Is wushu effective?

[Dai Yoshida]

I'm rather annoyed with people making assumption that modern wushu is ineffective as a fighting art.

To say that one practitioner is better than another is one thing. But to say that an entire fighting system is ineffective is less than sensible.

Modern wushu is a variation of Cha Chuan with Shaolin and Hua Chuan techniques mixed in.

The old compusory form was created by a committee headed by Wang Lung-Yun, the legendary "God Dragon" who gained fame by defeating any and all who would fight him in no-holds-bar matches.

Madame Wang Ju Rong, daughter of Grand-Master Wang Tzu-Ping headed the committee which made the later modifications.

Was Wang Long-Yun an ineffective fighter?

Was Wang Tzu-Ping an ineffective fighter?

I think fact speaks for itself.

[taijiquan_student]

No, it's not. Modern wushu doesn't train for fighting. Even though people who could fight have been connected in some way to modern wushu, that has nothing to do with me. They are exceptions, and did not learn exclusively modern wushu. If I go to a modern wushu academy, I will not learn to fight.

"To say that one practitioner is better than another is one thing. But to say that an entire fighting system is ineffective is less than sensible."

Absolutely true--assuming that modern wushu is a fighting system. That's absolutely not true. Sorry.

[Water Dragon]

Modern Wushu does not focus on fighting aspects. Wushu is based on grace, balance, agility, etc. It's a visual performance competition.

That being said, good Wushu players are amazing athletes. They are very good at what they do and I couldn't do 1/4 of what is required for their sport.

The problem only exists when Wushu tries to make claims as being valuable as a fighting art. It's not. it doesn't train for that. Most fighting arts are not particularly pretty or interesting to watch. Because they don't train for those goals.

Now, of course, there is nothing that states that one cannot practice both arts (performance and fighting). But the training is different, and if you want to achieve a particular skill, you must train with that specific goal in my mind. I'm sure that there are many people that are accomplished in both areas. But that is because they specifically train in both areas. (And much props to them! That's one helluva lot of hard training!)

[Dai Yoshida]

I don't know which wushu school you've been to.

I can't think of any wushu school that doesn't teach combat skills.

Fighting theory is a mandetory cariculum in any legitimate wushu academy in China. No proper wushu coach would teach forms without also drilling proper application with an actual opponent.

Even in America, Roger Tung ended every class with sparring and technique application. I know Eric Chen carries on this tradition. Alan and Ming Liu is very particular about the effectiveness of each technique. I'm nowhere near the calibur of these coaches but even I wouldn't subject my kids to "fake wushu".

Anyone who teachs wushu like it was some kind of ballett is doing a great disservice to the art, not to mention the students.

Please don't make generalized statements you can't back up with proof.

[Brad]

I can't think of any wushu school that doesn't teach combat skills.
I can, but I won't name names ;-) There's actually quite a few like this, but it's still not nearly as bad a situation as Taiji, Karate, & Tae Kwon Do IMO.

[Water Dragon]

OK here's an example that might help explain what I'm trying to explain better. In my group classses, we take advantage of the fact we have bodies to work with. The class is devoted to body conditioning, learning to accept pain (banging arms, getting hit, getting thrown) without it stopping you flow in a fight. When we do throwing, I'll throw and be thrown 100-200 times per class. Believe me, it takes a lot out of your body. Wehn I am taught forms or stance, they are taught to a level so that I can incorporate them into my solo training. The emphasis is on footwork, alignment, and desigend to be a good cardio exercise.

The majority of my solo training is desigend to develop attributes. I spend a lot of time and developing the strength in my wrists and grip, whole body strength, bag work, cardio, with only a fraction going toward the froms and stance work.

From what I've gathered about Wushu players, the required attributes are totally different. The flexibility it develops is simply amazing. The requirement of the forms and stancework are totally different. I don't have the grace and agility I've seen at Wushu comps. different goal, different training.

Again, I'm not saying one is good and one is bad. They're just different. Decide what you want to do and train for it. If you're doing the fighting training, good. Nothing wrong with that. But if you're not following a porogram designed to make yourself a fighter, understand and accept that. There's no way I could even think about entering and competing in a Wushu comp, I would hurt myself. But I also don't try to tell myself that if I had to enter a comp in 6 weeks, I could do it. I don't train for that skill set.

[Shuul Vis]

Wushu as it is here is a flower. Real traditional kung fu is the mountainside it grows on.

[Brad]

Wouldn't that be more on individual focus, rather than the actual system? For example, because the vast majority of people who do Taijiquan couldn't fight there way out of a wet paper bag, does that mean Taijiquan isn't a good fighting art? You're just lumping all modern wushu schools together as being no good for combat without knowing what's in the original system developed. It's no different than someone labeling Taijiquan as only good for health after seeing all these for health teachers.

[Brad]

Exactly. It's the actual training program that the school teaches.


The problem only exists when Wushu tries to make claims as being valuable as a fighting art. It's not. it doesn't train for that.

Hear you are refering to the entire system of modern wushu, not any individual programs that schools/teachers put together. My point that is that the actual system of modern wushu was not flawed in such a way to make it no good for fighting aplication when it was created. The lack of combat is the result of individual changes made to the training programs of schools over the years. In other words, a lot of wushu schools choose to focus on forms competition, and end up leaving out a lot of material in much the same way a lot of Taiji schools will focus entirely on health, also leaving out a lot of material.

[Brad]

Hey, where'd your post go? Am I in the right thread? :confused:

[Water Dragon]

Brad, to me, when I hear the term Wushu, that IS what I think of. If I am going to a "wushu" comp, I want to see the flashy moves, the kicks that go straight up in the air. I want to see the flash and the dazzle. I want to ooh and ahhh.

If I go to a Shuai Chiao tourney, I don't expect to see anyone performing the shadow forms. I expect to see big nasty, bone crunching throws.

If I go to a boxing match, I want to see two mean very skillfully beat each other to a pulp.

If a teacher is teaching Wushu, he should be teaching what he claims. If a teacher is teaching for health, he should be teaching what he claims. And if he's training fighters, he should be teaching what he claims.

I don't have any problem what so ever with thos who teach for performance or health, even though my preference is that martial arts are for fighting. It's only when someone claims to be able to train you to do one thing, but then delivers a program desigend to do something else, that I get upset.

