I think people that do kung fu, suck.

[AdrianK]

Oh c'mon, you knew it was coming :rolleyes:

Seriously, whats the deal? Every time I walk into a kung fu school, i'm lucky to find a single person who is decent. The rest look about as dumb and awkward as people who dress up for star wars and star trek conventions.

This is in stark contrast to MMA and Boxing gyms. So whats the deal? Is this just a southern california thing?

[Lucas]

kung fu has been around for a very long time. during its very young western adoption, kungfu has been exploided and abused by many people.

kungfu isnt alone, many TMA are like this.

MMA is the fundamental training of TMA in a mixed format with a modern scientific approach.

you will find real TMA in the world that is not to far removed from MMA, other than many schools are non merged (meaning only 1 style).

MMA often will have striking, and grappling. Boxing, JKD, Muay Thai, BJJ are pretty common to see.

In a real TMA school, you will often find striking (wc, shaolin, clf, taiji, western boxing, etc. ) you will often find a spattering of stand up grappling in some of these schools. You will also find TMA grappling. (Judo, JJJ, Greco-Roman, american folk wrestling, etc.) Sometimes you will find a spattering of striking in these grappling schools.

you will find as the years add on to your martial arts experience, that its not amatter of style, but a matter of the men practicing the style. most of the guys who 'get it' understand this, and know that there are true fighters ALL across the board, if you go to the right places.

its all about being in the right place at the right time, just like every thing else in life.

take it for what it is.

[Violent Designs]

Well big brother Muay Thai is a traditional martial art yet they are kicking ass and taking names. Unlike a few others I can name. ;)

[Lucas]

Well big brother Muay Thai is a traditional martial art yet they are kicking ass and taking names. Unlike a few others I can name. ;)

so are plenty of sanshou guys.

[Violent Designs]

so are plenty of sanshou guys.

San Da is freefighting but I guess it has developed into its own system now as well.

San Da is probably my favorite ruleset though.

[Lucas]

San Da is freefighting but I guess it has developed into its own system now as well.

San Da is probably my favorite ruleset though.

one of my favorite things about it is that it is a rule set. people from different arts can compete. you get traditionalists, non traditionalists, mixed artists. its pretty exciting much of the time.

[diego]

Oh c'mon, you knew it was coming :rolleyes:

Seriously, whats the deal? Every time I walk into a kung fu school, i'm lucky to find a single person who is decent. The rest look about as dumb and awkward as people who dress up for star wars and star trek conventions.

This is in stark contrast to MMA and Boxing gyms. So whats the deal? Is this just a southern california thing?

i see some ****s in tapout shirts a lot!.

[Violent Designs]

i see some ****s in tapout shirts a lot!.

True I hate them. Musclehead weightlifters that think they are MMA fighters by wearing a ****ing Tapout shirt. It's weak.

Just because you got big arms means jack ****.

[David Jamieson]

kungfu is so beyond sport that to assume that that would be the height of it is ridiculous.

sport is fine and all and a good outlet for young folks to go and be physical. any sport.

But Kungfu is not about sport. It's not about timed matches in a caged octagon, it's not about getting the championship belt or holding the title of worlds best fighter for a day or a week or a year.

Kungfu has many limbs of practice to make a complete person with purpose and intention in their life that can deal with their life in peace and in war.

Do you expect other artists to compete in limited venues? no? then stfu. :)

[bull895]

I defintely agree with you, not everyone wants to enter an octagon, fight on a lei tei or even compete in forms competition. kung Fu and Martial Arts as a whole is one of the rare subjects that there is not a set time for an individual to master or complete. Time and work set forth by the individual get the results they are striving for, and it may not be proffesional quality but for something else, weight loss, confidence, etc...
I have seen many people studying martial arts that are not that great persay but it has impacted them in so many other positive ways. And I have seen this in people studying varieties or different MA. We all have a classmate that is just not up to level with everyone else, who cares he is out there working a enjoying the art with everyone else. What I am saying is just martial arts is about the individual not the style, obseve the good students if you want to see the system at its best, leave the others alone and let them train, who knows what they will be like in years to come.

[Lucas]

kungfu is so beyond sport that to assume that that would be the height of it is ridiculous.

sport is fine and all and a good outlet for young folks to go and be physical. any sport.

But Kungfu is not about sport. It's not about timed matches in a caged octagon, it's not about getting the championship belt or holding the title of worlds best fighter for a day or a week or a year.

Kungfu has many limbs of practice to make a complete person with purpose and intention in their life that can deal with their life in peace and in war.

Do you expect other artists to compete in limited venues? no? then stfu. :)

well said, and so true.

there are just too many people that refuse to open their eyes to the actuality of reality. narrowmindedness and an unwillingness to study in depth the things you critisize often force people to live in ignorance about these aspects of the martial arts, and life in general.

[golgo]

I practice Kung Fu and I suck. I am hoping that the "practice" part will lead to me not sucking at some point in the near future.

[Lucas]

I practice Kung Fu and I suck. I am hoping that the "practice" part will lead to me not sucking at some point in the near future.

LOL. at least you have humbleness down. and dont worry, practice consistantly, and i garantee that you will get better.

[AdrianK]

kungfu is so beyond sport that to assume that that would be the height of it is ridiculous.

In what context is kungfu "beyond" sport?



sport is fine and all and a good outlet for young folks to go and be physical. any sport.

So you're saying sports are only good for physical workouts :rolleyes:



But Kungfu is not about sport. It's not about timed matches in a caged octagon, it's not about getting the championship belt or holding the title of worlds best fighter for a day or a week or a year.

