Kung fu sparring, just thought

[bungle]

This has occured to me before but from reading some comment from some grapplers i thought i better refresh your memories. Kung fu was developed as a system for defending against all sorts of different attacks including those of knives and weapons. The style of sparring and fighting therefore needs to account for this and so is slightly more rigid in the forms of attack and defense.

This basically means that if you shoot for somones legs and they have a knife, they'll stab you. What i mean is that most forms of kung fu developed ways of fighting that elminated these potential risks by not taking risks such as shooting or running in and wildly pounding. This is the most obvious reason why kung fu practioners do not enter sporting compeitions such as ufc and the like. The fact is too, kung fu guys in general aren't training as sports men.

Don't forget too that they profess to help with self defense and not to make you the greatest warrior in all situations and competitions.

[chen zhen]

Modern Kung Fu practicioners in the western world does'nt think like they did in ancient china, and fighting is different nowadays, different weapons in the streets, etc.

[ewallace]

Yeah, most grapplers are pretty dumb. Especially the MMA guys. I know that if someone pulled a knife or a shotgun on me, I'd sit back in a cat stance or rhino looks at the moon. :rolleyes:

[MasterKiller]

Standing up and fighting has it place; grappling and ground-fighting has it's place. If you want to be prepared to handle most situations, you better be proficient in both.

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by bungle
This has occured to me before but from reading some comment from some grapplers i thought i better refresh your memories.

Man, I love posts that start this way. The implication that we don't really have a difference of opinions. It's just that we've forgotten (or never knew) something that the current poster understands thoroughly. Presumption: It's what's for dinner.


Kung fu was developed as a system for defending against all sorts of different attacks including those of knives and weapons. The style of sparring and fighting therefore needs to account for this and so is slightly more rigid in the forms of attack and defense.

Then kung fu was also developed to address attacks like the shoot for the legs. And yet kung fu fighters still get taken down by these things. Not automatically. But it happens frequently enough. So why should defending against knives and weapons be any different?


This basically means that if you shoot for somones legs and they have a knife, they'll stab you. What i mean is that most forms of kung fu developed ways of fighting that elminated these potential risks by not taking risks such as shooting or running in and wildly pounding.

So do you think that kung fu's battlefield origins guarantee your safety (or even survival) in a fight with a knife-wielding assailant?


This is the most obvious reason why kung fu practioners do not enter sporting compeitions such as ufc and the like.

Oft quoted, yes. Obvious, not really. And compelling? Absolutely not.


The fact is too, kung fu guys in general aren't training as sports men.

Very true.


Don't forget too that they profess to help with self defense and not to make you the greatest warrior in all situations and competitions.

Can you point to a verifiable track history of success in self defense though? I don't mean the annals of history either. I mean contemporary accounts of successful self defense. Versus knives? Other weapons?


Stuart B.

[shaolinboxer]

"Kung fu was developed as a system for defending against all sorts of different attacks including those of knives and weapons. The style of sparring and fighting therefore needs to account for this and so is slightly more rigid in the forms of attack and defense."

That is true. There seem to be several factors motivating the creation of forms (be they long solo forms, or partnered rhythm forms, or things like push hands or ju-waza).

1) safety
2) continuity
3) solidarity
4) persuit of personal develpment

[Suntzu]

:D

Be more prepared than the obstacles you may face... if the obstacle has a gun.......... run...

[Black Jack]

IMO if you put a knife in the hands of a determined grappler certain standup and mounted positional grappling moves take on a far nastier outlook. Give that grappler some FMA or Military based knife training on top of that and you have a very dangerous animal.

[ewallace]

Well said BJ.

[red5angel]

IMO if you put a knife in the hands of a determined (insert martial approach here) certain (insert various martial techniwues here) moves take on a far nastier outlook. Give that martial artist some FMA or Military based knife training on top of that and you have a very dangerous animal.

;)

[Suntzu]

IMO u give a knife to someone that wants to slice you into tiny lil bloody slivers… u will be fu(ked…

[chen zhen]

Also well-said;) :p

[ewallace]

Who do you think would win in a fight between Bruce lee and Emeril? Bam!










