A good article

[old jong]

I found this article on http://adamhsu.com and I think that everybody in every styles of Kung Fu could have some benefit in reading it!...

The real art of fighting
By: Adam Hsu.

Fighting is a natural, instinctive human trait. You don't need to learn a formal martial art to survive
(or perish) in the street. You can acquire some basic fighting skills by simply getting together and
practicing with people informally, without the aid of a certified instructor. In fact, many who claim
to be martial artists are merely experienced streetfighters, relying mostly on natural ability, rather
than technique, to overpower an opponent.

Of course, the purpose of a martial art is to win the fight by whatever means necessary. However,
it's a fact that the "natural," unschooled type of fighter is invariably defeated by a superior
technician. And as in any other "art," the raw materials (in this case, the human body and mind) are
refined and developed to a high level as shown in the skill and expertise of the "artist's" work.
Genuine martial art is quite different from "natural" fighting, just as poetry is different from more
natural, conversational forms of writing. In both cases you need a certain attitude and special
training to learn such an art.

In Chinese, the literal translation of kung fu means something gained through hard work over a long
period of time. Kung fu, therefore is not a "natural" way to fight per se. It becomes natural only
after extensive training that washes away the remnants of so-called natural fighting habits, as well as
those acquired from other activities such as sports or dance.

Kung fu is an art of fighting, not just a fighting art. The distinction implied here is that kung fu
emphasizes a special way of using the body to deliver not only power, but also complex,
sophisticated, multiple-attacking techniques, as well as combat strategies that utilize the knowledge
gained from centuries of battlefield experience. Learning the kung fu way to fight is a difficult and
lengthy process. It's not a discipline that can be absorbed exclusively from books, magazines,
movies or by trial-and-error - you need a qualified instructor.

Most students of kung fu (or any other martial art) devote significant time and effort to perfect their
techniques and forms, concentrating on learning to move in ways defined by their particular style.
Some can do forms very well and even show an understanding of the application (or usage).
However, when involved in sparring, many often revert to natural fighting. This problem is evident
in martial arts tournaments: forms are done with great intensity and accuracy, but the sparring
competition infrequently shows any high-level fighting technique. This situation would be equivalent
to learning a Chinese vocabulary, but using English grammatical structures to speak the language.
To draw a parallel, a student's ability is hampered by a superficial understanding of the language of
kung fu. It's not enough to know how to use a movement or to be able to do it correctly in a
controlled situation - techniques must become instinctive, automatic reflexes.

There are several ideas that might explain why most students are unable to apply their techniques in
spontaneous sparring or fighting situations. The fundamental reason is that students (and some
instructors) have many misconceptions about kung fu. Too often students do not probe deep
enough beneath the surface of their art, and instead are easily satisfied in being complacent. As
mentioned previously, kung fu is very complicated and sophisticated. It reflects the unique Chinese
character and culture, therefore demanding a high level of expertise to use effectively.

Some students who want to learn fast immediately begin sparring. They treat kung fu like a
fast-food item to buy and consume as quickly as possible. They cannot stand to wait... whether it's
for an opportunity to attack or for an understanding of the training process. This attitude only limits
the potential of students and will remain a burden until they change their learning habits. To achieve
this, practitioners must give up any previous conceptions about fighting and instead follow the
established kung fu way to train. Simply put, kung fu is a life-style and a life study.

The method for achieving this goal is to follow the step-by-step training that has been developed
over the centuries by martial artists, those whose very lives often depended on their martial skills.
Just as man develops from infant to child to adult through a process of maturation, kung fu students
must go through all the intermediate steps before reaching a high level. The foundation of this
training is learning basics such as stretching, fundamental techniques, stances and step training. But
only by applying oneself to the basics can old habits be eradicated and replaced. Once the new
habits become reflexive and the instructor judges the student to have the correct attitude, the actual
sparring training can begin in earnest. This level may take one year or several to reach, depending
on the individual student.

Makes sense eh?...:)

[ewallace]

Good article. I would still take a very experienced street fighter over anyone with many years of martial arts who had never been in a real fight in his/her/it's life.

[red5angel]

Excellent Article! Ewallace, I think I would mostly agree with you. I think anybody who has been in a few fights has an edge over someone who hasnt but that isnt necessarily a prerequisite in my book. I have seen a lot of weak street fights and a few weak streetfighters.

[HuangKaiVun]

NO, it doesn't make sense to me in the least bit.

Kung fu should bring out what's natural in fighting, highlight that which is innate. In no way should it take one away from his natural instincts!

Simple and natural trumps complex and sophisticated in combat every time. As Hsu said himself, kung fu is scientific streetfighting!

I commend the student who wants to "learn fast and immediately begin sparring". I've never truly grasped a technique until I started USING IT against a resisting opponent. One quickly clears misconceptions about a move (and even himself) once it gets used in a combat situation. I hope I get lots of students like that.