I understand the whole caveat emptor thing, but people should have enough integrity to deliver what they say they will.

Again, I'm not saying that schools don't exist that teach both Wushu AND fighting (AND health even) But a Wushu PROGRAM wont make you a fighter just as a FIGHTING program wont allow you to be competetive on the Wushu scene (All though both programs wiil be arduous enough to give you health benefits)

[Water Dragon]

I deleted my other post. After I went back and read it, I realized it didn't make that much sense and wouldn't be productive toward the discussion.

-edit-
I'm also not trying to claim that modern wushu is "flawed" in any way what so ever. Solid Wushu is very good at what it does and I enjoy it a lot.

[Fred Sanford]

personally modern wushu makes me want to throw up. I hate to watch it and I think it sucks.

[wall]

As simple as I can make it:

1 - wu-shu is any and all chinese martial arts

2 - "traditionall" wu-shu is all the "kung-fu" stuff, thus very much combat related

3 - "modern" wu-shu is a competition version of wu-shu, divided in forms (taulu) and fighting (sanda).
A - Forms are where competitors learn some standardized routines so they can be judged against each other. Routines are based on actual fighting styles but are developed for maximum visual impact not for maximum combat application.
B - Fighting is where competitors, well, fight. Full contact, throws allowed. All techniques are therefore learned solely for combat applications.

All of the above is wu-shu.

Good wu-shu schools should teach all of the above.

Some unfortunately only specialize on what "sells" most, which is 3-A.

Some athletes only specialize in one because they do wu-shu purely as a competition sport not as a martial art.

W

[Mr. Horse]

I heard this TRAD. wushu thing and Modern wushu too often. I spoke to my Si Gong about this. He said when he was a little boy, they called it Kung Fu. He is 71 and from hong Kong. It is very old slang. It is like the word "cool". You can say "Hey, that is a cool car!" and then someone can say "No. It is not cool. It is a very nice car. Cool means "lacking in warmth". "Very nice or very good is the right term."


Kung fu to wushu is like Tang Soo Do is to sport karate (no disrespect). My friend teaching at a sport karate school in NJ. They also teach kickboxering and self-D.

Some people may say that back in the day modern wushu was like kung fu, but that was back in the day. Back in the day many Chinese women bound their feet but not now a days. What it was and what it is are two different things. Back in the day modern wushu was kung fu.

[count]

First off, welcome another southlander to the forum. Can you send me a private message with details of where the Pasadena Wushu Club you coach is located and times you meet? I would like to stop by some time. For the purpose of discussion, let's agree that "kung fu" is traditional Chinese martial arts and "modern wushu" is a contemporary format of training and performance seen in competitions.

As a traditional, American, martial artist I have always admired modern wushu for what it is. I understand where your annoyance comes from. When people make negative comments about something they are not experienced with, they are usually off base and wrong. I might even be off base here. I'm sure there are many modern wushu athletes who can fight. I'm sure there are many who have also had traditional training. But to compare modern wushu to other traditional kung fu is a stretch. And the fact that Sanda is part of the curriculum doesn't make the point either. Sanda is a great format for competitions and many of the allowable techniques are in Kung fu systems, but Sanda does not look like kung fu either.

What makes traditional kung fu, different has nothing to do with what it looks like to an observer. Forms don't make kung fu. Methods do. It's the how and why you train. Maybe "modern wushu" forms, with their flowery butterfly kicks and their spectacular aerials require great strength and balance but it's from a different objective and the steps to get there are not the same. Hardly practical for fighting either. Many moves in modern wushu are purely aesthetic. With no purpose in fighting at all. No moves in traditional kung fu are without purpose.

For competition sake there has to be a division between the two. Good kung fu doesn't look pretty to a judge that doesn't understand the methods so modern wushu gets the advantage for it's beauty. I have yet to see modern wushu players fight with their performance styles. But than, the majority of kung fu people practitioners don't either.:p

[David Jamieson]

One thing that makes performance wushu inneffective in combat is that it is encouraged to hyperextend the limbs.

In combat, this is a no no of the major category. Never hyper extend. It looks great on floor gymnasts and wushu gymnasts but it will get yer limb busted in a for real go.

Modern competitive wushu does not have martiality as it's focus.
And it can be said that anyone who thinks that it has martial applicatiuons is in for a rude awakening when they try to use it as a combative.

The focus is on higher leaps, artistic expressiona dn gymnanstic skill. The focus is NOT on martial applicability. The whole purpose of the invention of wushu in the PRC of teh seventies was to give the chinese people some reasonable facsimile of the beloved martial arts that are ingrained into their culture without giving them the ability to use the martial aspects which is a threat to the communist government and it's local bureaucrats.

imagine, a vilage of people thoroughly trained in a true martial art? That would not bode well for local officials when the try to impose their wills on the folks would it? And that's what Mao and his cronies were thinking when they gave this to China as teh national sport. Since then, it has becoma na art form and the traditional Kungfu is sometimes taught alongside so that those who do wushu that want to explore true martial arts can.

of course the inventors of it had to draw from the real arts. How would they be able to sell the idea to the people? And so, during the 1970's they busted out the new martial arts for china and ping pong fell as the national art (kuo shu). IN the 1990's, the curriculum was revised again to include some southern flavour and it was standardized into the performance routines we see today.

All these performance routines are practiced and preformed in exactly the same way with the emphasis placed on performance and not on martial applicability.

Masters of traditional martial arts fully recognize the differences between the two and the masters are not afraid to make these deliniations when they teach.

they will ask, what do you want to learn? this or that? sometimes, some students want to learn both and in the west, you can learn both a traditional and martially applicable art and you can learn the contemporary wu shu.

Contemporary wu shu actually borrowed heavily from the northern style Cha Chuan because of its large movements and specctacular kicks. I would say that in a western tournament, a Cha Chuan stylist or a Bak Sil Lum stylist could give a wushu stylist a run for their money in the looks of the form.