Emeril would cut Royce like an onion.

[Suntzu]

Emeril rd 2 1:05 by extra splash of hot spices…… BAM *applause*

[bungle]

ok some people are reading stuff into how i phrased my point. I'm not trying to come across as arrogant. I said kung fu helps with self defense. It can help like fitness can help or pumping iron. Modern day methods of fighting are probaly more useful for todays society.

Kung fu was developed a long time ago and things have change; guns! Also, in less lawful times there would be more crime and wider use of various weapons.

I really don't care whether kung fu helps me with self defense. I'm probaly never gonna be in a fight. I just thought i'd mention that historically the reason kung fu is lacking in the old ground fighting techniques is because weapons were more widely used by both defender and attacker.

Who cares about self defence? I was just making a point about what might of affected the development of kung fu.

[Shaolin-Do]

Who do you think would win in a fight between Bruce lee and Emeril? Bam!
Emeril would cut Royce like an onion.

:confused: :confused: :confused:
Where did royce come from?
stage left?

[shaolin kungfu]

He was prepared a hour ahead of time, so that the audience wouldn't have to wait.

[Shaolin-Do]

lol....
oh man.
that was stupidly funny.
bahahaha....

[SifuAbel]

Just to play devils advocate here. Let me first start by stating that I don't really agree with bungles idea. The current condition of CMA in america is not a barometer to CMA in the entire world. CMA is starting to really suck here thanks to the proliferation of Mckwoons. The good fighting stock is being channeled elsewhere, Its not kung fu's fault.

This thread shows how things haven't changed much. This board is still droaning on endlessly with the strikers vs. grapplers mantra. Which is funny to me since the professional sports idealizing this are now very mixed and are not dominated by any one in particular.

To be fair.......





Then kung fu was also developed to address attacks like the shoot for the legs. And yet kung fu fighters still get taken down by these things. Not automatically. But it happens frequently enough. So why should defending against knives and weapons be any different?


I hope this is just more than the usual handfull of clips online(of which some are 10 years old). Otherwise please state where all these fights are happpening. As far as getting taken down is concerned, grapplers get taken down 90% of the time. I know its what you want to happen but it is the number. And 50 % of the time(only one wins a match) it leads to a loss. As time goes on, more and more will have better take down or grappling defenses. That is the whole point about keeping styles secret. If the enemy knows what you are going to do, eventually, that element of surprise is lost and that makes the fighter predictable. They'll catch on eventually, come to think of it they may already have.




So do you think that kung fu's battlefield origins guarantee your safety (or even survival) in a fight with a knife-wielding assailant?


History doesn't guarantee anything. This stems into the same old mistaking the person for the style. Just like being a gracie fan doesn't guarantee one's survival either. Its kind of a non-issue.



Can you point to a verifiable track history of success in self defense though? I don't mean the annals of history either. I mean contemporary accounts of successful self defense. Versus knives? Other weapons?


This one is self serving. What is the annals of history? 100 years ago? Last week? And if told of a rescent event will you just accept it or will you try to disprove it to support your arguement? And the same can be asked of the other camp. How many MMA guys have been in a street situtation lately? How would we know? Word of mouth? Does royce have an on staff camera man following him into every disco bathroom? Is every crackhead in town doing (X)MA too? On this subject both camps are completely equal.


It seems to be for breakfast too......:D

[No_Know]

Doing Kung-Fu does not necessarily mean getting everything out of it that can be gotten.

I wouldn't show my Kung-Fu even in a fight, because stereotypically one is not supposed to. But it helps to allow me to fight~ to the level of whomever, in the style of whatever. -ish

No_Knowing every level, No_Knowing each person, and not necessarily knowing every style, my arrogance allows me to have this general concept/belief.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

i have not ready this thread but i thought i might post tech notes directly from one of our customer's accounts:

Problem: jesus christ

Solution: jesus christ

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

hell im gonna make a thread just about this guys tech notes .... check it out ... you wont be disapointed i promise.

