complete style

[travelsbyknight]

Someone said in another post, "BAk Mei is not a complete art beause it doesn't have grappling and ground figting."

I've heard that same comment applied to kung fu in general. Why doesn't anyone ever comment on how grappling styles lack the advanced striking methods that kung fu styles like bak mei have. Every K1/Pride fight i've ever seen featured a grappler that had "striking skills" but really only had rudimentary boxing skills.

Kung fu has grappling...but it is dressed up differently than the way styles like aikido and jujutsu do. IMHO, kung fu grappling is a hell of a lot more advanced than all of that aikido/jujutsu stuff put together.

[DeathTouch]

I totally agree with you , but i believe the problem lies with many sifu's who no longer take the time to break down the applications for their students any more. one of Kung Fu's best defense is the bow and arrow stance a very deep properly applied bow and arrow stance is one of the best counters to lets say a lunge to the legs many grapplers due when they go for your legs, you can elbow the back of the spine which is exposed or twist to your horse stance while stepping back which will thrust the opponent to the ground.

as well as many other applications. but i have always said kung fu is very well rounded its just many people dont have the expertise to use the technique's

[travelsbyknight]

That's what annoys me about kung fu forms. KArate uses the technique just like they are seen.

Southen Mantis does the same as karate but changes the angles. A style like hung gar is a mystery. I can discover my own techniques from kung fu forms more and more as I practice...but the stuff that my sifu comes up with blows my mind. It's going to be forever when I have enough knowledge to decipher forms.

For your technique to work you'd need a really strong bow and arrow. An old person wouldn't be able to stand up to the tackle of someone 300 pounds. Better to yield with the opponent instead of directly forcing his force with your own force.

[DeathTouch]

hey TK,

if u reread my post thats what i said is to yield with the opponent as he comes in thats why i emphasized the change of stance and as far as an old person shooot i doubt he will be able to grapple anybody as well, so he best resort to iron palm and more effective technique's if he were attacked but thats just me

[freehand]

My first art, my foundation, is kung fu san soo. It has planty of grappling, all Chinese techniques. More than just chin na, it does throws, sweeps, trips, hair grabs, etc. It look rather like jujitsu, only with hooks, claws, kicks and bites.

Say, does biting count as grappling? I never learned proper biting techniques in aikido :)

I was disappointed to realize that many kung fu styles seem as oblivious to grappling as most karate dojos I've seen.
_____________________
That's what annoys me about kung fu forms. KArate uses the technique just like they are seen.
____________________________

Some of the more subtle or complex moves would be more or less impossible to tease out on your own. Even many of the karate people do not know all of the moves in their forms, as simple as they seem. Many of their complex and even goofy-looking blocks (not naming any styles here...) may actually be arm wraps and elbow breaks, or a block and strike, not just a simple block with a windup. Sadly, some of the instructors no longer understand all of the moves in their arts.

Of course, this never happens with the kung fu arts, right?

...Right?

[Yum Cha]

I was told the story of a Pak Mei prize-fighter travelling around China in the 70's, who bought into a match against a huge Mongolian Wrestler. Things didn't go as well as planned, and he eventually ended up off his feet with his arms pinned in a front bear hug. He bit the wrestlers ear off.

In the following debate over the purse, the Wrestler's seconds were claiming that biting isn't Kung Fu. The Pak Mei fighter said "Everything is Kung Fu."

He got the purse.

[Ben Gash]

There's a movement in Chen Taijiquan involving a head roll, and one of the applications is biting your opponent's nipple off while in a headlock :eek:
The reason that Kung fu applications seem difficult to fathom for some is that the movement is often more important than the final posture. By breaking down these movements you can derive a hundred applications from a single movement.
For example, I can teach a whole class just on the applications of the bow.

[Shaolinlueb]

some of kung fu's techniques are hard to recognize, but they did that for a reason. they just didnt want anyone being able to learn kung fu. it was for the select people who wanted to practice and master it. karate is a lot more simple because they wanted to pass it on quickly.

[Ou Ji]

If that's true then way hasn't it changed by now? Why is there still so much mystery? Why not create WYSIWYG forms?

Personally, I think there were a few apps to each move and over the years more 'obscure' apps were added that have very little resemblence to the original moves. But that's just my opinion. :o

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by Shaolinlueb
some of kung fu's techniques are hard to recognize, but they did that for a reason. they just didnt want anyone being able to learn kung fu. it was for the select people who wanted to practice and master it. karate is a lot more simple because they wanted to pass it on quickly.

In the present day, don't you think that's only hurt CMA?

[SevenStar]

Following is my reply to this same question when it was asked on the main forum - dunno how I looked this one over... for future reference, don't crosspost.


I've been MIA for a few days, so this may have been said, but no, the kung fu grappling is not more advanced. When you have someone who ONLY trains grappling, vs. someone who trains grappling, weapons, striking, etc. whom do you think will be more advanced? the one that's specialized. he'll be better at applying it too, most likely. Also, having some intricate, advanced looking technique only means that it's probably that much harder to actually apply also.

As for your striking question, you don't need pressure point strikes, animal hands or the like to have effective strikes. jab, cross, hook, uppercut, stabbing elbow, cross elbow, diagonal elbow, etc...with those strikes, I can hit you from any angle that you can hit me from. Basics are invaluable.

also, locking can be considered grappling. CMA tends to be called incomplete because of its lack of GROUND grappling.

[Falcor]

Good point 7*!

I'd think the main difference between grappling styles (like JJ) and kung fu techniques is that in the grappling styles, the strikes are secondary, they're supplemental to aid in the getting the lock or throw. AFAIK, with the exception of Shuai-Jiao only styles (e.g. any Chinese grappling-only system), most kung fu techniques use striking as the primary weapon and locks and throws as either finishes or icing on the cake. This will mean the grappler will not really focus much on striking - he'll do it just enough to hurt you and get a reaction out of you, but not enough to debilitate you with the strikes alone. Likewise, the KF guy is going to rely on the strikes to unbalance/incapacitate you first, so the efficacy of the lock/throw will be (in theory) a foregone conclusion - again, they're finishes or "extras". However, some people will gravitate towards certain types of techniques - personal preferences (assuming they're training have been completed) and will develop their skills in that aspect to a higher degree cause they like it. For example, Wong Key Ying (father to Wong FeiHung) was famous for his skill in chin-na. There are even stories of him fighting matches using only chin-na on people - very much like grappling/JJ, no?

I think the de-emphasis on ground work (I don't wanna call it ground grappling becasue "work" implies a more comprehensive descrption of fighting when you're not on you're feet) is more of a cultural thing than anything else. My personal pet theory (which you're all welcome to disagree with) is that since in Japan the high rung of the social ladder were the warrior class, and they were already familiar with the rough and tumble of fighting, falling to the ground and roughing it up was probably not so much looked down upon. Still, a samurai of high skill was expcetd to dispath his opponents wthout having to 'rassle - heck the highest skill was considered to be projecting ones' ki out and scaring the living sh!t out of someone before a fight even starts.

BUt in China where the high rungs were occupied by COnfuscian scholars, roughousing on the ground was probably not considered very refined, so this aspect was not as emphasized to the general public by KF schools who wanted to look respectable. But since all warriors everywhere should (in theory) know the univresal realty of combat, that's why kung fu styles DO have ground work (just not necessarily ground grappling), but this information is either lost, not well passed along, muddled, or still obscured by residual cultural prejudice to fighting on the ground.