But I have to say that a 720 or a 540 aerial crescent kick is absolutely the most useless thing you can bring to a fight. UNless of course you are fighting a catatonic :D

You would be luckly to get away with a 360, and in many cases, even a 180 crescent kick is difficult to pull off in a for real fight without massive ability and training.

anyway, it is what it is and it has value as what it is. Don't try to sell it as something else, the masters don't so why are you?

cheers

[mantis108]

What makes traditional kung fu, different has nothing to do with what it looks like to an observer. Forms don't make kung fu. Methods do. It's the how and why you train. Maybe "modern wushu" forms, with their flowery butterfly kicks and their spectacular aerials require great strength and balance but it's from a different objective and the steps to get there are not the same. Hardly practical for fighting either. Many moves in modern wushu are purely aesthetic. With no purpose in fighting at all. No moves in traditional kung fu are without purpose

Great comment, Count. I am of the same opinion as Water Dragon and Count. BTW there are practical applications with the butterfly kick in kung fu. I doubt the the wushu "coaches" would know it though. ;) What gets me is that Wushu keep trying and trying to sell a faust bill of sale. I suppose if you try hard enough people will eventually buy into it. What is worst is that it also tries to belittle kung fu by ways of using "scholarly" definitation. So I would say book worms don't do Kung Fu neither. Pragmatic practice do. It is all about the method which sometimes seems to be pure madness. It is insane to just copy and to imitate the madness without true understanding of the method.

Sweet dreams, wushu.

Mantis108

[GLW]

People always pick on the hyperextension aspect...and this is where they miss a valid idea...and this is not only the Traditional folks but Modern as well.

Classical Chaquan (Zhaquan) DOES extend the limbs and use low low stances.

The saying " one inch longer - one inch stronger" and "Train low, use high" are heard in Chaquan all the time.

The thing that is missed is that you train to extend so you can get all of the power out. Then, you train to hit something so you know how far to extend and how far NOT to extend to maintain flow and balance. This is the age old distinction between form and function. The idea is you do both. Problem is, many Traditional folks ignore the form part of the training for the extension so they do not get the flexibility down as deep into the sinews. Then the modern folks don't train the next stage to hit things so they don't get the understanding of the application.

Both are incomplete approaches.

Stances are trained low for strength, speed, flexibility, and mobility. They train low and lower because it is 100% natural to NOT go so low in use...you simply 'forget' and fall into natural movement. However, if you have strength from low stances....and fall into natural movement, you will likely be more fluid, more rooted, more explosive, because you have more to draw from.

But, you have to take the next level of training ...and many do not do that.

[Brad]

3 - "modern" wu-shu is a competition version of wu-shu, divided in forms (taulu) and fighting (sanda).
A - Forms are where competitors learn some standardized routines so they can be judged against each other. Routines are based on actual fighting styles but are developed for maximum visual impact not for maximum combat application.
B - Fighting is where competitors, well, fight. Full contact, throws allowed. All techniques are therefore learned solely for combat applications.

Standardized routines are not used competitively, except for international competition. In National or Regional competition individual forms are mostly used. There's also standardized, novice, beginer, intermediate, and advanced forms used mostly for training resembling more taditional longfist forms.

[count]

It is insane to just copy and to imitate the madness without true understanding of the method.
Right back at ya, Mantis108!

A question for Mr. Yoshida. One thing that has always bothered me about modern wushu performances is the use of those lightweight, flimsy weapons. As a coach, do you train your people with them or use actual "heavier" weapons?

[David Jamieson]

count-

we weren't gonna talk about the tinfoil weapons yet!;)

in regards to hyperextending. I would have to disagree a little.
A full extension is not the same as hyperextending.

And yes, Cha Chuan does engourage full extension, as do a few other longfist styles, but the elbow never pronates on the arm like it does in wushu performers and the knee never locks like in wushu performance.

cheers

[GLW]

Hypetrextension is where - for example - the elbow - instead of being at 180 degrees, the angle goes beyond the 180 mark...so the arm is bent too far.

No matter WHAT you do, that is wrong AND it will destroy the elbow.

however, if you apply the correct amount of tension in the fist, that then travels to the forearm muscles, there is a natural point where the arm is fully extended. THAT is the point that Chaquan is aiming for in training...and that is also the point that is spoken about for Contemporary Changquan. Same idea...no difference...but some people do not get it and long sleeves cover up a lot of mistakes.

Taking it to the waist, each strike is supposed to extend from the waist as far as possible without sacrificing balance. A Gong Bu stance on one side with the same side striking is the easiest to do. A reverse strike...opposite side attacking is most commonly NOT extended though it should be....and this is Traditional AND Contemporary.

As for the tinfoil...that is an OLD issue. International folks still use them. In China, there is a minimum weight and such requirement. The competition weapons are actually well made...and well balanced.

People will do what they can get away with to win. If you are the only one using a heavy weapon and you get a second place score...and KNOW that a light weapon will get you first place, the next time you compete, you WILL use the light weapon.

It is all about what gets rewarded. Basic psychology.

So..simply enforce the rules and make sure the standards are upheld...then you see NO difference.

[Repulsive Monkey]

is shameless ineffectual asthetic. I studt a Traditional Chinese Martial Art and it's embarassing to see that modern Wushu comes rom the same Nation that created Taiji, Kung-fu and respected arts.

[count]

Originally posted by GLW
As for the tinfoil...that is an OLD issue. International folks still use them. In China, there is a minimum weight and such requirement. The competition weapons are actually well made...and well balanced.

People will do what they can get away with to win. If you are the only one using a heavy weapon and you get a second place score...and KNOW that a light weapon will get you first place, the next time you compete, you WILL use the light weapon.

It is all about what gets rewarded. Basic psychology.

Thanks for the useful post GLW, although I'd like to have some of my questions and points addresed by Mr. Yoshida, who started in the first place. It is that basic psychology you mention, in modern wushu, that I detest the most. Read above. The rewards for the traditionalist are quite different.;)

[firepalm]

Count,
"It is that basic psychology you mention, in modern wushu, that I detest the most. Read above. The rewards for the traditionalist are quite different."

The tendency to go to a lighter weapon or whatever it may take to win is not solely a pyschological trait of modern wushu, hell just about every so called traditional style school here has there students compete with the light weight weapons.