In my experience sparring, that which is natural comes out. All of the fancy training goes out the window and all that's left is what works for the student. Simple techniques work, "multiple-attacking" combinations usually fail.

I'd like to see Adam Hsu or his students spar using their method against a truly resisting opponent before I take this article at face value (which goes against everything I've learned in kung fu).

[red5angel]

HKV - while I understand putting your kungfu to the test, I dont think that many of them teach you to fight naturally! There are alot of things you learn in alot of styles that go against what would seem to be natural anyway. These methods are more sound and much better then natural reaction when refined.
For instance, most people naturally either fight or flight, now whe they fight, they often end up flailing at the other guy hoping to get a lucky strike in. Its uncontrolled, sloppy, and undisciplined. Training in Kungfu gives us those tools we need that don't come naturally.
Even the scrappers who just naturally seem to have it, this comes more from a will to survive and an ability to take punishment more then any skill in fighting. I had a friend in high school who was always fighting, he was wiry and had alot of energy. He often won his fights but not from any noticeable skill but from being able to get back up when knocked down!

[HongKongPhooey]

A "natural" reaction to some thing being throw at your face is to blink, is that good in a fight?

[HuangKaiVun]

What styles DON'T teach people to fight naturally, red5angel?

For example, you mention your Wing Chun style in your signature. That's as "natural" a style as there is when used in a simple manner. But it depends on HOW it's used.

Give me some examples of what you're talking about.


And YES, blinking is sometimes good when something is thrown at your face. That's how one protects his vision.

When I get attacked, I often blink when somebody attacks my face. But the rest of my body MOVES.

Don't tell me that you NEVER blink when somebody attacks your face, HongKongPhooey.

[rogue]

It's like my sensei said to me after a sparring session, "you're a very good fighter but you don't know karate". That was the turning point in my training.

[red5angel]

Good one rogue!

HKV - In wingchun you do not do what naturally comes to you but you train it to make it natural. for instance, keeping your elbow in while punching and utilizing your structure to deliver power. Or how about the stance, who sinks low naturally?
How about some more extreme versions of kungfu, drunken styles for instance or animal styles? I have never seen anyone fight like a monkey naturally.
These things you are taught can become natural, and sometimes they are more natural then what your instinct recquires but not how you would react naturally.

[rogue]

I'm with HGV on this. What martial arts should be is a refinement of someones natural movements not a replacement. At a basic level a back stance is just a refinement(better balance for counter attacking) of leaning back from a punch or kick.

I was reading about how while many LEOs were trained to use a Weaver stance when shooting most reverted to the basic square on triangle under pressure.

Sparring from day one is a must.

[HongKongPhooey]

I don't "NEVER" blink, as a broken nose attests to. But the more I train the LESS I blink and the more I see. Im slowly moving away from one "natural" reaction to replace it with what my training needs it to become.

As for blinking and the body moving. If you know what your opponent is doing then all well and good. If they know your gonna blink then you're toast because they'll set up up to blink and then change.

The way I look at it is, A natural reaction is basically a habit and a habit is some thing you do every day.

[guohuen]

A good streetfighter usually has a couple of tried and true moves or tricks in their arsenal. They're usually effective against people with little fight experience. A good martial artist also has their favorite techniques, sometimes not a large number, but usually more than the average streetfighter because that's what they train for. I agree with Mr Hsu's definition of natural fighting and Gong Fu. In Gong Fu it takes time to develop the musclature and jings to make many of the techniques effective. They are not natural. Most people, even atheletes do not have the yin and yang connected at the waist (with the possible exeption of dancers) nessesary to perform many of the animal moves with any real power. Their body does not move in one unit. In Gong Fu it is nessesary to have all of your body connected so that you are aware of every muscle, tendon and ligiment and can control them at will.

[ewallace]

I'm sorry but I just don't believe that anything can prepare you for what it's like to go up against someone for real, especially if they have been in a lot of fights. Are you telling me that there is a way to simulate someone punching you in the nose at full speed and power? Or are you telling me that you will do that to your students? Are you going to bring in totally unorthodox fighters in or will they be sparring with the same people from the same style over and over? Once you get hit all that theory and thoughts about what you would do go out the window. You just do.

Tell me, if you were the coach of a professional NFL football (American) team, and you had an 80 yard drive with 40 seconds on the clock in the forth quarter of the superbowl, and you were down by four points, and your star quarterback goes down, would you put in the 38 year old backup quarterback that has 150 actual games under his belt, or would you put in the rookie that was a bad-ass in college, but has only played in scrimmages against his own team?

[rogue]

I don't NEVER blink
So you're saying that you blink a lot?

One big problem with un-natural movements is that if they are not pressure tested constantly you won't perform them when you're already knee deep in the guano. To my way of thinking by using movements that are less natural the need for hard sparring would have to be increased proportionatly(sp?) to make them natural in an extreme situation. This is something that I've encountered with some techniques in karate.