Kungfu is about fighting.
You cannot truly learn how to fight, without fighting.
And the closest thing to a real fight most people will get on a regular basis, is competition. They're extremely beneficial for your understanding of fighting and development of yourself as a fighter.

If you're not interested in fighting, there are plenty of health and spirituality specific classes that would suit you better, and are much cheaper.



Kungfu has many limbs of practice to make a complete person with purpose and intention in their life that can deal with their life in peace and in war.

Competition is an important part of a "complete person". Competitive drive and spirit is human nature.



Do you expect other artists to compete in limited venues? no? then stfu.

Other artists DO compete against eachother. Musicians, Writers, Directors, etc. etc. etc.

[jklaic]

In what context is kungfu "beyond" sport?




So you're saying sports are only good for physical workouts :rolleyes:




Kungfu is about fighting.
You cannot truly learn how to fight, without fighting.
And the closest thing to a real fight most people will get on a regular basis, is competition. They're extremely beneficial for your understanding of fighting and development of yourself as a fighter.

If you're not interested in fighting, there are plenty of health and spirituality specific classes that would suit you better, and are much cheaper.




Competition is an important part of a "complete person". Competitive drive and spirit is human nature.




Other artists DO compete against eachother. Musicians, Writers, Directors, etc. etc. etc.


Kung fu is not 'about fighting.' It is much more than that. The benefits that kung fu is meant to give us are so numerous...self defense is a small part of it.

[hskwarrior]

:eek: you mean martial art doesn't mean the "ART OF FIGHTING":confused:

[Dim Wit Mak]

This subject has been dealt with about as much as the D-Day Invasion, but it is still fun. Here are my non-original thoughts.

1) Everything in MMA is found in Kung Fu.
2) Kung Fu is about fighting, but it is not the major part. Quality of life is stressed.
3) Many people today want to stress the "jitsu" of the arts, but want to ignore the Do, Dow, Tao which is the deeper meaning behind them. If I just want the jitsu I can accomplish this nicely with weapons as well as the feet and hands. If I want the martial arts to add deeper meaning to my life then I am following a Dow.
4) I understand people who just want the "jitsu" to some extent. Appling a hammer to some jerks knee was just fine and I didn't need all the spiritual stuff. I still feel that way at times, but the spiritual side or Way (Dao) has grown in importance with me.

[lkfmdc]

This subject has been dealt with about as much as the D-Day Invasion



and yet some never learn




1) Everything in MMA is found in Kung Fu.


really? guard passes, leg locks, guard sweeps, etc etc etc are all found in kung fu? Really :rolleyes:



2) Kung Fu is about fighting, but it is not the major part. Quality of life is stressed.


Really? ACCORDING TO WHO? You? :rolleyes:




3) Many people today want to stress the "jitsu" of the arts, but want to ignore the Do, Dow, Tao which is the deeper meaning behind them.


First, learn the difference between a "Do" and "Jistu" in JMA

Then, learn that the differentiation does not exist in CMA

[Violent Designs]

It is pronounce "Jutsu" in Japanese.

[Kansuke]

really? guard passes, leg locks, guard sweeps, etc etc etc are all found in kung fu?



Hidden. Hidden deep within the 'authentic' forms.

[Kansuke]

It is pronounce "Jutsu" in Japanese.


Actually, that's true.

[Violent Designs]

Hidden. Hidden deep within the 'authentic' forms.

My forms are pretty **** authentic.

Trust me there are no sweep, butterfly guard, kneebar, or anaconda choke.

[Kansuke]

My forms are pretty **** authentic.

Trust me there are no sweep, butterfly guard, kneebar, or anaconda choke.

No, no, you have to look deeeeeeeeeeep into the forms.

[Dim Wit Mak]

and yet some never learn



really? guard passes, leg locks, guard sweeps, etc etc etc are all found in kung fu? Really :rolleyes:



Really? ACCORDING TO WHO? You? :rolleyes:



First, learn the difference between a "Do" and "Jistu" in JMA

Then, learn that the differentiation does not exist in CMA

My goodness. So condescending. There is nothing new under the sun, and everything stated is accurate.

You are probably one of those people who would say, "Those people who think they know everything really bother those of us who do".

[peace&love]

Unfortunately, there's a lot of bad kung fu and kung fu instructors out there. It is very difficult to find a good kung fu teacher. With that being said, they are out there. Your location, Beverly Hills, has some wonderful instructors in the area such as Buck Sam Kong who teachers Hung Gar. Also, Kung Fu San Soo is popular in southern California, and it is very combat oriented. Before you judge further, I would suggest you check out schools that are associated with this person and styles.

[lkfmdc]

My goodness. So condescending.



Nope, not at all, just the truth apparently bothers you a lot :rolleyes:

So, can you answer any of my responses? EVERYTHING IN MMA IS IN KUNG FU? REALLY? :rolleyes:

I have strong academic credentials (Master's in Chinese history from George Washington Univ) and I can show you documentary evidence that kung fu was pretty much ALL about fighting until very recently...

Care to respond, or just make flippant coments?

[Kansuke]

(Master's in Chinese history from George Washington Univ)


Did you concentrate on any particular period?

[lkfmdc]

Did you concentrate on any particular period?

Everyone doing a masters takes "core courses" which include broad overviews, with particular emphasis on late Qing (decline of Qing)

My initial area of interest was Natoinalist China under Chiang

But academic politics being what they are, I ended up writing my master's thesis on the 70's/80's transitional politics under Deng

[Dim Wit Mak]

Nope, not at all, just the truth apparently bothers you a lot :rolleyes:

So, can you answer any of my responses? EVERYTHING IN MMA IS IN KUNG FU? REALLY? :rolleyes:

I have strong academic credentials (Master's in Chinese history from George Washington Univ) and I can show you documentary evidence that kung fu was pretty much ALL about fighting until very recently...