Repulsive Monkey,
What I find 'repulsive' is the amount of 'traditional' style instructors parading their styles as the 'combat' effective or relevant as a self defense art. At least for many of those teaching modern wushu there is a certain honesty, it is a performance oriented sport pure & simple.

Personally I think there is room for all the aspects of Chinese martial arts (traditional, sport, internal, sanda, etc...) & find them all fascinating & intriguing in their own ways. The diversity of CMA is one of the things that sets CMA apart & will keep it carrying forward. What is truly sad about CMA is how narrow minded some of its' practitioners can be!:cool:

[count]

Originally posted by firepalm
Count,
"It is that basic psychology you mention, in modern wushu, that I detest the most. Read above. The rewards for the traditionalist are quite different."

The tendency to go to a lighter weapon or whatever it may take to win is not solely a pyschological trait of modern wushu, hell just about every so called traditional style school here has there students compete with the light weight weapons.


Sorry firepalm, you missed the point. It's the, do whatever for the reward or medal mentality which demonstrates psychological priorities.

BTW, you might want to look into the full contact staff/and spear competition since you are up there in canada. http://www.bajimen.comThey don't use the lightweight, show weapons with choreographed, perfomance sets. Only traditional martial arts. :p If you were down here in the states I could point you to several other annual events for stick fighting or sword that get pretty realistic in terms of traditional martial art.

I consider all my comments pretty open minded. Maybe you should read them a little closer before quoting me. :cool: Let's see what Coach Yoshida thinks?

Don't be sad, Be Happy! :)

[GLW]

A long long time ago..I started out doing Moo Duk Kwan...

One of the instructors in the organization I learned in had his belt tests and had a couple of students that were VERY good. Natural athletes and they could do anything.

Their belt tests were amazing...they started doing what everyone was supposed to do. Then, since they flew through that, the Korean and American instructors sitting on the judge panel for the test (this was a formal deal) started making up stuff for them to do...and it got pretty acrobatic. they did it all and that was the only way to challenge them.

Their fighting was still at level. That is something that has a big component in physical ability - speed and such...but an equally large component in experience, timing, power, focus, and even psychology. Those pieces had no shortcut except time and training..payment of dues.

Now...what does this have to do with Contemporary Wushu....

Well, you have a gorup of people that train for competition. They specialize. they get VERY good at all of the basics and Taolu (forms). They do NOT train that much in fighting. Not that they couldn't. they avoid it if they are major compeitors because of the risk of injuries and the effect it will have on their competition. It is bad enough ripping out a knee or ankle from a failed tornado kick...it is worse dislocating a shoulder and a back injury from full contact training. The coaches just don't want their stars to go there.

The flashier stuff gets added in more and more...because those people in China are just THAT GOOD. They CAN do them. Then, those things make it to the international scene and the only thing many people do is train the routine fr competition. any way you slice it, that is NOT correct training.

The routines are simply a bunch of basics strung together with a flow. They are ideas that are given form. The real stuff is in the basics and drills that everyone hates to do...

And in that, there really is no difference.

then, the use...well if you want to know how to use it, you add that to your training...and even the Traditional folks often really don't do that. Doubt it...take a look at how they REALLY use what they know.

[Dai Yoshida]

Originally posted by count

Right back at ya, Mantis108!

A question for Mr. Yoshida. One thing that has always bothered me about modern wushu performances is the use of those lightweight, flimsy weapons. As a coach, do you train your people with them or use actual "heavier" weapons?

At present, AAU insurance policy makes no mention of weapons which makes me nervous. Until it is cleared up I wouldn't teach weapons to my kids. In any case by standard cariculum, weapons are taught only after level 3 basics which my kids have not reached yet.

As for the flimsy weapons, the whole point of weapons training is learning the proper transfer of chi from your limbs to the tip of the sword. A good sword should be flexible, balanced and be of proper weight in order to demonstrate this. Using too heavy of a sword will develop the wrong type of muscles. Using swords that are too light will not develop chi.

I personally frown at hurriedly done sword routines where I cannot hear a loud snap at every full extension. Without chi, you're just dancing.

I also think that anyone practicing with extra heavy and sharpened weapons as if they were training to be an executioner is missing the whole point.

Too many people are dazzled by:
a) useless acrobatics or b) pointless display of brute strength and don't pay attention to the most important aspect of weapon training which is chi development.

[David Jamieson]

Too many people are dazzled by:
a) useless acrobatics or

absolutely true. it's easy to impress someone with flash and no substance.


b) pointless display of brute strength

well, it depends on what you're into. strongman contests are pretty popular. Breaking isn't requiring strength, so I'm not sure where brute strength would come into play with martial arts overall except in a bery minor way with training.



and don't pay attention to the most important aspect of weapon training which is chi development.

I think personally, that chi development should not be the "focus" but rather the by-product of any training. Training with weapons is for developing the skill to use that weapon properly and effectively as a tool.
From my understanding, it is incorrect to regard the weapon as an "extension" of your arm, it isn't, it's a weapon and is designed to be used in a particular way to fit it's own form.
I also do not think that chi can be projected into an otherwise inanimate object. Strength, skill, speed and ability will guide a weapon to it's mark.

cheers

[count]

Originally posted by Dai Yoshida
As for the flimsy weapons, the whole point of weapons training is learning the proper transfer of chi from your limbs to the tip of the sword. A good sword should be flexible, balanced and be of proper weight in order to demonstrate this. Using too heavy of a sword will develop the wrong type of muscles. Using swords that are too light will not develop chi.

I personally frown at hurriedly done sword routines where I cannot hear a loud snap at every full extension. Without chi, you're just dancing.

I also think that anyone practicing with extra heavy and sharpened weapons as if they were training to be an executioner is missing the whole point.


Thankyou for your comments,

Again, this outlines another difference in the "how and why" you train. I agree and disagree with some of the things Kung Lek said in his post. Intent, yes but chi doesn't extend beyond living boundaries. In traditional martial arts, weapons training teaches you how to move your whole body as a coordinated unit. The heavier the weapon, the more alignment and strength required. If the weapon is sharp you obviously have to be more aware of your entire space. Weapons training is a way to understand more about fighting theory. Angles of attack and defense, timing and sensitivity, power issues. A weapon is an extension of the hand. spear techniques are done with the back hand and sword techniques are done with the front hand. Training heavy long pole or sword add power to your techniques.