[HongKongPhooey]

I'm having a "bad english day", i dont NEVER blink, was in response to HKV's comment.

"I'm sorry but I just don't believe that anything can prepare you for what it's like to go up against someone for real, especially if they have been in a lot of fights" - ewallace

Then why train at all? Why not just go out and fight people?

I would pick the experienced quarter back but as I'm english I've no idea what he would do. :-) Experience does count, but so does training. What it's doing is giving you years of what other people have experienced.

[ewallace]

HKF - I am talking about someone who has NEVER been in a real fight. I do not fall into that category.

[ewallace]

and in my hypothetical situation, the rookie quarterback has years of training as well. He has just never been in the big show when it counts.

[HongKongPhooey]

I'm sorry but I just don't believe that anything can prepare you for what it's like to go up against someone for real, especially if they have been in a lot of fights. Are you telling me that there is a way to simulate someone punching you in the nose at full speed and power? ..... Once you get hit all that theory and thoughts about what you would do go out the window. You just do.

and



HKF - I am talking about someone who has NEVER been in a real fight. I do not fall into that category.


Are you saying, you fought first and then went into martial arts?

[red5angel]

ewallace, I would like to be the monkey with a wrench here for a minute. The "big show" is relative. If the guy has competed in plenty of games and big games then it may not be any different for him, depending on how it looks from his point of view.
The Marines really underlined the purpose of training martial arts for me. You train and you train and you train until the correct responses become instinct to you and happen without thinking about it. The modify your natural response to be much more beneficial then your normal natural response. for instance, hitting the dirt is most of the time a good idea but not in the open and not when it is going to tie you down or the rest of your team, but you would be surprised at how many peopel will go to ground, even on a flat surface while someone is shooting at them.
The other thing is that you wont react like you think you will when getting shot at, not the first few times anyway. My sifu has a saying, he says "We train as precise as we can, because whe the **** hits the fan, most of that goes out the window. If you train to be precise then even though your bad habits come out, you will still have 70 percent of what you have trained, instead of the 20% a non MA person would have."

[ewallace]

Are you saying, you fought first and then went into martial arts?
Yes.

Red5 "If the guy has competed in plenty of games and big games then it may not be any different for him". - I agree.

What I am saying here is that if I had absolutely no knowledge of either fighter, other than one had been in numerous fights, and the other had never fought, but had been training for many years, I would put my money on the guy who had fought before.

[red5angel]

My money would probably be on the same man. I know what you are talking about. Real knowledge goes a long way but if you have no control it might do you no good against someone who does.
In the end I think someone with more fight experience would probably win more often then not.

[Kope]

Frankly, I think the article is dead on right.

The comparison between a poet and "regular speech" is a good analogy.

The a guy just talking normally can convey the same information as the skilled author. However, the skilled author also has the ability to make a few well-choosen words carry extreme effects in a way that the fellow who doesn't have that background can rarely achieve.

So I think when talking about who would be "better" in a real street fight, one needs to look to the nature and quality of the training.

If the training in question involves years of sersious, dedicated time mastering techniques and applying them at full speed and power over and over again, as well as defending punches and kicks thrown at full power, some sparring and other activities designed to allow the practitioner time to learn to "improvise" within the system, then I would go with the trained martial artist.

If, however, the training involved merely learning katas and performing them over and over again without developing insight into why it was important, with no training on applying the techniques at full power and speed, etc., then I would go with the street fighter.

If you read the article's author's site, you'll see that he is definitely a proponent of serious, significant non-"mcdojo" training.

As to the question about should a martial art magnify the practitioner's "natural" reactions... I fall on the side that argues that the natural reactions are not always the best. The trained MA should understand kinesiology and innately choose the best move for the moment based on body positioning of himself and his opponent. That will almost ALWAYS be a better response than the instictive response . . .

[ewallace]

One thing that I am a big believer in is that if you only train against fighters that come from the same style as you, you will probably be in for one hell of a surprise. Has anyone ever got really good at beating the computer at a video game like Madden or NBA live? You progess through the levels and finally kick ass at the all star level. Then the next day your friend plays you and totally throttles you.

What I'm saying is that an untrained experienced fighter can sometimes be as difficult to handle as a well trained martial artist.

[old jong]

In no way would I want to negate our famous old friend...The resisting opponent benefits but!...If,we are doing Kung Fu,why should we adopt the MMA "resisting opponent" phylosophy about our training?...Kung Fu is about learning and practicing something untill it is part of ourselves.It was not designed to be fast or easy to learn and master.
Take as an example a guy who wants to play the piano!...Would his teacher send him in front of a resisting opponent...(The concert goers!) with some basics exercices and a few tips on how to play a concerto and the consign: "Go test this on the stage!...If it does'nt work it is because it is not a good concerto"!....
How the hell can we expect to make our kung Fu works without a lot of real practice,making every move our friend,producing the complete power and focus of these techniques if we don't take the time necessary to do it before trying to use it?...
Like the pianist, we should practice over and over untill the necessary skill is optained.Then it is time to show our resisting opponent just how much "resistance if futile" sometimes!

