovery mechanics, and he followed (met) the target. Target acquisition is something we do train a lot, but it's left up to the opponent to present the path. Now THAT was Tai Chi. :D

To you, it would have looked like ten minutes of chaos. To me, it looked exactly as it should.

[Merryprankster]

I doubt it would have looked like chaos shooter--I'm a fairly well-educated fightwatcher. It would have looked like well timed counterstrikes against the shot. I wouldn't have dubbed it Tai Chi, probably, but I'm not Tai Chi either :)

But your point is basically that good principles are good principles and apply universally. THAT I can understand.

As for your first post--yeah, it's an opinion. It's the truth about Tai Chi ring strategies and what works and what doesn't as you see them. It's not a truth or a fact--it's an opinion you have developed based on experience.

WaterDragon--what you are describing is no different (principly) from shadow-boxing, shadow wrestling or doing takedown drills, etc. When you learn the fireman's carry, for instance, you over-exaggerate the downward pull on the arm so you always do it... or you over-exaggerate a penetration step so you always "remember" to shoot THROUGH your opponent, etc. I don't see how that is much different.

[Ryu]

"I've only ever seen one "kung fu" guy competing that used an "identifiable" sort of kung fu maneuver, and he tried to chain punch into his opponent."


How'd he do?

Ryu

[Shooter]

I doubt it would have looked like chaos shooter

I'm just saying that YOU wouldn't have seen all of Tai Chi's requisite 8 Gates (except for the elbow-strikes), sticking, following, linking, adhering, etc that I saw.


good principles are good principles and apply universally. THAT I can understand.

That same thinking applies to my first post...

[red5angel]

MP, I think you are correct, most of the principles in most KF styles should be able to be effective in the ring, I just think most of the KF guys who fight in MMA events dont train nearly hard enough to compete.

[Water Dragon]

The difference is, we train all of our foot work that way, not just technique. Yes, it's the same in principle. But the actual method is different.

But using your last post, if your fireman's carry doesn't look like exactly like the shadow version, then why should my footwork? I'm training to walk through you, not to "look" like anything in particular as I do it.

Did that make sense?

[Merryprankster]

Water--we're talking past each other, my mistake. I meant do they look different in execution in the gym full speed sparring then they do in the ring. Make more sense now? My bad.

I do see the footwork thing. That is different--the fact is, that in the boxing and wrestling I've done, footwork is emphasized by saying "move around more!" "Don't cross your feet!" Or you might just move around with each other, trying to pull the guy out of position while you keep yours... So you develop footwork, but you don't WORK on foot work... make sense?

RYU- he chainpunched into a clinch on an accomplished MT fighter with a purple in BJJ. How do you think he fared? :D Not a good fight strategy. He made a poor decision and got ate up for it.

Shooter--does your school have a site with vids of your guys competing/training? That'd be cool to see.

[Ryu]

suspected as much.
Who were the fighters?

I thought you were kidding at first and referring to Vitor Belfort, but he blew Silva away in that fight so... :D Has to be someone else.

Ryu

[Merryprankster]

Some guy who claimed to do Wing Chun and Nakapan Phongephorn, a good MT guy and Yamasaki Purple.

I have no idea what level WC this guy was supposed to be or what he was supposed to represent.

[Water Dragon]

It does look different, usually.

OK, let's try this. Here is the formula applied to BJJ.

1. Do a bridge, as in wrestling and hold it for 2-3 minutes. That is a stance

2. Do your Upa drills. That is a form

3. Run your technique. In CMA, it doesn't matter if the guy is riding high in the mount or down low controlling your neck. Although the Upa changes, it is still an Upa. Therefore, each tech will have 5-6 variations. Learning like this helps you find the principle faster.

4. Roll. Note that even though all those drills really helped your Upa, it probably looks different in application each time.

Anyway, that's the CMA formula for training a fighter. (of course you need cardio, strength training, reaction drills, etc.)

What you're probably seeing now is that although it IS different, it's not really THAT different.