[Laughing Cow]

Here is my take on this topic.

Most MA (regardless of origin place) were developed primarily for the Battle field and similar encounters.

IMHO, pure H2H always played second fiddle to weapons combat, kind of like a backup option if you lost your weapon.
SD never was a primary purpose of any MA.

As for the traditional vs modern weapon aspect, I say BS.

Guys in the past didn't carry their weapons around with them any more than we do with modern ones and if so at the most a knife or sword, for sure no kwan dao or similar weapon.
Plenty of places never allowed anybody to enter with a weapon.

As for the tough guys walking around fighting and killing people, there still was a police and law enforcement than and people were dealt with similar as to today, most likely punishment was harsher.

Most of the old cultures relegated warriors and martial artists as low as beggars or lower, and most were rather uncultured or only schooled in warfare and suitable conduct.
Many a MA had to take up street performance using his MA skill to earn a living and often were forbidden from residing at one place for any length of time. Vagabonds, swords for higher was more the standard for the averag emartial Artists and many didn't mind "bending" the law a bit for their own benefit.

In short I see a lot of people trying to make combat arts into self defense arts which, IMO, most of the times will fail.

Cheers.

[No_Know]

" Kung fu was developed as a system for defending against all sorts of different attacks including those of knives and weapons. The style of sparring and fighting therefore needs to account for this and so is slightly more rigid in the forms of attack and defense."

Kung-Fu is more elaborate than a twenty technique routine. Theoretically, not everyone dealt with knives especially or in particular, in their style or even System and certainly not every form.

And since the forms were individual to specific situations So-many people certain styles; so many people, particular weapons...certain skill level, certain skills...not every thing kung fu was considered directed at knife wielder.

Perhaps some-might think.

[Brad]

This one is self serving. What is the annals of history? 100 years ago? Last week? And if told of a rescent event will you just accept it or will you try to disprove it to support your arguement? And the same can be asked of the other camp. How many MMA guys have been in a street situtation lately? How would we know? Word of mouth? Does royce have an on staff camera man following him into every disco bathroom? Is every crackhead in town doing (X)MA too? On this subject both camps are completely equal.
I agree, this kind of stuff is unprovable and won't make a difference to anyone's perception either way(unless it was miraculously caught on film :P). My coach has used modern wushu in street self defence situations but will my testimony cause people to stop saying modern wushu is garbage and useless in a fight? I doubt it. Same goes for you traditionalists that know your stuff works.

[apoweyn]

SifuAbel,


History doesn't guarantee anything. This stems into the same old mistaking the person for the style. Just like being a gracie fan doesn't guarantee one's survival either. Its kind of a non-issue.

That's precisely my point. And just so we're clear, I'm not much of a Gracie fan.



This one is self serving. What is the annals of history? 100 years ago? Last week? And if told of a rescent event will you just accept it or will you try to disprove it to support your arguement?

It may well have been self serving. I'm not sure. But the whole point of asking for recent events is that there's more evidence to work from. If you cite the exploits of a hero hundreds of years ago, there's really only the account to go on. As you get more and more contemporary, there's more and more information to work with. I'm going to put more stock in the accuracy of a news account (although biased) than in the accuracy of a folktale. And more stock in personal experience than a news account. Etc.

That's the appeal of martial arts events like MMA. I know they aren't reality. But we can watch them. We're not relying on second-hand information all the time. It closes down some of the opportunities for distortion (not necessarily deliberate distortion either).

So I wouldn't accept it or disprove it to support my argument. I'm not furthering the cause of MMA here. My point is only that what happens happens. And that trying to predict or explain away what happens with history lessons doesn't really change the event itself. If kung fu is designed to help people defend against weapons, that doesn't really change whether person X was able to defend against weapon Y on any given day. It's not a guarantee.


And the same can be asked of the other camp. How many MMA guys have been in a street situtation lately? How would we know? Word of mouth? Does royce have an on staff camera man following him into every disco bathroom? Is every crackhead in town doing (X)MA too? On this subject both camps are completely equal.