[red5angel]

I am with you old Jong, too many people want the quick fix. I thnk sparring right away is a bad thing for all the same old reasons, form bad habits, no real good until you know what you are doing blah blah blah.......

[rogue]

As a former working musician yes you should perform live as soon as possible. My band was pretty good in the basement but the first time we hit the stage it was horrible. The solution was to keep practicing but to also play in front of people every chance we could. Same with martial arts, you practice and apply as much as you can.

[ewallace]

I know EXACTLY what you mean rogue.

[red5angel]

Rogue, are you saying that someone who wanted to learn to play an instrument should start playhing in front of a crowd right away? I think that was the point. In that instance, a person would be nervous, anxious and even embarrassed to be learning in front of lots of people and so performance anxiety may take over and their growth would be stunted, similar to what happens to people who start sparring with no other fighting experience or skills.

[BrentCarey]

I agree with the article and disagree with the person that asserted that nothing should contradict a person's natural instincts.

I first have to take exception to the use of the term "natural instinct". Besides being apparently redundant, it is too complex for us to define. As humans, we are so defined by our experiences that we have little notion of what most of our instincts are.

Ever see a wolf fight. When a wolf attacks another wolf, as outside observers we would say that the defending wolf acts "instinctively". As human fighters we can admire the wolves' resolve, speed, power, and skill.

Ever watch wolves play? Look anything like fighting? For those that haven't seen it, it looks exactly like fighting. Who said that nothing can prepare you for a real fight? This is what sparring is all about.

OK, now to dig into this deeper. A few people asserted that students should start sparring early. One person even said students should start on the first day. Most schools (karate and TKD especially) begin sparring too early. So, what you tend to see is the students learning one thing in class, but then throwing most of that out the window when it comes time to spar.

If a student has not developed the fundamentals to the point that they are easier to do than what comes "naturally", he will not use them in combat (or sparring). The "instinctive" reaction rarely yields the best strategic advantage. When something dangerous comes at a person's head, most people will "instinctively" throw both arms up and duck the head. Also, to use an analogy, a mosquito bite will go away quicker if you resist the urge to scratch it. Learning an enhanced method for stratching will not help.

I would contend that most people's "natural" urge in a fight is to either defend (flee, curl up, etc) or attack (hit, slap, grab, tackle, scratch, etc), but not both. I do not believe that people "naturally" defend and counter. They decide early on if they believe the opponent is a superior fighter and respond accordingly.

Then there are those people that only attack. They seem to lack the "flee" part of the "fight or flee" instinct. These people tend to walk around with black eyes and other puffy facial features. I would consider them fundamentally defective and definitely in need of some instinct override. A few people, however, are successful with this strategy (to a point).

So, you see people with no training that do well in fights because they attack with such ferocity that they win either by reason of initiative, or because they trigger the defensive response in the opponent, thus negating the need for a proper defense.

You can win a "street fight" by blocking the initial attack, then attacking with such speed and ferocity that you overwhelm your opponent and eventually defeat him by sheer odds - if you throw enough punches, kicks, etc., you will eventually hit something.

This strategy will only work if you attack with sufficient speed and intensity to overwhelm you opponent either physically, psychologically, or both. If the opponent has the same strategy, you are both going to be hurt, and it largely comes down to luck. If the opponent is trained, and does not react instinctively, but instead calculates his response, you are in trouble because he is thinking and you are not.

Those people that do not believe that a person's untrained tendency is to attack or defend, but not both, have not seen many fights involving untrained fighters.

I wrote this somewhere else, but applies to this conversation as well:


I think there are a few things that make a formidable fighter. In no certain order:

1) Nerve - being comfortable in combat and being able to act with resolve

2) Rapid perception and quick thinking - the ability to perceive motions and react quickly and appropriately

3) Speed - the ability to quickly execute moves quickly

4) Accuracy - the ability to make contact (offensive or defensive) with precision for the desired effect

I contend that these are the most important traits. Anyone that has refined these traits will be a formidable opponent. Also, power is useful inasmuch as it tends to increase the overall effect of certain techniques, but it is no substitute for items 1-3. However, it can compensate somewhat for less than perfect accuracy.

So, given that a boxer (or any other practitioner) has developed nerve, perception/reflexes, speed, accuracy, and power, the exact style is not particularly relevant. How's that for a controversial statement?

... and how's that for an apparent contradiction to what I've said so far. However, what is not included in that quote is a discussion of the impact of calculated mechanical and strategic advantage.