Care to respond, or just make flippant coments?

To get an MA in Chinese History takes a lot of hard work, and congratulations on the Kung Fu (diligent effort) you put into getting it.

I have two degrees beyond my BA and several martial arts rankings, but I make it a point to never use them to bolster an argument.

The following comments are NOT about you, necessarily. They are mentioned to show why I sometimes have disdain for people with high IQs, doctoral degress, and the common sense of a People's Temple cultist. I have sat under these guys listening to their nonsense. I have learned that my Great, Great, Great........Granddaddy was an amoeba, there is no God, socialism is the answer to all societal problems, drugs will bring enlightenment, and the list goes on and on.

I have also sat under some outstanding professors, and Marilyn Vos Savant proves that some brilliant people do have common sense. So pardon me for being skeptical of higher education bringing someone more useful education, necessarily.

I do not have a degree in Chinese history, but I do read about Chinese history. History is full of facts, interpretation of facts, myths, and speculation. I have heard historians say that there is no proof that Jesus or Confucias existed. It seems some people, as you noted, refuse to look at facts and some twist facts.

I have read that Da Mo brought his wisdom and exercises to the Shaolin Temple to improve the lives of the monks. The exercises were about improving health with perhaps some self defense applications. I would think that people could argue this a long time without resolving it.

I have read the history of several kung fu systems, upheavels in China, The Boxer Uprising (I used that term instead of "Rebellion" because it is in vogue with the historian types), The Shaolin Temple being a nest of kung fu vipers ready to kill all who opposed them, or saintly individuals. Who knows? Much of the information is clouded in myth and legend.

I am also aware that kung fu has been about fighting, and that China was a savage place to live with no 911 to call. Fighting well made the odds of surviving better. I am also aware of the historical spirituality of many kung fu systems. I do not pretend to know them all as many became extinct after the Boxer Rebellion and the Cultural Revolution.

Martial arts and their history are every bit as controversial as religion and politics. I have a friend who is studying to be a priest, and is a very good Catholic apologist. We are both aware that the wounds of the Reformation will never heal, at least until The Millenium, and that numerous religious controversies will never be resolved.

When I was a student of Tiger Kung Fu, back in the 1980s, sifu taught us the guard, the mount, escapes from the guard, ground and pound, high branches, low branches, rear naked chokes, wing chokes, triangle chokes, arm bars, wrist locks, elbow locks, chin na, gi chokes, and the list goes on and on. Were these things stressed to the same extent as a system which is primarily a grappling system? Of course not. Kung Fu systems are are primarily stand up systems. But ground techniques were taught.

BJJ does not ignore stand up. It has many stand up tools. But the idea is to get you on the ground where you are in their ocean and they are the shark. It is all a matter of emphasis.

Microevotion is a fact. This is true of dogs, cats, people, horses, football, baseball, golf, and the martial arts. Martial artists study what others do and see things they like, and adapt them. You see this in Chinese history as some master would seek to learn from the fighting skills of some animal or other to enhance their own system. Sometimes it would be different footwork or trapping. Things are not stagnant, they change. Look at all those who have been enlightened by the Gracies. No one has the whole picture, but the quest for the universal martial arts which consists of every possible combination in the universe continues.

I'm sure this will be attacked as illogical rambling so have at it. I believe that we should have thousands of teachers, but those teachers are always condensed into one. that one is ourself. :rolleyes:

[Violent Designs]

No, no, you have to look deeeeeeeeeeep into the forms.

If you want to go that way.

I can find sweep, armbar, rear naked choke, and ****ing, guard, and mount, in SEX too!!! :rolleyes:

[AdrianK]

When I was a student of Tiger Kung Fu, back in the 1980s, sifu taught us the guard, the mount, escapes from the guard, ground and pound, high branches, low branches, rear naked chokes, wing chokes, triangle chokes, arm bars, wrist locks, elbow locks, chin na, gi chokes, and the list goes on and on. Were these things stressed to the same extent as a system which is primarily a grappling system? Of course not. Kung Fu systems are are primarily stand up systems. But ground techniques were taught.

Which branch of Tiger style? There are plenty.

Nonetheless, simply because it is taught by an instructor, does not mean it is part of kung fu. Plenty of people teach "ground techniques" in their systems nowadays, with these ground techniques coming from BJJ, Wrestling, etc. - That doesn't make them kung fu.

The fact of the matter is, there is not a single kung fu style that encompasses a comparable level of knowledge and effectiveness of ground game, that BJJ or Wrestling does. The only thing that comes close is shuai chiao.

Aside from that, "Everything in MMA is found in Kung Fu.", is such a ridiculous statement if only for the fact that MMA is a concept, not a style or collection of styles. Not only that, but is also ever-evolving, with the latest training methods which are developed based on the latest, and most up to date knowledge of the human body.

Thats not to say there isn't tons to derive from kung fu. Theres much that is relevant. But the MMA community is far different, far more scrutinizing, far more focused on combat and science, and thus you will find plenty in MMA that is not in kung fu.

[TenTigers]

and what does it matter? Your Gung-Fu should always be evolving. (the original MMA-remember?)
So, now my Gung-Fu has groundfighting-from various sources-wherever I can take them; BJJ, Silat, Shuai-Jiao/Seut-Gohk, Ne-Waza, Joi Bot Sien, Yo Mama Ryu, whatever. And whoever I teach will learn it, and pass it down, and so on, etc.
This argument no longer exists.

[David Jamieson]

what is a guard pass but getting at a guy who's lying on his back?

how about a soccer kick to the head while he's down there?
How about hitting him with a club or a chair while he lies there waiting for ou to come grapple.