Absolutely agreed. Again, I'm not hyping MMA here. But then, I don't hear MMA guys make many claims about self defense either. Not more than anyone else anyway. They know what they can do in the ring. And, as permissive as the ring is, it's still not real life. We all know this. But it's a question of our ability to corroborate claims. Joe BJJ claims that he can successfully defend himself once he's taken down. And, to a certain degree, he proves that in these events. Not entirely, because there are lots of factors missing in the ring. But it's something on which to base a judgment. All I'm recommending is that we apply that same sort of requirement on claims of proficiency against weapons, etc. Any evidence we get is likely to be imperfect (sparring ain't fighting), but it'd be something. I'd love to see footage of people in sparring drills versus plastic baseball bats, for example. It's not real life. But it's something we can all look at and make firsthand observations.



It seems to be for breakfast too......

Well, I wasn't saying what I think you think I was saying. So were you presumptious in thinking that? Or am I know being presumptious?

The wheel turns. Hakuna matata.

In all seriousness, I was too harsh on bungle's original post. I mistake I hope to rectify next.


Stuart B.

[apoweyn]

bungle,


Originally posted by bungle
ok some people are reading stuff into how i phrased my point.

That'd be me. Tone is tough to get across on the internet.
And I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. My apologies.


I'm not trying to come across as arrogant. I said kung fu helps with self defense. It can help like fitness can help or pumping iron. Modern day methods of fighting are probaly more useful for todays society.

Kung fu was developed a long time ago and things have change; guns! Also, in less lawful times there would be more crime and wider use of various weapons.

I really don't care whether kung fu helps me with self defense. I'm probaly never gonna be in a fight. I just thought i'd mention that historically the reason kung fu is lacking in the old ground fighting techniques is because weapons were more widely used by both defender and attacker.

Who cares about self defence? I was just making a point about what might of affected the development of kung fu.

I'm hoping to revisit this subject when I have more time. In the meantime, just wanted to say sorry about leaping on you. Mea culpa.


Stuart B.

[SifuAbel]

SifuAbel,



That's precisely my point. And just so we're clear, I'm not much of a Gracie fan.




It may well have been self serving. I'm not sure. But the whole point of asking for recent events is that there's more evidence to work from. If you cite the exploits of a hero hundreds of years ago, there's really only the account to go on. As you get more and more contemporary, there's more and more information to work with. I'm going to put more stock in the accuracy of a news account (although biased) than in the accuracy of a folktale. And more stock in personal experience than a news account. Etc.



Not everyone seems to be as fair as you, my friend. Not all of what is said, even here, is hundreds of years old. Why isn't it good enough when a student relates what his sifu did? Thats not hundreds of years old. It may not be related with the all the details or even be true. But it doesn't mean that something didn't happen. I could go the other way and tell of what my students have done. They may not have beat royce but they did well at "Bermuda Bar" and thats good enough for me. The news is an unreliable source for evidence too. Most fights are not reported. And the ones that are; are rarely caught on tape. Maybe a drunkem brawl caught on a police car camera.




That's the appeal of martial arts events like MMA. I know they aren't reality. But we can watch them. We're not relying on second-hand information all the time. It closes down some of the opportunities for distortion (not necessarily deliberate distortion either).


Actually its not information at all. There are many MMA fans that can't fight their way out of a paper bag. They don't train, they don't fight , they just watch, like a cartoon show. If the subject is weapons then I would have to a see an MMA knife fight to make it "information".





So I wouldn't accept it or disprove it to support my argument. I'm not furthering the cause of MMA here. My point is only that what happens happens. And that trying to predict or explain away what happens with history lessons doesn't really change the event itself. If kung fu is designed to help people defend against weapons, that doesn't really change whether person X was able to defend against weapon Y on any given day. It's not a guarantee.


Thats right, it doesn't guarantee success , nothing does. I don't think bungle was trying to say this. The point he was making was that , in theory, most Chinese fighters of the time didn't shoot in for fear of a weapon. I don't agree with this. Kung fu is very opportunistic. It uses whatever it takes to win. So if shooting in the leg is what it takes then you know it will be done. For example, The monkey styles that I know have many leg shoot variations.