I agree with some of your concepts of Chi development. I also admire what you are doing for those kids. But it's those choreographed sets with the emphasis on snap that look like dancing to me. Without Chi, you are dead.

[Shaolin-Do]

Most modern wushu schools I have seen will even admit to the fact that they practice for show. for flashiness, for competition. Completely agree with count on the fact that training with heavier weapons is excellent for power development. I also agree with WD that one major difference that lies between kung fu and wushu is the type of training and the specific training goals in mind. I dont think anyone here directly disrespects wushu, I know for one that I couldnt do half that flashy sh!t, but it is not my goal nor intent.

[GLW]

Got to hand it to Count on that one...

The snap...sometimes is appropriate and other times NOT.

For example, a popping up (Beng) with a straightsword (Jian) should have a snap. It is intended to nick the opponent from beneath AND as a block...as such, a snap does the cutting if the blade is truly sharp.

Tzu (excuse the spelling) or thrust should have power but a snap of the blade may just prevent the blade from entering the opponent.

Each technique has its own expression of power. While it IS difficult to get snap in all techniques, not all techniques should have a noticeable snap.

[Dai Yoshida]

Originally posted by GLW
Got to hand it to Count on that one...

The snap...sometimes is appropriate and other times NOT.

For example, a popping up (Beng) with a straightsword (Jian) should have a snap. It is intended to nick the opponent from beneath AND as a block...as such, a snap does the cutting if the blade is truly sharp.

Tzu (excuse the spelling) or thrust should have power but a snap of the blade may just prevent the blade from entering the opponent.

Each technique has its own expression of power. While it IS difficult to get snap in all techniques, not all techniques should have a noticeable snap.

You misunderstand. The snap does not come from flicking the weapon. With proper transfer of chi to the tip of the sword, the sword will snap regardless of whether you thrust, cut or push. This comes from the vibration of the tip not because you physically manipulated the weapon.

An easy way to understand this is the "grouding force" of Chen Taiji. Foot stomp combined with the quick rotation of the waist causes the attacking palm to vibrate.

This type of energy transfer is drilled in to Cha Chuan stylist from the second basic form, "Dao Sui" or the vibrating punch form. Quick foward step in horse stance combined with full extension of the arm causes the natural snap back of the muscle harmonized with the quick rotation of the waist resulting in the "shaking fist".

It is somewhat similar to the stomping punch of Bajichuan except the focus with Baji is in the sole of the feet and less on the extended arm.

[Dai Yoshida]

To add to my last post:

This is not meant to be a put down on people who study styles which traditionally practice with solid weapons.

As I've said before, modern wushu is a second cousin of traditional Cha Chuan. The weapon technique used by modern stylist, if done properly, is derived directly from Cha and Hua style. The principal may or may not translate to Shaolin based systems.

[Dai Yoshida]

Yikes!

I made a big boo-boo!

Reading back my original post I notice that I called Tsai Long-Yun, Wang Long-Yun. What was I thinking.

Forgive me, "God-Dragon"

[GLW]

snap and vibrate / energy release are two different things in most people's minds...

What comes to mind for snap in most would be the flexing of the blade and the wave motion down the blade making the noise.

In use, for example in a thrust, such a flexing of the blade would prevent the blade from penetrating the target.

If what you are meaning is the vibration down the blade as the energy travels the length...OK...

There IS a clear distinction. However, many Contemporary competitors not only use the flimsy weapon to make their routine SEEM better than it is...but they also loosen up the workings of the flimsy weapon.

then again, I have also seen Traditional folks that do the same thing...it is not too much different from the Karate guys going to compete wearing a starched uniforn...so they can pop it.

[Golden Arms]

Can someone also please explain to me what is up with those "staff" like things that go from ~ 1 and 1/2" , tapering to like 1/4" at the end?...I would rather someone doing Japanese forms use a balsa wood pole than for them to try and pass off those things as weapons. I respect what wushu competitors can do acrobatically, but trying to pass off the use of those weapons as combat training, is like pretending that Brittney Spears can rap.

[GLW]

Older rules required that the staff be up to at least the bend of the elbow when the arm was above the head.

They backed off of that and now they allow to be as short as head height.

Along with that, they went from the larger spear heads to those little bitty things... And they allowed the staff to be thinner...no minimum specified.

Recently, China began mandating the weight and height of swords more strictly. The competition ones are actually not bad for Traditional work...but NOT the junk that is used in most competitions outside of China.

They have not gotten around to specifying the staff and spear...but probably will.

The toothpicks are pretty gross and feed into the win at any cost mentality.

They also tend to shatter and break more. The rules stipulate that there is a single deduction for breaking the weapon. I have actually seen a competitor from the Shanghai Chinwoo Assoc. destroy 3 staves in a row...and get a single deduction and STILL win because she was just so much better than everyone else. however, if there had been a deduction for EACH breakage, she would have lost...and been more careful AND chosen a weapon that would stand up to her level.

[Dai Yoshida]

Originally posted by Golden Arms
Can someone also please explain to me what is up with those "staff" like things that go from ~ 1 and 1/2" , tapering to like 1/4" at the end?...I would rather someone doing Japanese forms use a balsa wood pole than for them to try and pass off those things as weapons. I respect what wushu competitors can do acrobatically, but trying to pass off the use of those weapons as combat training, is like pretending that Brittney Spears can rap.

To answer your question, it is not combat training. It never was and does not pretend to be.

Again, it comes down to why you do what you do.

Carrying a sword is illegal in most major cities. In my town, use a nunchaku or a 3 sectional and go to jail. I have a hard time getting a staff to fit in my Camry. Most weapons we practice are useless for self-defense.

Why do we train with horse cutters. Recent trend among highway bandids who would be attacking my merchant caravan seems to be that they would not be on horseback.

You can't tell me that a 75 lb. monk spade will save me in a dark alley.

Weapon training develops chi, coordination, assessing distance, understanding the use of leverage and the proper muscles needed to execute empty hand self defense technique effectively.

If the weapon techniques I learn along the way can allow me to pick up a stick or a chain off the street and defend myself, that's a plus. But I wouldn't be dissapointed if I never get a chance to kill a mugger.