Kungfu, by definition is beyopnd sport. It is not sport. It includes martial art devlopment, but that martial art development is not restricted to the aspects of what can or cannot be done under sanctioned rules in 3 rounds by 5 minutes each.

sport fighting has it's place and can definitely be used as a part of martial arts training and indeed it is.

no martial art has everything. No kungfu style has everything and no mma practice has everything.

to bring it down to the argument of mma v traditional is to lose sight of the point at hand.

To think that kungfu is only a martial art and is not inclusive of the holistic development of a human being is like doing yoga only for the postures. It is suffice it to say incomplete.

just pointing it out.

[AdrianK]

and what does it matter? Your Gung-Fu should always be evolving. (the original MMA-remember?)
So, now my Gung-Fu has groundfighting-from various sources-wherever I can take them; BJJ, Silat, Shuai-Jiao/Seut-Gohk, Ne-Waza, Joi Bot Sien, Yo Mama Ryu, whatever. And whoever I teach will learn it, and pass it down, and so on, etc.
This argument no longer exists.

The argument isn't that you won't find it anywhere. Its that in general, you won't because it isn't part of the curriculum.
The problem isn't with your personal gung fu, or a single good gung fu school. The argument is that in general, you won't find it. To give credit to gung fu where there is none, is ridiculous.

Thats great that you incorporate techniques from these various styles - In general, this SHOULD be the attitude of teachers and students. The unfortunate reality is that it isn't, and in general, most kung fu guys don't even feel the need to consider the ground, at all.



Kungfu, by definition is beyopnd sport. It is not sport. It includes martial art devlopment, but that martial art development is not restricted to the aspects of what can or cannot be done under sanctioned rules in 3 rounds by 5 minutes each.

MMA is not restricted to sport fighting.
Mixed Martial Arts is the concept of cross-training in anything that is relevant. And the MMA community as a whole has a focus on BJJ, Boxing, Wrestling, and Muay Thai which, while they do have rules, have a ridiculous amount of fundamentals that most kung fu out there dont.

But just as there is that minority of gung fu people that train realistically. There is also the mma people who train for the street.

I can't tell you how many bouncers i've met who use their BJJ, muay thai and wrestling effectively.

[Dim Wit Mak]

and what does it matter? Your Gung-Fu should always be evolving. (the original MMA-remember?)
So, now my Gung-Fu has groundfighting-from various sources-wherever I can take them; BJJ, Silat, Shuai-Jiao/Seut-Gohk, Ne-Waza, Joi Bot Sien, Yo Mama Ryu, whatever. And whoever I teach will learn it, and pass it down, and so on, etc.
This argument no longer exists.

The evolving nature of Kung Fu is very important to keep in mind, as you pointed out. It has always evolved. Adaptation is a huge part of the survival scenario. But then again, this can be said about many areas. Look at how people are scurrying to adapt to the current economic climate.

Kung Fu has always has both the jitsu and dow aspects. Ancient China was a savage place, and monks had to survive as well as seek spiritual enlightenment. In modern Kung Fu, the jitsu has shrunk a bit, while the Dow remains strong.

Many do not have the patience for Kung Fu and prefer the "Me learn smash plenty quick." systems. Nothing wrong with that. Different strokes for different folks.

[AdrianK]

Many do not have the patience for Kung Fu and prefer the "Me learn smash plenty quick." systems.

1.) Understanding of a technique is what allows people to teach and learn styles like boxing, bjj, muay thai, wrestling, etc. - If more kung fu teachers understood their techniques on a more technical level, you would see the progression into fighting ability at the same pace. Unfortunately the ignorance of the technical and scientific aspects are translated into the teaching, "if you practice it constantly, it will come to you", or if you just do it, someday you'll understand it.

This is an extremely ineffective method of teaching, and the reason much kung fu is in such a horrible state.


2.) Kung Fu(and I say it as a single entity, because it applies to ALL styles, karate, tae kwon do, anything) - when taught properly will, as implied above, be as combat effective in the same amount of time as your so-called "Me learn smash plenty quick" systems - which, btw is an extremely disrespectful way to describe systems which offer incredible depth and which you obviously lack an understanding of.


3.) Effectiveness is in simplicity. The greatest so-called "Secrets" to martial arts that I've found, aren't in complexity or something that would take years to understand. To be honest, they're simple, direct and effective methods. They don't take ten years to learn. All of the methods i've found that aren't over-complicated to the point of ridiculousness, can be learned in the same amount of time that it takes to learn how to jab, cross, uppercut, or throw a combination.


4.) Patience? A Persons time is extremely valuable. Especially when you're being charged $100/month for someone to teach you who has no verifiable fighting ability. Thats not to say they don't have skill or teaching ability - But people will be patient for something they believe is valuable to them. Many kung fu instructors are too incompetent to pass on this value. Whereas you'll find plenty of boxing and mma gyms who offer quality fighting instruction and the value for people to devote their time and energy to.

[David Jamieson]

The argument isn't that you won't find it anywhere. Its that in general, you won't because it isn't part of the curriculum.
The problem isn't with your personal gung fu, or a single good gung fu school. The argument is that in general, you won't find it. To give credit to gung fu where there is none, is ridiculous.

Thats great that you incorporate techniques from these various styles - In general, this SHOULD be the attitude of teachers and students. The unfortunate reality is that it isn't, and in general, most kung fu guys don't even feel the need to consider the ground, at all.




MMA is not restricted to sport fighting.
Mixed Martial Arts is the concept of cross-training in anything that is relevant. And the MMA community as a whole has a focus on BJJ, Boxing, Wrestling, and Muay Thai which, while they do have rules, have a ridiculous amount of fundamentals that most kung fu out there dont.

