Southern Styles

[Mr. Bao]

I quess wondering about the southern styles of kung fu and perhaps it is a silly question. But do you think southern kung fu has any real practical self defense after Bruce Lee's revolution of anti classical kung fu methods?

What does southern styles of kung fu has to offer to folks interested in self defense? For me, a lot of westerners like the exotic, mystic, and chinese traditions of kung fu then the actual kicking ass part. lol.

Bao

[mysteri]

i learned plenty of good self-defense my first year or two(jow ga, a southern style of kung fu). but now, if have to fight, i don't fight to defend myself, i fight to hurt the opponent. welcome to real kung fu.

[brothernumber9]

The more you learn about chinese martial arts the more you learn that there was hardly anything anti classical about Bruce Lee's fighting method(s) none of his concepts were new under the sun and the very large majority of his concepts and techniques are prevalent in traditional chinese martial arts. Were his movies great? yes, was he a great martial artist? yes, was he one of the greatest martial artists of all time? I would say no way but i am still young in learning and training so take my opinions with a grain of salt. And in my learning I believe classical chinese martial arts are still very practical. If a system has at least a few pugilists that were revered as good fighters and were known to use concepts and techniques indicative of their style then that is evidence that the style is more than likely practical of course ultimately its the individual(s) that makes a style great and not the other way around.

[Fu-Pow]

from pantherfist.com


It was not surprising that in the early 1960's Bruce Lee told his students "Choy Lay Fut is the most effective system I've seen for fighting more than one person and is one of the most difficult styles to attack and to defend against" (quoted in the book "Bruce Lee" by Jesse Glover in 1976). These and other comments Bruce made back in 1958 in Hong Kong incited Dave to learn Choy Lay Fut in early 1959.

[Jimbo]

Many of the statements Bruce Lee made were a different way of saying things that old-time Chinese and Japanese martial artists had written about centuries earlier. But for most people, esp. most Western martial artists of the time, it sounded revolutionary. For example, concepts such as coming into an art unbound by technique, then one becomes bound up by it, then ultimately transcends technique as his response depends completely on the opponent.

The Southern Chinese martial arts are very much alive and well today, and they are still very much relevant to those who seriously practice them. The fact that Bruce Lee had an epiphany of his own some 38(?) years ago has nothing to do with my own training. Every martial artist who stays with it must evolve and grow in his own way and not try to ride the coattails of Lee or anyone else. Many people like to parrot what Bruce Lee said, but then forget what he was really trying to get across: that you must find your own path.

Jim

[Fu-Pow]

It's all about Zen (Ch'an) baby.

Approaching each situation with an open mind, as it comes and without preconceived notions. Acting spontaneously. In other words "being here, now."

The caveat is that you can't attain this mindset just by thinking that you will. Just as you can't be good at martial arts just by thinking that you will. You have to train your body and your mind to a high level. That's where internal arts have the advantage they train both simultaneously from the get go.

[mysteri]

Originally posted by Fu-Pow


The caveat is that you can't attain this mindset just by thinking that you will. Just as you can't be good at martial arts just by thinking that you will. You have to train your body and your mind to a high level. That's where internal arts have the advantage they train both simultaneously from the get go. [/B]

interesting comment. actually, that statement is from a point of view. if ur town was being plundered by local warlords, u don't have the 10 years necessary it takes to become pretty efficient in most internal arts. u should be able to defend urself well with most other systems within 2 years. after about 15 or 20 years, the external and internal methods seem to meet up @ the same place because it's all similar on a higher level. jus wanted to offer a different point of view.:)

[LiLong]

Well Bruce Lee's revolution of classical kung fu is really interesting because it never really happened. Ok so Bruce was a good thinker, a charismatic actor and a great athlete, but to call JKD or "Non classical WC" a martial art is far from accurate and almost blasphemous. Truth of the matter is he did not study classical styles long enough to master any system and although the adapt whatever works philosophy has some validity, in the end, it only served to water down a lot of systems in the USA, including karate which these days, karate competitions look like a cheerleading competition. JKD in fact is a good fighting methodology but still not a martial art. Am I saying that I could beat any JKD fighter? No I am not, matter of fact I am sure there are many ppl who have benefited from training in JKD and it inspires them in a moment of need. So Bruce should be given credit for opening ppl's eyes towards the east but his brief and never finished philosophy really was plageurized by his "friends/students". Plus I have seen some video of him practicing Chi Sao and to tell you the truth I was not impressed. His skills in Chi Sao were no better than a first level green sash in WC.

Southern KF just like northern KF or any established martial art style that has a had time to develop in its philosophy and practical combat application will teach skills to defend yourself even in today's day and age. Standardized sets let you not only get a good work-out but also develop muscle memory and correct body structure in order to maximize power and minimize injury to yourself.

Cheers :D

[CLFNole]

LiLong:

Well said. Had Bruce Lee actually studied a single system for a long period of time his ideas may have been somewhat different. In any event he was a modern thinker and was not bound by tradition which is good in my opinion. That being said tradition should not be ingored either.

Peace.

[Mr. Bao]

Li Long:

First of all I don't want to defend Bruce Lee because it is like an idol or because he is part of my tradition, but I have spoken to Duncan Leung, William Cheung, and Hawkin Cheung, and Alan Lee about Bruce Lee. They all have said that he had very good wing chun skills and all three of them have met Bruce Lee and they men have completed the system. So what you said isn't fair and correct in my opinion.

Bruce Lee isn't perfect example of wing chun nor I do I care if people didn't think he is good. But ee have experts in wing chun gung fu who thought he was good. So how can non experts of wing chun judge better?

I think Sibak Lee Jun Fun is pretty on the money about traditional and conventional kung fu today. But I wouldn't be as disrespectful like he was.


Bao

[3step]

think along this timeline:

first, there is kungfu, brutally effective, lethal kungfu.

then, there are firearms. suddenly kungfu aint so lethal anymore. not from 50 yards away anyhow.

next, kungfu becomes sport or exercise or a hobby. very few who practice ever wind up in a real fight. very few develop their kungfu to a level comparable to "the old days". those who do put a great deal of thought and training into it, practicing basics, merging themselves with their chosen style, filling in gaps that their style or teacher may have left, making it a personal expression.

finally, someone like Bruce Lee comes along and publicly does what others have been doing for years, adds an actors charisma, and becomes a legend. He was not anti-classical methods, rather anti-classical mentality of "my teacher & his teacher say do it, that is why i do it"

my kungfu is different from my sifu's & my classmate's. my kungfu is my kungfu. theirs is theirs. it's a different expression of the same concept. formless form. and it's lethal.

[LiLong]

Hey guys I understand all of your points and I used to think the same way, but over the years, as my training progresses, I have become somewhat of a "Hard-liner" as far as the martial arts go. My reason for doing so is that systems are dying, new ones are created and ppl feel the neeed to idolize one man who made very small, albeit readily available, contributions. we can always buy a Tao of JKD or Dragon the movie, and there are magazine articles and interviews and etc. Wong Fei Hong does not share the same availability, instead having to be portrayed by actors, and his books are not readily availble and there are not any interviews with him. This is just an example. I look at my sifu for inspiration, I look at Bruce Lee for entertainment.

As far as what the WC community say about Bruce I have a feeling that they are trying to protect a brother who brought so much fame to that style. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. WC experts of Koo Sang and Pan Nam lieages agree with my comments. But that is beside the point. The focus is on the martial arts, not the man, not his fighting method created by his students, but on the martial arts alone.

cheers :D