At some point we need to look in the mirror and say,"I am not a kung fu warrior. I am a 43 year old accountant with wife and kids."

[Fred Sanford]

ok now I have to call bull$hit.

the first sentence of your first post.


I'm rather annoyed with people making assumption that modern wushu is ineffective as a fighting art

then we get this.


To answer your question, it is not combat training. It never was and does not pretend to be.

then this.....


At some point we need to look in the mirror and say,"I am not a kung fu warrior. I am a 43 year old accountant with wife and kids."

speak for yourself. Some people have jobs where it doesn't hurt to know a little martial arts.

[Dai Yoshida]

Originally posted by Fred Sanford
ok now I have to call bull$hit.

the first sentence of your first post.



then we get this.



then this.....



speak for yourself. Some people have jobs where it doesn't hurt to know a little martial arts.

The question was regarding the validity of training with non-lethal weapons.

You need to follow along Fred.

[taijiquan_student]

Just curious, what is the weight requirement for jian in China now? Historically, jian were 1 1/2 to 2 lbs. (except of course for some extra-heavy training swords--bagua for instance).

Training with one of those flimsy wushu pieces of junk does nothing to train your fajing or mechanics or anything.

"As for the flimsy weapons, the whole point of weapons training is learning the proper transfer of chi from your limbs to the tip of the sword. A good sword should be flexible, balanced and be of proper weight in order to demonstrate this. Using too heavy of a sword will develop the wrong type of muscles. Using swords that are too light will not develop chi."

Exactly. But those flimsy modern wushu swords are much too flexible. They are usually too light (old jian were around 1 1/2 to 2 lbs). If you've ever handled a real sword you know that those light-weight tin-foil pieces of junk are useless. On a real sword, it takes good "sung" and mechanics to do a nice snappy tiao (beng), but it doesn't take much of anything to make one of those spring-steel "swords" shake.

What's with this thread anyway? Modern Wushu is by definition not a combat art. What the he11. How could we even be arguing this? Modern Wushu trains for one thing, old wushu trains for another. If you want to do modern wushu that's cool, and it takes hard training and skill to be able to do it right, but don't go trying to claim it trains you for fighting.

[Tiger_Yin]

but kung lek your post made me want to pin you down and hurl at you... this has gotten to old an arguement.. just like mma and traditional kungfu. Wushu is altogether chinese martial arts. True to say most people train it for acrobatics now a days... but in china everybody who goes to a wushu school knows how to and most probably will beat the living crap out of you in a matter of seconds. I was lucky enough to get taught by a former mainland champion named Zhangbin and my teacher here Yannick. They were good friends in the beijing sports Univ back in 95 or somewhere around there. Yan is purely a wushu player... and hes showed people areound quebec that the wushu u see in comps CAN and WILL be danm good in a fight if u do it right. As for someone mentioning that he would liek to see a wushu person fight with his style... i pitty anyone fighting somebody who does fanzi chuan or eagle claw or anything around that... just because it looks good and it hard to do doesnt mean its not effective... hell.. a good huricain kick can knock out anyone and its pulled faster by my friends then some guys can pull a roundhouse in a local tkd place.

See wushu as a speed focused martial arts.. because most do and love practicing qi qong... its a part of class... like dai said... wushu is more then the looks.. cause if u say it liek that then hell shaolin is jsut a bunch of watered down wushu wanna bes eh :)

Peace!

[Brad]

Modern Wushu is by definition not a combat art. What the he11. How could we even be arguing this?
And Taijiquan is only for health. And kungfu is no good because kungfu guys get their asses kicked in UFC :rolleyes:

[Dai Yoshida]

Geez, what have I started.

Can we possibly do this without the hostility and name calling?

Hey Count, I thought this was a friendly forum.

[Brad]

Exactly. But those flimsy modern wushu swords are much too flexible. They are usually too light (old jian were around 1 1/2 to 2 lbs). If you've ever handled a real sword you know that those light-weight tin-foil pieces of junk are useless. On a real sword, it takes good "sung" and mechanics to do a nice snappy tiao (beng), but it doesn't take much of anything to make one of those spring-steel "swords" shake.
And how much does a real sword cost? BTW, the new competition standard swords are quite a bit heavier than the cheaper tin-foil ones, and well balanced(at least the one I have is). I think GLW has mentioned the new weapons in this thread somewhere, maybe you should go back and re-read some stuff.


If you want to do modern wushu that's cool, and it takes hard training and skill to be able to do it right, but don't go trying to claim it trains you for fighting.
Sorry bud, but it's been proven, to me at least, that it can be used in street self defence situations and against trained opponents in full contact fighting. People I was close to have used it for both. Whether or not I can make it work as well remains to be seen, it depends on how much hard time and effort I put into it. I'm not going to lie just because some stranger on a message board doesn't like it.

[Stacey]

wushu= dance

It gives girls a nice body and gives guys the chance to dress in flashy, gay outfits and float around. By holding weapons they can pretend to be warriors instead of the mariposas that they really are.

[count]

Originally posted by Dai Yoshida
Geez, what have I started.

Can we possibly do this without the hostility and name calling?

Hey Count, I thought this was a friendly forum.

LMAO:D This is tame. I thought we were having a friendly discussion.;) Again, as I started, welcome to KFO.;)

[Fred Sanford]

modern wushu = doo doo

[aedolon]

I have been observing these boards for couple weeks, but I haven't had the need to partake the discussion. But now... this thread just makes me angry. This discussion is filled with bias and prejudice and even sheer lies!

What is "wushu" or "traditional wushu"? The answer is simple: Chinese martial arts. The essence of modern wushu is very similar to traditional. The ONLY difference actually lies in competitions. However, it must be kept in mind, that the competitions are not the goal of wushu. They are only a way to compete.

Unfortunately the sad fact is that many schools - maybe even most of them - train their students only for competitions. They only teach the compulsory forms and train with the "tinfoil" swords. The practical applications of the movements are laid aside and inner part - which is very important in all wushu - is not tought at all. Of course, this kind of "wushu" has no use in real combat. But this has nothing to do with the real essence of wushu (or "modern wushu", if you like). (However, unlike some of you have mentioned, every single move and stance in competitive forms have a practical application in real life combat and self-defence.)