But just as there is that minority of gung fu people that train realistically. There is also the mma people who train for the street.

I can't tell you how many bouncers i've met who use their BJJ, muay thai and wrestling effectively.

so you're a fanbois then. excellent. lol

[Violent Designs]

so you're a fanbois then. excellent. lol

Not really.

He's actually quite dedicated to the Chinese martial arts . . . . just happens to be realistic about the limitations of CMA.

Which aren't really "limitations" if you never plan on competing in wrestling, MMA, BJJ, etc . . .

But saying that CMA teaches ground fighting at the level of BJJ, is ****ing ridiculous.

[AdrianK]

so you're a fanbois then. excellent. lol

Thats especially funny because I don't really watch MMA anymore, nor do I attend an MMA gym or hold any rank in any grappling art.

But I see the weaknesses that are extremely prevalent. These weaknesses are just as prevalent in most karate schools as well.

I know who the legitimate kung fu instructors are, in my area. And I can tell you that there are ten times as many kung fu schools out here in california that are complete bull****. This goes for around the country as well, all you need do is check out what these people are offering on their own respective websites with their own videos and such. Good Kung Fu is hard to find. Good MMA on the other hand, is pretty easy to find where-ever you go.

Thats not to say there aren't plenty of MMA Mc-dojos, but because of the more open nature of boxing, muay thai, bjj, sambo, wrestling, etc., its harder to find as much complete crap as say... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVTQMYeS5kg&feature=related

[Eddie]

Ancient China was a savage place, and monks had to survive as well as seek spiritual enlightenment.


is that a fact or just hearsay?

Ancient Europe was probably even more 'savage'

[Violent Designs]

You're all wrong.

Ancient Africa was more savage than anywhere else.

[Kansuke]

Actually, the Savage Land was really, really savage 'back in the day.'


http://www.marvel.com/universe/Savage_Land

[banditshaw]

Actually, the Savage Land was really, really savage 'back in the day.'


http://www.marvel.com/universe/Savage_Land

Ok your a fanboy too.......:p

The Kazar stories were cool. But nothing was as Savage as the Hyborian age.
:D

[David Jamieson]

Thats especially funny because I don't really watch MMA anymore, nor do I attend an MMA gym or hold any rank in any grappling art.

But I see the weaknesses that are extremely prevalent. These weaknesses are just as prevalent in most karate schools as well.

I know who the legitimate kung fu instructors are, in my area. And I can tell you that there are ten times as many kung fu schools out here in california that are complete bull****. This goes for around the country as well, all you need do is check out what these people are offering on their own respective websites with their own videos and such. Good Kung Fu is hard to find. Good MMA on the other hand, is pretty easy to find where-ever you go.

Thats not to say there aren't plenty of MMA Mc-dojos, but because of the more open nature of boxing, muay thai, bjj, sambo, wrestling, etc., its harder to find as much complete crap as say... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVTQMYeS5kg&feature=related

so you're a master then?

[AdrianK]

^
Don't know where you got that. Because I have an opinion that I believe in?

IMHO, Mastery is unachievable in martial arts, as it is something that is both artistic and scientific. The understanding of our human body changes on a daily basis, let alone all of the advances that are currently being made in our understanding of the human brain, and then there's psychology. So while a decent amount of knowledge can be obtained on the science of martial arts - Such as technique, structure, power generation, health, psychology and many others - it will never be a complete knowledge.

And on the artistic side, art is human expression and martial arts would be the expression of the human body... in combat against strong opponents, we're forced to dig into the deepest depths of who we are, and express our emotions in a completely honest way. Its not easy to hide who you are, when you're being pushed to your physical and mental limits. There is no mastery in artistic expression, its simply who you are.


Then again, mastery has several definitions and our understanding of the word could be very different.

[Dim Wit Mak]

1.) Understanding of a technique is what allows people to teach and learn styles like boxing, bjj, muay thai, wrestling, etc. - If more kung fu teachers understood their techniques on a more technical level, you would see the progression into fighting ability at the same pace. Unfortunately the ignorance of the technical and scientific aspects are translated into the teaching, "if you practice it constantly, it will come to you", or if you just do it, someday you'll understand it.

This is an extremely ineffective method of teaching, and the reason much kung fu is in such a horrible state.


2.) Kung Fu(and I say it as a single entity, because it applies to ALL styles, karate, tae kwon do, anything) - when taught properly will, as implied above, be as combat effective in the same amount of time as your so-called "Me learn smash plenty quick" systems - which, btw is an extremely disrespectful way to describe systems which offer incredible depth and which you obviously lack an understanding of.


3.) Effectiveness is in simplicity. The greatest so-called "Secrets" to martial arts that I've found, aren't in complexity or something that would take years to understand. To be honest, they're simple, direct and effective methods. They don't take ten years to learn. All of the methods i've found that aren't over-complicated to the point of ridiculousness, can be learned in the same amount of time that it takes to learn how to jab, cross, uppercut, or throw a combination.


4.) Patience? A Persons time is extremely valuable. Especially when you're being charged $100/month for someone to teach you who has no verifiable fighting ability. Thats not to say they don't have skill or teaching ability - But people will be patient for something they believe is valuable to them. Many kung fu instructors are too incompetent to pass on this value. Whereas you'll find plenty of boxing and mma gyms who offer quality fighting instruction and the value for people to devote their time and energy to.

I have to admit that some members of the TCMA community have created some of their own problems. I will just mention a couple of them. There have been some unethical instructors who have taught close to meaningless material to certain students. They didn't like the student for one reason or another. Perhaps the student was Occidental or the sifu didn't feel he or she was dedicated enough. The kwoon took their money though. This is inexcusable.