If a fighter has items 1-3 (prerequisites to being a formidable fighter), this affords him the space and time to use his brain. If he is not physically and/or psychologically overwhelmed by the situation, he can apply logic and strategy to the situation. Learned techniques can be deployed with precision and economy of motion, not brute force and odds. Anyone who cannot appreciate this has not defended against more than one or two real attackers simultaneously.

Without training, the person with the most refined traits listed above will win. Some people will have these traits naturally, some will have worked to refine them. This is irrelevant during the conflict. Training beyond instinct allows us to condense centuries of logic and science into a split second.

For example, one of my signature moves involves deflecting a punch and breaking the elbow at the point of full extension. It's a common technique that I won't bother describing as its execution is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that I did not invent the technique. It evolved out of years of experience and numerous fights against various opponents. I have trained this technique to the point that I don't have to think about it. I can decide to use it and deploy it both in a split second.

Thus, I condense centuries of thought and trial-and-error testing into a split second. Therefore, once I've decided that a conflict is serious enough to warrant such a technique, and I see a punch coming, I do not have to stop and calculate the best response by contemplating complex topics such as anatomy and physics. This is already done and precondensed into a split second reaction.

Proper training makes this non-instinctive technique just as quick and easy to deploy as a so-called "instinctive" technique, but strategically superior.


Best regards,

Brent Carey

[old jong]

I was also a working musician myself.I was playing in bars and various places when I was 15 years old! (I was not even allowed to enter these places but I did !) I often made mistakes in tunes as everybody else and sometimes we sucked a lot but,who cares,in front of a drunk audience!...We were learning the hard way and it hurted nobody.

I also gave classical guitar concerts. A very different thing where you have to be near perfection to please a very strict and unforgiving public. I could not have afford the luxury to be destroyed by small paper critics and snobs who were listening while following the music with the partition on their lap!

To me,Kung Fu needs to be practiced like classical music!

[Fred Sanford]

>>In no way would I want to negate our famous old friend...The resisting opponent benefits but!...If,we are doing Kung Fu,why should we adopt the MMA "resisting opponent" phylosophy about our training?...Kung Fu is about learning and practicing something untill it is part of ourselves.It was not designed to be fast or easy to learn and master. <<

I definately have to disagree with this. Kung fu styles were designed to be fighting arts. What a lot of them has become today is just sad. I study kung fu, but I would never train somewhere that told me it would be years before I began to spar. What happens if you get jumped after 2 months or a year and you haven't been taught anything useful on the street? guess you are $hit out of luck, huh?

[Kope]

musicians are an interesting analogy here.

There are two broad types of musicians -- classical and popular.

Those who train in classical music frequently give closed recitals and very structured "concerts" wherein they perfect their performance. However, the vast majority of thier time is spent in very regimented practice learning traditional pieces and repeating them ad nauseum to a hard-boiled instructor who cuts them no slack.

After years, even decades, of such constant training - they will take the stage for a "real" concerts.

The popular muscian, on the other hand frequently won't even HAVE an instructor. When they do, it is rarely the hard-edged perfectionist that the classical muscian has for a teacher. They will often, as Rogue notes, play in front of people when they haven't "perfected" their techniques.

However, because the standards of musical quality are quite different between the two styles, the popular musician can "get away" with sloppy technique if they make up for that with other redeeming factors in the eyes of the audience.

Thus you have people who are not particularly adept at their instruments who still manage to greatly please the audience. Largely, however, this is due to the audience having a much higher tolerance for musical imperfections!!

Does this translate to martial arts? I think so.

Traditional arts that have highly developed techniques DO require years of practice and work before they are ready for an "audience" in the form of a real fight. Where as many non-traditional styles and lest formalized styles will produce a reasonably accomplished fighter in relatively quick order. Not only that, but the non-traditional student may well benefit from early exposure to combat as their less refined fighting style demands that the student learn how to "perform" to fill in where the basic techniques themselves are lacking.

I think this is a good analogy on several levels - and goes well to explain why the non-traditional martial arts seem to out-perform the traditional arts in practice as well -- the road to mastery of traditional techniques is much longer and more demanding than the road to learning enough to get by in the non-traditional arts.

True masters of the traditional martial arts take decades to form. Masters of the non-traditional martial arts take months or years depending on the ability of the practioner to "perform." Just as mastering popular music performance requires less focus on technique and more focus on other areas for success over classical music performance.

However, just as someone who is a master of classical piano can inf act out-play a lounge-pianist in popular styles when they want to, so can the traditional martial artist out-fight the non-traditional martial artist once they are trained up to the master level.

But, and this is the kicker -- fighting is a young person's game. So what that when someone is 50 they can kick my ass. When you're 50, you aren't going to be getting into the ring and will problably be more intersted in avoiding the street fight than in getting into one. Heck, at 50 the average person doesn't even go to the places that most fights happen anymore (bars, nightclubs, etc.).