How about the "effectiveness" then? Wushu - even "modern wushu" with quite some emphasis on taolu competitions - is very effective. As effective as any kung fu. But modern wushu - especially pure taolu - is not the easy way to become a good fighter. If that is what you want, practice Krav Maga or Kickboxing or something else. Modern wushu is very difficult, but the potential in it is awesome.

Those tinfoil swords... They are used in taolu competitions and sometimes in (chi) practice, nothing more. I mainly train with real swords (not sharp, of course) and real gun staffs.

If you disagree with my understanding of what modern wushu really is, please - for your own sake - find a new sifu. If you still think it is just a nice dance, well... what can I say? It only shows what you know.

[Christopher M]

I think it's inappropriate, or at least a waste of time, to be discussing whether or not something someone else does is ineffective.

We should content ourselves to note and agree that two things are different, and then continue on in respect for, or at least acceptance of, their differences.

[Brad]

modern wushu = doo doo
Way to contribute intellegently to the conversation Fred lol ;)

Dai Yoshida,
Most of the people here are pretty friendly and intellegent, but this is a big forum so there is the occasional first grader who finds there way on here... like our friend Fred ;) For those who are complete idiots and more or less useless when it comes to conversation, there is an ignore list that you can add them too.

[Shaolin-Do]

Do you kick bags or anything in wushu?
Is there any type of body conditioning? (apart from the enormous cardio and flexibility whatnots)

[GLW]

Depends on the teacher...

If the teacher has a traditional bent...meaning they do more than just compulsories...

There are methods for training the body. If you do Ditang, you HAVE To have methods to train falling. If you do two person sets, you need to train taking hits...they DO happen.

The problem with all of this is TIME.

A typical class outside of China may be 2 hours long...MAYBE 2.5 or 3...

Warm ups and basic stance work - 45 minutes
Basic techniques - 45 minutes (lots and lots of kicking drills, punching drills, line work, jumping drills...drill and drill)

Routines - 30 minutes to an hour...(now you are at 2 to 2.5 hours)

If you do conditioning - you do it After the drills and before routines. If you do bag work or striking work, it is before conditioning and after the drills.

This is NOT the only way but an example...

So, when you have people doing this in China, they go for 3 or 4 hours...and often 2 times a day..so they train 6 to 8 hours a day..and one day rest a week.

Not too many people pull that kind of training in ANYTHING in the US.

[Shaolin-Do]

Just playing devils advocate but :
Dont olympic figure skaters train for 8 hours a day? Cant they jump as high and do twirls? But can they fight?
We have no question as to wheather or not wushu players are athletes, or dedicated to what they do. But, without proper conditioning a hit is going to be ineffective, and all the velocity on that hurricane kick is going to break your leg. Speed is good, but without power its not going to do very much for you. As is, exactly how and why we condition. Without proper conditioning, no wushu would not be a fighting art. It would be kung fu dancing, Fancy and high flying, but not made to fight. If a wushu school trains power, fa jin, iron palm, ect, Then it would be much more a legitemate art, but none that I know of or have heard of train these things.

[Shaolin-Do]

"Then it would be much more a legitemate art"
Pardon me, fighting style.

[Lao_Peng_You]

Shaolin-Do
Devil's advocate:
What's Shaolin-Do? Are you an authority on effective fighting now because you are a prolific poster? Do you consider what Shaolin-Do does is effective fighting because they play patty-cake and spend a lot of time stroking their egos? Do you feel that the forms you learned, from tai chi to a tiger form, have no distinction from one another, but still seem worthwhile to learn? Do you guys still fight in a straight line, teerering back and forth in a predictable rythm, no footwork, and with your hands in maybe the worst posistion you can imagine? Hey, this critisizing from distance is easy!

[Shaolin-Do]

Lol
what a *******. I never directly critisized his system, or any system directly for that matter. I gave an instance and an example, and you misunderstood, and made an ass of yourself. And to speak on my fighting ability, is a truly, truly ignorant thing. Yes, I walk the pa kua circle right across and back.... Its really a line, but they tell us its a circle. We are just that ignorant to believe them. We dont spar, we dont train. We sit around, and talk about how deadly we are. Thats it. I bought everything in my gym at home to impress women. Ive been found out. Maybe I should go back to my hole and hide..... right next to you. And criticize from a distance.

[KC Elbows]

I came to the decision a while back that this is an impossible discussion to come to a conclusion on. For some really obvious reasons that never get brought up.

Which wushu are we talking about? The first standardized chang chuan? Mantis? The straight sword? The chen style? Later alterations?

I learned a wushu long fist set ages ago. Now I'm not a very longfisty sort of person, though I enjoyed the form. It was an early standardized form, and it is my understanding that this was what was decided was the standard moves of intermediate longfist, that one would be hard pressed to find a longfist style without the bulk of these movements as their core. Subsequent research has proven this estimation correct to me. I've never seen a long fist routine that didn't have this same core.

To get the competition version of this form, you threw aerial manuevers in at certain spots. That was the only distinction.

I have a strong suspicion that, had no one ever seen this form, and some guy came out of some village and did it, people would have just said "Hey look, another longfist style. Of course, it's not nearly so good as my longfist style, but that's okay.":D

We learned all the aps, we hit the bag, we sparred with this longfist, and it worked like longfist is supposed to work, judging from the estimation of other longfist stylists.

I'm not sure than anyone here can put forward a criterion by which I should call that form anything but a valid kung fu fighting form, though I'm sure there's no shortage of those who would try.

The same teacher was running a class that my friend walked into one day where they were doing a broadsword form. My friend noticed it was different than what he learned from the same teacher, and asked when he would learn it. I don't recall the exact wording, but the teacher inferred that it was not a fighting set in that state, it was pure demo. But the form my friend did learn was a fighting set, he knows all the applications, and he spars as many different fencers, both western and eastern, as he can using it, and seems to do very well. But THAT broadsword form is also a modern compilation of shaolin broadsword techniques.

So here we have two sword sets, both what others would call contemporary wushu, one for fighting and demo(again, by just throwing aerials into the form), one solely for demo, a martial dance so to speak. And a longfist set that is used for fighting and demo. All from the same teacher, all learned from the standardized curriculum, and only one of those forms fitting simply into people's cookie cutter vision of wushu.