[Merryprankster]

Of course. I was just commenting to Ap (e-mail) that it sounds like "training." It'll never look exactly the same everytime--the nature of the beast. But when you do a diagonal cut in the gym, sparring, it will look more or less like the diagonal cut you do in the ring. It's not really any DIFFERENT, except how circumstances dictate (maybe you step deeper this time than last, or you have to hop a bit to get in place this time...) I understand. No worries!

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Shooter
Back to the corn-grinding thing for a moment; One of my first-year training partners fought last month, and he nailed his opp in the face with several "left-hooks" (corn-grinding Chi Kung) against the opp's attempts to shoot in.

Shooter:
Which event was that? I have friends who can get me videos of most MMA events. I'd like to get a view of that fight to see how Tai Chi can be applied in the ring.

[Merryprankster]

I third knifefighters seconding of my vid/link request!!! :)

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by Braden
MP - My feeling is that a MMA community evolved which chose early on which arts it supported based upon it's limited exposure to good quality martial artists.

I totally disagree with that statement. I, as well as every other MMA fighter I know, will use anything that will give me a fair advantage over my opponent. If that means drawing from a discipline that might not fit into the MMA paradigm, so be it. We don't care where it comes from. We just want it to be effective. Show me an art that is more effective on the ground than BJJ or something that is better that wrestling for takedowns or tougher in the clinch with knees and elbows than Muay Thai and I will be on it yesterday.

[Water Dragon]

That's true, Knife Fighter. But can you honestly say the MMA crowd is investigating CMA for these advantages? My experience is no.

[Merryprankster]

Knife--Waterdragon's point is more what I was getting at. I think a lot of people are developing a case of tunnel vision. How many times do you go to MMA.com and see relentless bashing of traditional styles just because they are traditional... even if they beat on each other relentlessly you'll still find a lot of people who say "Traditional styles just aren't effective." Then, the one guy that went to a TKD school where they just beat the **** out of each other all the time tries to say something and he gets shouted down. Mostly--not always.

Now--I TOTALLY agree with you about this stuff. If there was somebody that taught san shou in the area that fit my schedule, guess where I'd be?!

[Knifefighter]

WD:
Absolutely, at least for a while. Most of us are all about anything that will surprise our opponents and we'll look at anything that might do that. The problem is that after a while, you pretty much give up seeking it out, because it usually ends up being pretty much a waste of time.

Merry:
Those guys who are bashing the "traditional" arts might not have a clue. On the other hand, many of us who fight have not been too impressed with what many of those arts bring to the table, otherwise we would be training in those arts. It's all about having the advantage when you compete.

[Merryprankster]

I will DEFINITELY buy that.

It's much easier to find a good boxing school than a good KF place, it seems...

Besides which, I simply prefer the training styles of MT, Boxing, Wrestling, BJJ, etc. Personality, I'm sure.

Knife, do you have any vids of your fights? I'd like to see them if there are some links. Just curiosity, not calling you out or anything so stupid! :)

[Water Dragon]

The trick, guys, is to go on reputation. For example, KnifeFighter can find some excellant Chinese Internal Martial Art instruction by contacting Tim Cartmell (www.shenwu.com) MP can go check out William CC Chen, but that's in New York.

I had to check out a good 15 schools before I found one worth going to. And that's after I discounted the obvious fakes. What can I say? It comes with the territory.

[Merryprankster]

Well, yeah.

But i'm not going to go to NYC when I live in DC :)

[Knifefighter]

Lots of vids, but none on the net. I've sent a couple of tapes out to people, but it's a hassle for me dubbing the tape, packaging it, shipping it out, so I don't really do it anymore.

Over the years, quite a few photos of fights have been posted at different sites (Dog Bros, Kage Kombat, submission tourneys). I'm not sure what's up currently, but I can check out and see it you want.

[Merryprankster]

No worries. If it's a hassle, don't worry about it :)

[Braden]

KF - I gave you Tim Cartmell's and Mike Patterson's address what, two years ago? These are solid kungfu guys who are happy to step into the ring. Mike Patterson's guys have consistently destroyed Muay Thai trained fighters. How close are they to you? At least one of them must be within an hour. But you haven't checked them out.