What is the real potential of seeing a 25-30 year old in today's world who has really mastered a kung fu style? I would guess next to non-existant!!

But it's pretty easy to get enough street fighting experience by the time you're 20 that you can kick most anyone's butt.

[Tigerstyle]

I agree with old jong and red5.

I think "sparring" from the beginning using "resisting opponents" (escpecially more skilled opponents) has much to offer though, and I am very much in support of it.

One of the best things it has to offer (IMHO) is losing. You can learn a whole lot about yourself and your abilities by losing. Add to that, if you are in a good open learning environment you will receive much input to improve your skills while your at it ("I was able to get you that time, because you have a tendency to drop your hands.", etc.)

The concert analogy, I think, is a little different. The "resisting opponent" in the MA training sense is with your peers (sometimes in a local tournament, etc., but usually within your school). The people in your audience (in the beginning) should be people that are also learning to play the piano with you. They will know (at least the more senior students) if you are playing well or not. Over time, you may (or may not :p ) notice their reaction to your piano playing becoming more positive, and less tomatoes are flying at you ;) .

Playing in front of your peers can give you a good gauge of your progress, while giving you the added experience of performing under pressure. When it's time to "go test it on stage", you will have at least some understanding of what it's like to call upon your skills when the heat is on.

I learned LOTS by losing during training (including the humility of tapping out to a kid in high school, and to a guy using only one arm, due to a previous shoulder injury :o ).

[Kope]

Originally posted by Fred Sanford

I definately have to disagree with this. Kung fu styles were designed to be fighting arts. What a lot of them has become today is just sad. I study kung fu, but I would never train somewhere that told me it would be years before I began to spar. What happens if you get jumped after 2 months or a year and you haven't been taught anything useful on the street? guess you are $hit out of luck, huh? [/B]

Sorry for the double - just had to comment:

Yeah, your SOL. But guess what .. how is this different than what would have happened to you in 16th century China? After 2 months of training you would have learned the horse stance and one or two punches. Maybe you'd have started on a form.

You certainly wouldn't have progressed to the point where you could utilize your martial skills in a real fight, even after a several years.

[Fred Sanford]

>>Yeah, your SOL. But guess what .. how is this different than what would have happened to you in 16th century China? After 2 months of training you would have learned the horse stance and one or two punches. Maybe you'd have started on a form.

You certainly wouldn't have progressed to the point where you could utilize your martial skills in a real fight, even after a several years.<<

are you so sure about this? I personally don't buy these over romanticised stories about the peeps holding horse stances for years and blah, blah. Not everyone in china trained this way, some actually trained to fight.

oh yeah, just had to add. if after several years you still haven't learned any fighting skills the place you study at is a JOKE.

[Kope]

Originally posted by Fred Sanford

are you so sure about this? I personally don't buy these over romanticised stories about the peeps holding horse stances for years and blah, blah. Not everyone in china trained this way, some actually trained to fight.

I'm reasonably sure about this (This being that in 16th century china 2months wouldn't be enough time to learn to defend yourself adquately). I've read more than a few academic works on the history of martial arts and while I agree that many of the popular stories we hear are romanticised, they start from a grain of truth -- initial training was arduous and focused on building a sound foundation of simple stances, defenses and attacks from which the student could progress. Moreover, the initial training was used to "weed out" the serious students from the rest, precisely by testing their patience and endurance.



oh yeah, just had to add. if after several years you still haven't learned any fighting skills the place you study at is a JOKE.

Well, the place I train at is NOT a joke, and after several years I am still far from ready to apply the techniques of my current art in a real fight. (having been in real fights before and knowing what's required to be successfull in that arena!) My moves are not refined enough, fast enough, strong enough or automatic yet.

What do you mean by "joke?" That it is not arduous training?That it won't work in a "real" fight? Or that mastery won't happen fast enough to please you?

I'm willing to wait a few years to actually master something before I worry about judging it to be adequate or not. But considering what my Sifu's students have accomplished in various compititions, I've no doubt that It'll be worth the wait :)

[rogue]

To continue the MA/musician idea further...
We had a pianists in one band who was classically trained. This guy came up with some really good vocal & instrument arrangments. Well one night at a gig at the end of our last tune we had that magic happen. The drummer didn't play the usual ending, the bass player keyed in on him, I followed the bass player, the other guitar player followed me and we was doing the jam from heaven. All of us except the piano player who sat there with a deer in the headlights look. Our bass player walked over to him and said, "Rich, We're in the key of G minor, watch out for key changes and if you don't start to play I'll kick your @ss". Rich after going off about our "trick" was amazed by how we could anticipate when someone was going to do something and follow. To us it was simple since we jammed often with different musicians of different styles. And that's what fighting in the street is about, improvisation. For us knowing every scale and all the music theory in the world means squat if you can't use it in an unstructured environment when you least expect it. Probably the guys who have it down are those martial artists who are like jazz musicians, got the technique, got the theory, now let's just blow.