Absolutely agreed. Again, I'm not hyping MMA here. But then, I don't hear MMA guys make many claims about self defense either. Not more than anyone else anyway.


Are you sure about that? They do say they are unbeatable, even though they lose 50% of the time.




All I'm recommending is that we apply that same sort of requirement on claims of proficiency against weapons, etc. Any evidence we get is likely to be imperfect (sparring ain't fighting), but it'd be something. I'd love to see footage of people in sparring drills versus plastic baseball bats, for example. It's not real life. But it's something we can all look at and make firsthand observations.


Actually, this kind of stuff is out there. But its usually met with the same old bloodlust retorts. "Oh they're not really hitting each other" "that looked rehearsed" "lets see him do that gainst (hero brand X)" Again more cartoon watchers say this but they never seems to have a better way themselves. Never does it seem to be appreciated for what it is, practice.

[red5angel]

I've used plastic baseball bats for some sparring type stuff. Those things can sting if you get hit right!

[apoweyn]

Originally posted by SifuAbel
Not everyone seems to be as fair as you, my friend. Not all of what is said, even here, is hundreds of years old. Why isn't it good enough when a student relates what his sifu did? Thats not hundreds of years old. It may not be related with the all the details or even be true. But it doesn't mean that something didn't happen. I could go the other way and tell of what my students have done. They may not have beat royce but they did well at "Bermuda Bar" and thats good enough for me. The news is an unreliable source for evidence too. Most fights are not reported. And the ones that are; are rarely caught on tape. Maybe a drunkem brawl caught on a police car camera.

Oh, I'm not going to call anyone a liar. If someone tells me that they used kung fu to defend against a machete, I'm not automatically figuring they're full of crap. My point was only that kung fu being 'designed' for use against weapons doesn't make one capable of defending against a machete. Though I think I may have lost the forest for the trees on that one.


Actually its not information at all. There are many MMA fans that can't fight their way out of a paper bag. They don't train, they don't fight , they just watch, like a cartoon show. If the subject is weapons then I would have to a see an MMA knife fight to make it "information".

It's information to certain viewers. Is Joe Spectator going to learn how to shoot by watching UFC? Probably not. But am I going to be able to recognize the openings a guy leaves, allowing the other guy to close and take him down? Yeah. Absolutely. I've been boxing and kicking long enough that I can learn something from watching what happens when someone else boxes and kicks. Same will hold for the grappling as I learn more about it.

It's not the same as actual instruction. But it is information.

As for the MMA knifefight, absolutely. Obviously, it would be sparring. But hopefully relatively freeform sparring.


Thats right, it doesn't guarantee success , nothing does. I don't think bungle was trying to say this. The point he was making was that , in theory, most Chinese fighters of the time didn't shoot in for fear of a weapon. I don't agree with this. Kung fu is very opportunistic. It uses whatever it takes to win. So if shooting in the leg is what it takes then you know it will be done. For example, The monkey styles that I know have many leg shoot variations.

Yeah. I don't think I gave bungle's point a fair shake. Mea culpa.


Are you sure about that? They do say they are unbeatable, even though they lose 50% of the time.

Well, the nameless 'they' say a lot of things. Some MMA guys are full of themselves. Others aren't. In my experience, the percentages of each aren't significantly different than in the rest of the MMA population.


Actually, this kind of stuff is out there. But its usually met with the same old bloodlust retorts. "Oh they're not really hitting each other" "that looked rehearsed" "lets see him do that gainst (hero brand X)" Again more cartoon watchers say this but they never seems to have a better way themselves. Never does it seem to be appreciated for what it is, practice.

True. I guess the bottom line is not that I like MMA more than kung fu. I have an admiration for both. But I'm a big believer in the scientific method being applied to martial arts. (As many traditionalists AND modernists are) So that it's not enough to say that style X was designed to do this. And style Y is great at that.

Does that make sense?

In any event, I didn't give bungle's original point enough merit.


Stuart B.