Alot of positive things have come out of the MMA scene. But that doesn't change how dogmatic and closed-minded it's become. Not that that's much of a critique - it's just what happens to every movement that reaches a threshold size. It's certainly true of other martial movements, such as the CMAs.

But I've got to believe you're smart enough to see through it, even if you pretend otherwise here. The MMA mantra is 'use whatever works best for you' but everyone claiming this mantra is a direct clone of everyone else. Do you really think this could have come about from an honest implementation of the philosophy? Do you think the history of who brought these arts to your attention and how is entirely coincidental; that you would have come up with the same formula regardless of who was feeding it to you? Surely you don't.

Everyone makes fun of TKD. Yet they have an incredibly high KO percentage. Everyone makes fun of kungfu, yet the only contact venue which adequately specifies the full range of stand-up techniques is dominated by kungfu men. Everyone makes fun of Silat, even while they admit that Herman Suwanda took names and kicked ass of all the MMA guys he could find.

There's simply no logic to it. I assume there once was. But there's certainly not now. Go to underground and ask one of the guys putting down Silat how he explains Suwanda's abilities? You know what he'll say? That Suwanda really was an MMA guy. Huh!? Doesn't even make any sense, but go try it for yourself. That's what dogma does to people. Ask them about koushu. They've never even heard of it. Ask them why TKD guys get so many KOs, they'll just laugh at you, you won't even get a reply.

What's up with that? Dogma. That's it. Just as much dogma as you'll find from the worst karate or kungfu man.

[Water Dragon]

Ouch!!!

[Shooter]

MP, why am I unable to send you a private message? The command doesn't appear in your profile or under any of your posts.

[Braden]

Hey no fair. KF cleaned up his posts after I replied kind of crabbily. That's unfair tactics! ;)

[Merryprankster]

because I have the option disabled.

No offense to anybody, I just prefer it that way.

I can be reached at merryprankster@msn.com

[Archangel]

Your right, there are alot of close minded people in MMA; there are alot of closed minded people in society in general. However generalizing like you are doing is wrong, no matter who is stating it. MMA fighters are not direct clones of each others, you have the strikers who've learned to grapple ala Vanderlei Silva, Mo Smith. Groundfighters who've learned to strike and wrestle - Bustamante, Noguiero; and wrestlers who have cross trained - Couture and Tito.

It's true they do use the same general techniques, however this has come to pass because of evolution not dogmatism. We've had several athletes like Mike Van Arsedale who tried to implement other arts like Goju ryu Karate into his main repitoire; he was knocked out by Silva. You had Royce Gracie who tried to use Hapkido for his main striking range and look what Sakuraba did to him. Then you have all of the other stylists in the early days of MMA who have gotten their a s s e s handed to them. Enough of this political correctness, it's fairly obvious by all of these fights that there is a trend here. The techniques in arts like BJJ, Wrestling, Judo, Boxing and Thai will make you a better fighter in a shorter amount of time.

"Everyone makes fun of TKD. Yet they have an incredibly high KO percentage."

That is really a misnomer, the TKD guys who have done well (Mo Smith) have also had alot of Kickboxing and/or Thai training. If you could provide me with a name of a couple of people who have used JUST TKD as their striking art I would appreciate it, I can't think of any.

"Everyone makes fun of kungfu, yet the only contact venue which adequately specifies the full range of stand-up techniques is dominated by kungfu men"

I assume your talking about kuoshu here, and you're right. I'm just wondering about the availabilty of this venue for alot of fighters. LKMFD has stated numerous times on this forum that it was extremely difficult to get into. I also have to ask - What's up with the face mask.

"Everyone makes fun of Silat, even while they admit that Herman Suwanda took names and kicked ass of all the MMA guys he could find."

I'll research this.