[red5angel]

Good point on your last point, BUT ;) (could you see that coming?) I think some people mistake classical training with rigidness and not adaptability and flexibility. to me, being classically trainned means I learn all the tools, learn them inside and out, all their permutations, etc... then when I am ready I put them to use. Slowly at first so I dont get lost, but later as hard as I can hit it! What this leads to is an ability to improvise on the street but stay under control and know what and where I am going and doing.
I take the Karate Blackbelt as an example. In my old Karate school, they used to tell us that reaching the blackbelt didnt mean we were accomplished fighters, just that we understood the theory and could apply it in a controlled environment. It is when you hit that level that you finally start to learn to really fight!
Ever see those blackbelts that cant fight worth crap? Ever meet one who has been around a while and it seems no one can touch him? these guys made taht transition, to steal an example from Rogue, from knowing the theories and techniques, to just blowing.

[HuangKaiVun]

And I'm a fully trained classical violinist who can go either structured or unstructured.

My training was very different from that of modern day violinists who try to get every little detail perfect the way somebody else expects them to.

The way I was trained, I was trained to play by my INSTINCTS and keep things SIMPLE. That way, I could adjust on the fly to people around me and to audiences. This is the only way I could survive blowups on stage, like when I was playing the Mendelssohn Concerto and the flutist came 2 measures early, throwing the whole orchestra out of whack and forcing me to bring even the clueless conductor back into the mix.

The greatest classical musicians always had such solid natural reflexes that they could adjust to any piece in any situation. Those musicians that try to do it Kope's way always end up TREMBLING and FAILING on stage. That's why nobody listens to classical music anymore - because very few people play NATURALLY anymore.

I was playing in front of a crowd of HUNDREDS from memory on stage solo 8 weeks after I started violin, red5angel. I didn't (and still don't) have a shred of stage fright because my training taught me how to play NATURALLY. Instead of cluttering my mind with useless standards and rules, I was just allowed to PLAY. 22 years later, I'm still natural but at the full realization of my potential.


I also completely disagree with Brent Carey that being a natural fighter means one can't fight.

I'm a small 5'4" fighter, mean and aggressive. If I DON'T fight with a wolf mentality, I'll get beaten down by larger opponents.

But just because I'm aggressive doesn't mean that I'm walking around with black eyes. On the contrary, kung fu has given me all sorts of ways to guard against that as I assault my opponents full force. That's the point of training, remember.

Not everybody has the same kind of hyperaggresive nature I have. Most have less, and I do not expect them to fight the same way I do. Kung fu allows for differences in technique type. Just because not everybody fights like Brent Carey doesn't mean they can't fight.

Carey's notion that successful streetfighters who fight naturally ONLY attack or ONLY defend is completely WRONG. The streetfighters I've gone against have tested me MORE than anybody else ever have. They attack, they defend, and they are FLEXIBLE.

Make no mistake, one CAN train for spontaneous situations in kung fu just as he can in classical violin or any other discipline.

[old jong]

"Learn everything,perfect everything and then forget all about it and play!..."

That's the difference! You can jam in G min.... Or blow on "Rythme changes" or "Giant steps" at a high tempo.It is impossible to improvise the skill.You have to work hard,"wood shedding" as jazz musicians say, to be able to use the results of the skill/training in a free fashion.This "wood shedding" is always a very boring and solitary process when you just go endlessly through scales,modes,arpegios,chords ad nauseum and then do it all over again!...
The same in Kung Fu!...Skill must be obtained before it can be used in a free way. We could sparr all day long and never make any significant progress except maybe landing some lucky blows from times to times.This is the main reason why Kung Fu looks so much like "bad kick boxing" (Not the same as good kickboxing!)in competitions.Most of the times ,the players don't even master the basics of their styles enough to mime it under stress.

[guohuen]

Why do people think that if you've been studying a martial art for a few weeks or a few months that you have to use it in a fight? Most people would use what they already know or have tried, not something new to them. I think the point of learning a martial arts system is to be able to handle an extrodinary situation, ie. much larger or skilled opponents, or if nessesary multiple opponents. If you were unfortunate enough to be in a situation like this you would have to be an idiot to attempt to use any art that you had only practiced a few months. At best you could use one or two new moves if these were your only tools and then run.

[Ky-Fi]

"However, it's a fact that the "natural," unschooled type of fighter is invariably defeated by a superior technician."

I can't completely agree with that statement. Often, maybe, but "invariably"----no way. Certainly, with training everyone can improve, but natural ability is a HUGE factor, in my opinion, and can't be discounted that easily. This isn't a perfect analogy because running may not have the complexity of fighting, but the fact is that someone can utilize the most modern techniques and olympic training methods for running, and, if they're not a naturally good runner, still be easily beaten by someone with no formal training.