Another item of contention is the practice of having a "system within a system". I can understand this to an extent, although I do not agree with it. Sometimes the regular system was taught to the garden variety students, and the hidden system was taught to the students the sifu deemed worthy. Perhaps the sifu was insecure in some instances and wanted to have a few tricks in case some young buck wanted to lock horns. Kind of a twist on the "Old age and treachery" concept.

To me, any dedicated, loyal student, who has coughed up the wampum to study the system, should not have anything withheld from him. The system within the system should always be revealed. Historically, the possiblity of treachery might change the rules on this, but I don't see the need in our time. I suppose the possiblity always exists, but it would probably be better just to tell the suspect to go find another teacher.

This is a whole other topic, but I guess I just needed to vent. I started to think about it when you stated that Kung Fu has its issues (paraphrase).

The only other thing I would add, in response to bullet #2, is that the so called "disrespect" was a comment about, not the systems that have the depth you are talking about, but those that don't. I also have no disprespect for the person who gets in a ring with pretty much raw talent and a minimum of depth. Simplicity can be very effective. One of my favorite fighters of all time basically stalked his opponent until he could nail him with a thunderous right cross. He never fought professionally, but was an Olympic Gold Medalist.

[David Jamieson]

1.) Understanding of a technique is what allows people to teach and learn styles like boxing, bjj, muay thai, wrestling, etc. - If more kung fu teachers understood their techniques on a more technical level, you would see the progression into fighting ability at the same pace. Unfortunately the ignorance of the technical and scientific aspects are translated into the teaching, "if you practice it constantly, it will come to you", or if you just do it, someday you'll understand it.

This is an extremely ineffective method of teaching, and the reason much kung fu is in such a horrible state.


2.) Kung Fu(and I say it as a single entity, because it applies to ALL styles, karate, tae kwon do, anything) - when taught properly will, as implied above, be as combat effective in the same amount of time as your so-called "Me learn smash plenty quick" systems - which, btw is an extremely disrespectful way to describe systems which offer incredible depth and which you obviously lack an understanding of.


3.) Effectiveness is in simplicity. The greatest so-called "Secrets" to martial arts that I've found, aren't in complexity or something that would take years to understand. To be honest, they're simple, direct and effective methods. They don't take ten years to learn. All of the methods i've found that aren't over-complicated to the point of ridiculousness, can be learned in the same amount of time that it takes to learn how to jab, cross, uppercut, or throw a combination.


4.) Patience? A Persons time is extremely valuable. Especially when you're being charged $100/month for someone to teach you who has no verifiable fighting ability. Thats not to say they don't have skill or teaching ability - But people will be patient for something they believe is valuable to them. Many kung fu instructors are too incompetent to pass on this value. Whereas you'll find plenty of boxing and mma gyms who offer quality fighting instruction and the value for people to devote their time and energy to.

on these points:

1) that is a sorry way of teaching. I am glad i didn't experience that.

2) kungfu does apply to all skills that are learned, true.

3) it's not the learning or the showing, it's the doing and the knowing. practice to perfection takes time. There's no way around putting your time in. IN fact, the longer a competition fighter goes, the more likely it is that his career will end with his failure. That's the nature of competitive fighting, it can be readily studied by others and if all you got in your bag of tricks is simple techniques, then your career will be short because that stuff will be countered quickly. Top guys have their day and they stay at the top for a relatively short period of time in the fight game. Kungfu you can practice your whole life.

4) you cannot buy skill even if someone wanted to show you. also, you don't feed steak to babies, you feed them milk. why would you give people advanced materials when they are hardly capable of basic body awareness.


summary: yes you can fast track to fighting. You can get a person up and fighting in his weight class and rules venue in a relatively short timeline if all the stars are aligned etc etc (ie: they're not a complete retard are somewhat fit and capable of understanding language and tactile training and don't need to have things shown to them 300 times only to once again do it wrong and most of all, tehy have the will to fight) :)

[AdrianK]

Oh man, I go away for a day and I have a ton to respond to :D

So, Dim Wit Mak -

I have to admit that some members of the TCMA community have created some of their own problems. I will just mention a couple of them. There have been some unethical instructors who have taught close to meaningless material to certain students. They didn't like the student for one reason or another. Perhaps the student was Occidental or the sifu didn't feel he or she was dedicated enough. The kwoon took their money though. This is inexcusable.

The problem is that in major metropolitan areas, this has become the rule, and not the exception to the rule. I've literally been to dozens and dozens of schools and keep a notebook of quality instructors in southern california - The bad schools out here, outnumber the good ones almost 10 to 1. Thats a trend.



To me, any dedicated, loyal student, who has coughed up the wampum to study the system, should not have anything withheld from him. The system within the system should always be revealed. Historically, the possiblity of treachery might change the rules on this, but I don't see the need in our time. I suppose the possiblity always exists, but it would probably be better just to tell the suspect to go find another teacher.

I agree. Especially when many of these instructors charge quite a bit of money for their services.



The only other thing I would add, in response to bullet #2, is that the so called "disrespect" was a comment about, not the systems that have the depth you are talking about, but those that don't. I also have no disprespect for the person who gets in a ring with pretty much raw talent and a minimum of depth. Simplicity can be very effective. One of my favorite fighters of all time basically stalked his opponent until he could nail him with a thunderous right cross. He never fought professionally, but was an Olympic Gold Medalist.