[Braden]

Archangel - I agree completely with everything you said in that post. I don't want anyone to confuse my lack of tact as a put down of MMA. I'm attacking dogmatism; simple as that. KF's post pre-edit said there wasn't any in MMA; I was giving some examples of why I thought otherwise. I'm CERTAINLY not attacking the professional MMA fighters, who deserve the respect - it's not them wandering the internet and seminar scene telling everyone else they suck... well, mostly. ;) And to clarify, I fully admit there's just as much dogmatism in kungfu or anywhere else. And, as I have said before, if I had to pick the lesser of two evils, I'd pick the MMA followers, because at least their dogma has them training hard. There... now EVERYONE's mad at me. ;)

The koushu face mask IS kind of wierd. But although it looks kind of beefy, it's only a light boxers cap with a wire over the nose. The tradeoff is they allow elbows to the head. Fair enough deal, if you ask me.

[Knifefighter]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Braden
KF - I gave you Tim Cartmell's and Mike Patterson's address what, two years ago? These are solid kungfu guys who are happy to step into the ring. Mike Patterson's guys have consistently destroyed Muay Thai trained fighters. How close are they to you? At least one of them must be within an hour. But you haven't checked them out. [/QUOTE]
Tim’s school is about an hour away from me. I have to admit I have been somewhat remiss in my duty to pay a visit his school for a variety of reasons. It is on my list of eventual things to do.



Originally posted by Braden
But I've got to believe you're smart enough to see through it, even if you pretend otherwise here. The MMA mantra is 'use whatever works best for you' but everyone claiming this mantra is a direct clone of everyone else. Do you really think this could have come about from an honest implementation of the philosophy?
The reason everyone might look like clones is because certain things work and certain things don’t. Survival of the fittest. I guarantee you most MMA guys who compete are always looking for an edge.


Originally posted by Braden
Everyone makes fun of Silat, even while they admit that Herman Suwanda took names and kicked ass of all the MMA guys he could find. .
Suwanda definitely DID NOT kick ass on MMA guys. I happen to know that for a fact.

[Merryprankster]

The reason everyone might look like clones is because certain things work and certain things don’t. Survival of the fittest. I guarantee you most MMA guys who compete are always looking for an edge.

This I like. All of it. Good post. Especially when you consider the variation within clones :) Ali didn't fight like Tyson--both successful... and both boxers!

[Braden]

"Suwanda definitely DID NOT kick ass on MMA guys. I happen to know that for a fact."

What's your version of what happened? Not calling you out, just honestly curious.

[Knifefighter]

Braden:
I trained a bit with Suwanda and a few of his guys several years ago. I have also trained with a variety of MMA fighters who were light years ahead of them in terms of actual fighting ability.

Believe me, if that stuff really was all that, I would have stuck with it. As a MMA fighter, I would love to have some kind of special edge against the other guys in the ring who want to rip me apart.

[Braden]

I don't doubt what you say, and I didn't mean to suggest I thought his stuff was 'all that.'

I have heard from a number of people around the Inosanto camp that he'd dominate both the grapplers and the strikers there. Since I wasn't there myself I can only go by the anecdotes. Although I do know that, beyond anecdotes, he must have done something impressive, as alot of people did go to train with him, and Dan himself specialized in Silat though obviously he plays with top notch muay thai, shooto, and BJJ.

Again, I didn't mean to suggest that his art was better than any other, but rather only that there must be something to it. I don't think any art is light years beyond any other.

[Archangel]

Thats cool Braden, I really wish Kuoshu and San Shou were more widely available. They are excellent venues and with a little modification would be a perfect place for a MMA fighter to train his stand up. I'm hoping that some of these fighters choose to enter MMA, all they would need is a good defensive guard ala Mo Smith and Silva, and they would be set.

[Merryprankster]

Arch-

I would KILL to see Cung Le and Marvin Perry in a "MMA" event!

Once they trained for it, of course.

[Archangel]

I think Cung Le would be a force. I saw a San Shou fight between him and MMA fighter Shonie Carter and Cung Le took him apart. His takedowns a very good, being an ex wrestler and he combines them well with his strikes. He should still have ground sensitivity from his collegiate days and I don't think it would take him very long to learn groundfighting. Over all I think he could really dominate the middleweight division if he trained for it.

[Merryprankster]

Contender, yes... dominate... that's probably taking it too far :) But he'd be AMAZING to watch!

[Xebsball]

He is AMAZING
Really, its AMAZING
I cant help it, Im AMAZED