I don't think pro wrestlers spend a lot of time learning ultra-realistic combat techniques, but I'd bet my money that most of them would fare well in a fight against your average 10 year student of any martial art.

[HuangKaiVun]

I actually did very few concrete "scales" and "arpeggios" and stuff in the context of my jazz training.

My 1st jazz guitar teacher, who was a direct student of Johnny Smith, initially taught our class by allowing us to improvise on only ONE note. He'd play chords underneath.

I had barely started guitar but a few days earlier, but I was able to bang out different rhythms and stuff. Soon, I was using more than just one note.

The old masters like Johnny Smith and Miles Davis and John Coltrane didn't have scale books or arpeggio charts or books of chords. They didn't practice that stuff, yet they sound BETTER and MORE INTERESTING than today's carbon copy jazz players who are all riffing Charlie Parker's bebop licks.

You want to do great jazz or kung fu, you better get thrown into the WATER at some point. All the fantasizing and theorizing doesn't help even in the least bit when it comes time to PLAY.


red5angel, monkey and drunken and wing chun and animal styles are all very NATURAL styles when used properly.

Though I'm not necessarily doing the external movements of these styles exactly like in the sets, there is great utility from using moves from these styles in the right fighting circumstances. I've done so repeatedly in my life, even before I was studying these styles.

For example, Tiger style is an incredibly lethal ripping style if used in the right context. Against passive opponents who just stand there and block, I'll often go into super-aggressive mode and focus my attacks on their BLOCKING LIMBS. My thing is that if you can destroy a limb, it's often as good as destroying the entire opponent.

I don't know about you, but keeping an elbow in while punching is VERY natural for me. I don't like getting HIT when somebody is punching me at the same time I'm punching HIM.

[Aramus]

1. Classical musican has never been the meaning of inflexible. Look at the greats that make up the "Classical" music. Some could produce on the fly (Mozart) others took months (but could also improvise) good old Ben. Real world. College life. Two classically trained musicians play at Howl at the Moon. This is a piano bar. Name any song, they play it. Simple. They dual, compliment, and complete. They have the solid classical background and technique and practice and play on the fly. Not to mention they practice a lot. They are still playing (Joe Laurionnie and...suck, forgot his name) and are the main attraction.

2. Basketball understanding time. If you are right handed and never played basketball or had little training: Run down the left side of the court. Right handers will naturally still dribble with the right hand (which is not that good to do) and then try a simple left side lay up. I don't believe I have ever seen anyone simply pick up the ball (also known as the rock, pill, etc.) and do it correctly. They do it quite naturally with the wrong hand (the right) and suffer a greater chance of getting the ball taken from them (a resistanting opponent) or their shot blocked.
Solution: Train something until it is natural. So you work on dribbling the ball with your left hand, then move around with the ball, after that you could try standing close to the basket and shooting with your left hand. Then get a little practice against an opponent. Then drill the basics until you can put it all together to score 2 pts in a game. All the while you may not at first practice at "game" speed. You build up to it. What was unnatural becomes very natural. It becomes, "what the hell was I doing before" If you just jump into a game with good players, regardless of your physical structure, they will beat you down. I have personally seen this done, and have done it to many in high school and in college. No effort, technique and training win. (period). What am I saying?

What may seem natural and correct may be unsuited. What may seem unnatural can become natural, second nature and instinctual. It may take practice at slow speeds and moving up in steps to the ultimate goal of natural and ready for the game. But it may not always appear as such.

I'm tired...going to bed peace.:)

[Serpent]

Originally posted by HuangKaiVun
22 years later, I'm still natural but at the full realization of my potential.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. You are such a wanker!

You really need to learn some humility, man. A whole world will open up before you if you do.

[HuangKaiVun]

Ah, the Serpent speaks again.

Come. Show us your Paganini 24 Caprices.

If you post yours here, I'll post mine.

Then we'll see how much of a wanker YOU REALLY ARE.

There are people who sit on couches and flame the world (YOU), and there are people who get out and practice and actually DO STUFF (ME).

[Serpent]

You're like a little clockwork toy, Huang. :p

[HuangKaiVun]

And one day you and I will meet IN PERSON.

[Serpent]

Should be a lot of fun. You get into the Southern Hemisphere often do you?

[HuangKaiVun]

I've been there before, and I'll return.

When I'm in town, I'll look you up.

I look forward to you teaching me.

[Serpent]

I'll make you a nice cup of tea.

[HuangKaiVun]

I'd - actually APPRECIATE THAT.

[Serpent]

Of course. Who doesn't like a nice cup of tea?

By the way, on the left of your keyboard is a key marked 'Caps Lock' and a 'Shift' key beneath that. Experiment with them. ;)

[Black Jack]

Why don't you guys just sleep with each other and get it over with.

Jeez:D

[Serpent]

Oh! You sense sexual tension!? I'd better go and brush my hair!