And, once again, we have a group of people doing a demo broadsword form that do not claim to be doing anything but.

Later, I met another, younger wushu teacher, whose externals were even more flashy, who had more non-martial forms. This person was a younger generation of wushu artist, and so had younger sets. And again, she made no claims about fighting ability, although I've seen some evidence that she has some contact knowledge.

It seems that wushu practitioners seem to be just doing what they love, and most make no big claims, even though some of them undoubtedly have the same fighting sets I've seen. When people "speak out" and don't seem to realize that there are fighting sets out there that qualify as PRC stuff, I just sort of chalk it up to them not being familiar with what's out there, or not realizing that wushu has changed over time.

Anyway, it's a pointless argument, as there is no one wushu, no matter how much the PRC would like there to be.

[GLW]

nice post KC...

Sd:
“ But, without proper conditioning a hit is going to be ineffective, and all the velocity on that hurricane kick is going to break your leg. Speed is good, but without power its not going to do very much for you. “

And your point is???

This applies to ANY person doing ANY martial art. This is not a Contemporary vs. Traditional issue since you can do 100% OLD forms and never hit anything and never do body conditioning…and what do you have?


“If a wushu school trains power, fa jin, iron palm, ect, Then it would be much more a legitemate art, but none that I know of or have heard of train these things.”

Then you have NOT been around much. They ARE out there.

[KC Elbows]

Thanks GLW.

I'd also have to agree, I learned some cool iron arm and leg from my old teacher, it was paired with the chang chuan set.

It's a stereotype. Of course some people are going to fit the stereotype. However, even the stereotype here doesn't include unjustified claims of invincibility. The stereotype of the modern traditionalist, sadly, does.

[Shaolin-Do]

I said that I know of.
And as for that, I was giving a contrast between what would be a fighting art and what would be more theatrical wushu.

This applies to ANY person doing ANY martial art.

Show me where I said any differently.

Then you have NOT been around much. They ARE out there.

Well no sh!t. Given san antonio's veritable garden of TCM, Im sure I should have seen several wushu schools. I never downed wushu. Modern wushu in most part is however, Theater kung fu. I even said in another post something about the fact that they learn kicks and punches and whatnot which are what? fighting techniques?
Why do you feel the need to be belligerant?

[Dai Yoshida]

Originally posted by Shaolin-Do
Do you kick bags or anything in wushu?
Is there any type of body conditioning? (apart from the enormous cardio and flexibility whatnots)

Depends on the teacher. Many coaches from China who teach long fists were actually Taiji form competitors. They're not too big on bag works and body conditioning. At the same time, I have seen other coaches from China with deformed nuckles developed from hitting tree trunks.

Roger Tung introduced Modern Wushu to the US. He invested a lot of class time on bags and sparring. His senior student Eric Chen added a lot of new methods he learned from the professional teams in China. Alan Liu was a student of Eric Chen and his class spends considreable time on bag training. Lineage matters even in modern wushu.

As for the large number of guys who bought a few videos and decided they were wushu teachers, I can't begin to guess what they are teaching.

[Shaolin-Do]

Ah. If whatever lineage you are learning teaches fighting applications and hits bags and conditions and whatnot, then it would be a legitemate fighting style, LIKE I ALREADY SAID (not to you, to others trying to troll)
And as I have said on other threads, Im sure 80% of the people on these forums couldnt do half of the high flying sh!t. i know I couldnt, least not without some serious work. :)

[KC Elbows]

SD,
I wasn't trying to dog you, I was thinking out loud and commenting on what I know as someone who actually has been in multiple wushu schools, if only a member at one at one point.

My experience is that most wushu schools that don't concentrate on fighting don't have students who pretend their badasses except as athletes, not fighters, but that I've seen at best, a 50-50 split, as far as PRC trained wushu athletes, where at least half that I've met actively teach and can apply their applications and arts, and probably more than half, as some I've met seem to disdain teaching fighting, but appear to know some about it.

I'm willing to bet I'd be hard pressed to find a better ratio at a fair sample of supposedly traditional schools.

[Shaolin-Do]

GLW's comment was the snyde remark. Not yours. I dont even give a f*ck tho. Just came back from a nice stoney lunch to see people trolling, shouldnt surprise me.
dont worry about it.
:cool:

[GLW]

SD:

Sorry if you took offense...

While San Antonio is NOT a mecca of Chinese styles, it is NOT that far from Houston...where there ARE a number of qualfied Chinese Style instuctors to choose from...and some of those do teach Contemporary AND Classical Wushu in the traditional manner.

However, those traditional teachers tend to be VERY traditional about applications. Some won't mention much about the HOW of training the movement unless your have very very good basics.

From that old school, to teach too much on applications too soon will have bad results. Either the student will go out and try to use it immediately....which could cause legal problems for a teacher in China (the teacher was responsible for the deeds of the student), they may focus on the application and NOT on improving their basics and thereby stunt their development, they may get injured by trying to do something that they are not ready for yet...etc... So, even in some of the schools that teach both, you may not see the applications if you just walk in. those classes may very well be by invitation only. I have known some teachers that had students that did not even know those other classes existed...until they were invited to join in. I have also known teachers that started to teach applications, the group in the class did NOT follow the teachers instructions - they tried to push too far to fast - and siad teacher cancelled the class (stating "Well, if YOU ALL already KNOW how to fight, I SURELY don't need to waste my time teaching you...")

[Ben Gash]

The whole thing makes me laugh sometimes. I have seen many "traditional" schools that "never spar because the art is too deadly" "don't spar- it's a traditional fighting art and not suitable for sport" or who do spar and just look like bad kickboxers. As GLW has said, bad training is bad training. As for the tinfoil weapons, I actually often prefer them as the construction and balance is usually better than the heavier ones that are readily available. Also many of the "traditional" weight ones are actually far too heavy when compared to historical swords.
One thing that no-one's mentioned is the taijiquan. These forms are very traditional (speaking from a Yang point of view many of the differences are only those you'd expect between lineages) and the 32 step taijijian is one of the best fighting sword sets I know.