I understand what you mean. Thats the interesting thing - You could have just a thunderous right cross in your arsenal, and still have more depth then people who have dozens of techniques and training methods... the part of martial arts with the absolute most depth, IMHO, is yourself. The human body. When we develop our hand-eye coordination, our bodies to strike, our understanding of our opponents and their bodies, our timing... these are such extensive, important parts that are universal to all styles of fighting. Human beings and their development have far more depth and science behind them than any style.



Now, onto David Jamieson -


1) that is a sorry way of teaching. I am glad i didn't experience that.

After I had obtained my first "Black belt", I went on a quest to get as much experience with as many styles in my area as possible. To this day, I still check out every new school that I see that pops up in my area, and I can honestly say that the majority, teach like that. It sucks, and I want to smack these instructors upside their **** heads for it, but thats how it is. At least in southern california, which is one of the bigger places for martial arts, in the US.



2) kungfu does apply to all skills that are learned, true.

Kung fu, karate, muay thai, etc. - Anything that is effective and makes sense, applies to all skills learned. Looking at them as a concept, it should be a variable that can fit in with anything that also makes sense. IMO.



3) it's not the learning or the showing, it's the doing and the knowing. practice to perfection takes time. There's no way around putting your time in. IN fact, the longer a competition fighter goes, the more likely it is that his career will end with his failure. That's the nature of competitive fighting, it can be readily studied by others and if all you got in your bag of tricks is simple techniques, then your career will be short because that stuff will be countered quickly. Top guys have their day and they stay at the top for a relatively short period of time in the fight game. Kungfu you can practice your whole life.

Alright, this is where I have some major disagreement with your post.
If you don't watch boxing, I'd suggest you start. Boxing is a great example, here, especially.

Yes, there is no way around putting your time in. The point is, effective technique on the battlefield, and on the street, rarely consists of anything incredibly complex. It depends on your definition of complexity, though! A jab for instance, is actually VERY complex! The forward momentum with the step, the corkscrew motion, the line it travels, the tension at the end. Its far more complex than most people understand.

But the point is. It makes sense, and after a few months, you should have a *decent* ability with it. Not an incredible ability - Keep in mind this - The majority of boxers out there who get to the top, have been boxing practically all their lives. There really is no way around putting your time in.

But what I mean about complexity is, if you understand say, rib power, or sinking, or uprooting, or whipping power, etc. etc. etc. - These are all actually really basic concepts if you look at them from a scientific perspective! They're simple and they work. If taught properly, you can apply them in the same amount of time as you can apply your jab. Martial arts when properly understood is both LESS complicated than people make it out to be, and MORE complicated than people make it out to be. lol. By that I mean, all of these so-called secrets or unique ideas are really easy to understand and apply, you don't need ten years. You need ten years to be amazing at it, just like most boxers need 4 years to be decent enough for lower-level competition.

So more specifically -
Its less complicated from a technical, scientific perspective of the art.

Its more complicated from the perspective of understanding the human body and human fighting, which IMHO is definitely more important.


Wow, I went on a rant. :D

Okay, but back to what you were saying here:

There's no way around putting your time in. IN fact, the longer a competition fighter goes, the more likely it is that his career will end with his failure.

The reason for this is because there is a threshold to where technique + human ability is overcome by human ability.
By that I mean, and these are completely worthless percentages but I am using them to demonstrate a point:
A 35 Yr Old Boxer w/ Excellent Technique that has
50% strength
50% speed
50% timing

Will lose to a 25 yr old boxer w/ Decent technique that has
100% strength
100% speed
100% timing

The decline of physical attributes are regularly the downfall of great boxers.

NOT because their bag of tricks is so-called "simple". In fact, great boxers like sugar ray leonard, julio caesar chavez, muhammed ali - Their techniques and ability were incredible, especially when you consider that most people just view boxing as "jab, cross, uppercut, hook". Its SO much more than that.

It is true that every boxer has weaknesses - Everyone has weaknesses and can be figured out. Great boxers make adjustments during the course of the fight. If they lose, they find out why they lost and train to lessen those weaknesses.

But it isn't because of their "simple technique" that they are figured out. Every fighter has weaknesses and a smart fighter will take advantage of those weaknesses. Generally those weaknesses are LESS of an issue of the persons technique, and MORE of an issue of their timing, or habits.

Now...

Top guys have their day and they stay at the top for a relatively short period of time in the fight game.

I'd just like to throw out a few stats here - In boxing specifically because you'd THINK that it would be the most "simple" of the fight games, and so more champions would be figured out quickly and lose their title:

Sugar Ray Leonard
Undefeated Title Holder from 1980 to 1991 (this was especially amazing because it was one of the most volatile times in boxing because we had more top guys in the division then most any other time in recent history - Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, if any of these guys could "figure out" sugar ray, it would've been them. They're arguably some of the best boxers in the history of the sport.)


Julio Caesar Chavez
Undefeated Title Holder from 1984 to 1993


Bernard Hopkins
Undefeated Title Holder from 1993 to 2005. Just recently won an awesome fight at 44 years old against a top guy and major title holder, Kelly Pavlik.


Joe Calzaghe
Undefeated Title Holder from 1997 to 2009(he retired undefeated)


I could name plenty more who had their time at the top and stayed there for a LONG time. They weren't figured out, they just got old.



4) you cannot buy skill even if someone wanted to show you. also, you don't feed steak to babies, you feed them milk. why would you give people advanced materials when they are hardly capable of basic body awareness.

Thats not what I was saying. You should be teaching only what your student is ready for, absolutely.
But the point is, that unless you have the talent to show your student that it makes sense - You won't retain students.
Back to the jab - It doesn't feel good the first time you hit a punch mitt with your jab, but it makes sense.

[AdrianK]

yes you can fast track to fighting. You can get a person up and fighting in his weight class and rules venue in a relatively short timeline if all the stars are aligned etc etc (ie: they're not a complete retard are somewhat fit and capable of understanding language and tactile training and don't need to have things shown to them 300 times only to once again do it wrong and most of all, tehy have the will to fight)

I'm not saying the point is to fast-track them. I'm saying that good teaching will teach them this in the PROPER amount of time. Instead of the lack of instruction and understanding that I see from most schools.

I'm also saying that it takes less time than most people realize. I'm not saying you specifically, I have no idea how long you feel it takes to learn a technique, or even what styles you've taken or are referring to.

But take boxing again for instance, and this applies to say, wing chun but i'm not sure how much experience you have in that style. You can teach any portion of boxing first - You want to start on the hook, start on the hook, you want to start on the jab, start on the jab. You don't need to know how to apply this technique, to apply that technique. Only when you get into combination's do you need to understand how to apply the whole.

You can start at the end of the curriculum, or the beginning. Everything in boxing is far more complex than people realize, but no part is more complex than the other, and so you can start practically anywhere, with it.

[David Jamieson]

I'm not saying the point is to fast-track them. I'm saying that good teaching will teach them this in the PROPER amount of time. Instead of the lack of instruction and understanding that I see from most schools.

I'm also saying that it takes less time than most people realize. I'm not saying you specifically, I have no idea how long you feel it takes to learn a technique, or even what styles you've taken or are referring to.

But take boxing again for instance, and this applies to say, wing chun but i'm not sure how much experience you have in that style. You can teach any portion of boxing first - You want to start on the hook, start on the hook, you want to start on the jab, start on the jab. You don't need to know how to apply this technique, to apply that technique. Only when you get into combination's do you need to understand how to apply the whole.

You can start at the end of the curriculum, or the beginning. Everything in boxing is far more complex than people realize, but no part is more complex than the other, and so you can start practically anywhere, with it.

I have to disagree with your view on boxing. It is learned progressively and it doesn't start with technique.

With boxing you begin with conditioning and stamina and that's where 90% of the people who take it up drop off after the first 6 months. that stuff is hard. get up, go run, then go lift, then drills etc etc.

Then there is the footwork, if that's wrong, then your techniques will suck as well.

YOu can do things on the same timeline becase one attribute will feed another until they level and you have a real skill now that can be refined.

Maybe it's the robustness of a system? Some styles of kungfu are small and compact and don't have a lot of material and other systems are large and complicated with many progressive iterations of the same thing that ultimately bring you to the ability of expressing the style.

when you look at an adept of a style after training for a while, you can identify style by it's shape. You can tell the difference between wing chun and hung gar, clf and tang lang, northern versus southern and so on.

boxing is either orthodox or unorthodox, has some differences in defensive strategies and little nuances here and there, but the style is conformed by the ruleset under which it operates.

once you apply rules to something, you limit the extent to which that thing can be used or played with and now you are confined to the limitations of the ruleset.

I think it totally depends on what you do with what you are being taught and in the end that's entirely up to the individual.

[AdrianK]

I have to disagree with your view on boxing. It is learned progressively and it doesn't start with technique.

Maybe its a stylistic difference in your area? Theres plenty of conditioning work in the boxing gyms out here, but I've been up and down from Hollywood to Santa Clarita. All of em have beginners start the jab on day one. I've trained with professional trainers in private lessons that specifically do it this way because when you only have a couple of hours to do that with someone, but the same goes for most gyms too. I mean, if you're seriously out of shape, its a different story, but otherwise, you're at a boxing gym to learn how to box. The conditioning and such is done throughout the day, but I've never seen anyone not strap on the gloves and do some technique on their first day.



Then there is the footwork, if that's wrong, then your techniques will suck as well.

Well yeah, a lot of power can come from the ground. If you have no balance or forward momentum, you lose the power those can give.



when you look at an adept of a style after training for a while, you can identify style by it's shape. You can tell the difference between wing chun and hung gar, clf and tang lang, northern versus southern and so on.

Thats usually only if they practice only one style. Because they don't know any other shapes.
Look at Alan Orr's guys, how many people will say "Thats wing chun"? Or Lyoto Machida, "Thats Shotokan"? Can you identify the difference between a boxing punch, a muay thai punch and a kenpo punch?

It really comes down to what you feel martial arts are all about. Forms or Formlessness.



boxing is either orthodox or unorthodox, has some differences in defensive strategies and little nuances here and there, but the style is conformed by the ruleset under which it operates.

You're right in principle. However, EVERYTHING is conformed by the ruleset under which it operates. Either in competition, or by the limitation its style was created under. This is why there is no comparable ground game in gung fu styles, to BJJ or Wrestling. Some instructors have learned the ground game to compensate for this, just as some instructors know both boxing, and traditional martial arts.


That doesn't make it any less effective. It just means, if you want to learn that skillset. You learn boxing. You won't cover your ground game with boxing, you won't cover trapping or complex blocking. But you'll cover templates and concepts with extreme depth to them.

As for boxing is either orthodox, or unorthodox, has some differences in defensive strategies and little nuances... you're not giving it nearly enough credit.

In terms of boxing stances alone, theres over half a dozen well-known variations that emphasize different levels of offense and defense. Not only that, theres just as many variations on the jab, straight, hook, uppercut - watch the stylistic differences between ricky hatton and manny paquiao in their upcoming fight in the next couple months, or pacquiao vs. marquez(which is a great example of someone with less physical ability but greater mental ability, marquez still lost though). Or check out old Sugar Ray Leonard vs. Marvin Hagler or vs. Thomas Hearns or any of iron mike's fights in his prime or any of the klitchko brother's fights. The differences can be extensive.