Kung Fu Punching Technique and how it compares to Boxing

[Iron_Eagle_76]

Often times I hear martial artists talk about the punching power of boxing. Having boxed myself for about two years and having a few amateur fights, I can attest to boxing improving my punching technique and power. But my belief is that boxing simply helped the technique I had learned in Kung Fu and refined it. In many Kung Fu styles you have a variety of techniques that are practiced from kicks, exotic animal strikes, elbows, knees, sticky hands, ect. ect.

My belief is that where boxing benefits one the most is the simple fact that punching is all that is practiced, so you are obviously going to get better at it. Training methods of course come in to play, but when you focus your entire effort on a small area of techniques, one will obviously get better.

Thoughts on this please.

[TenTigers]

I think one of the things that boxing has taught me, that has carried over to my Kung-Fu is shock power-or is it vice-versa? When I used to try to power through the bag, I would damage my wrists, but when I use shock or pulse power, when I "popped" the bag, after awhile, my power doubled.
As far as the reverse punch club is concerned, I do reverse punches with the same shock power, so for me, yeah-I'm a member.
My wrists are thin. So, hooks and uppercuts were never my strongest punches. My wrist can buckle at times from hitting with poor alignment-which in the heat of a bout, can happen often. I find that I can hit alot harder with sow choy-either flat fist, or ox-horn. Since there is no way my wrist will buckle, I can let loose without hesitation. Sure it's a wider punch, so it has to be set up. Also, the fact that it is thrown so relaxed, allows the hand to be alive, and can adapt when intercepted.
Kung-Fu also has other strikes that boxing does not have, besides gwa and cup, there is gow-choy-whcih is sort of like a downward hammerfist, but with the elbow dropped-it can hit with hammerfist and/or forearm, and the whole body drops when delivering this strike,with shock power. It hits very hard, and is a deceptively short strike which can come from a tight guard.
Another thing about short power is it is applied to everything-short elbow, short shoulder, short bicep, etc.
I am not of the school that Kung-Fu is better than boxing. I have always advocated both, so you will see my guys training jab,cross, gwa, cup, etc.
I also teach the boxer's guard in the beginning stages in order to ingrain the cover hand not dropping. The bai-jongs can then be changed, with the front hand being closer, further, higher, lower, and the rear hand "floating" from front to side.
It maintains the elbow position, and the covering is basic and economic, and teaches students not to chase hands.

[Dragonzbane76]

comparably I think you hit the nail on the head when you said Boxing focuses on punches exclusively, (dependent upon the era "dirty boxing" taken into account.") I've always been of the conclusion that you can train many things but can only master a few. Boxing is a demension of fighting, a 1 sided one, but one indeed. It focuses on standup striking and caters to that only. that being said, it is not a hard pill to swallow stating that if you want to get your striking better on your punches you should probably go take some boxing lessons, where it is stress and tested.

[TenTigers]

I wanted to add that boxing also has some of the best footwork and body movement and training techniques for it. It really lays some excellent groundwork.

[taai gihk yahn]

I think one of the things that boxing has taught me, that has carried over to my Kung-Fu is shock power-or is it vice-versa? When I used to try to power through the bag, I would damage my wrists, but when I use shock or pulse power, when I "popped" the bag, after awhile, my power doubled.
As far as the reverse punch club is concerned, I do reverse punches with the same shock power, so for me, yeah-I'm a member.
My wrists are thin. So, hooks and uppercuts were never my strongest punches. My wrist can buckle at times from hitting with poor alignment-which in the heat of a bout, can happen often. I find that I can hit alot harder with sow choy-either flat fist, or ox-horn. Since there is no way my wrist will buckle, I can let loose without hesitation. Sure it's a wider punch, so it has to be set up. Also, the fact that it is thrown so relaxed, allows the hand to be alive, and can adapt when intercepted.
Kung-Fu also has other strikes that boxing does not have, besides gwa and cup, there is gow-choy-whcih is sort of like a downward hammerfist, but with the elbow dropped-it can hit with hammerfist and/or forearm, and the whole body drops when delivering this strike,with shock power. It hits very hard, and is a deceptively short strike which can come from a tight guard.
Another thing about short power is it is applied to everything-short elbow, short shoulder, short bicep, etc.
I am not of the school that Kung-Fu is better than boxing. I have always advocated both, so you will see my guys training jab,cross, gwa, cup, etc.
I also teach the boxer's guard in the beginning stages in order to ingrain the cover hand not dropping. The bai-jongs can then be changed, with the front hand being closer, further, higher, lower, and the rear hand "floating" from front to side.
It maintains the elbow position, and the covering is basic and economic, and teaches students not to chase hands.
Christ, Rik, if u keep on making so much sense this way, the whole forum's going to sut down...

[TenTigers]

Christ, Rik, if u keep on making so much sense this way, the whole forum's going to sut down...
now, all I need to do is mix in some kool-aid infected drivel, and I'll have a winning combination! Watch my smoke!:D

[Iron_Eagle_76]

I wanted to add that boxing also has some of the best footwork and body movement and training techniques for it. It really lays some excellent groundwork.

I couldn't agree more. Footwork is something that is so essential, yet often times overlooked in training. One of the critisisms of TMA which I agree with is the stagnant practice of techniques, be it in line drills (from horse stance or another stagnant stance) or walking drills such as is found in Karate. Not saying these areas of training do not have some usefullness, but working on circling, clock stepping, and doing bag work, mitt work, and sparring will work the necessary footwork one needs to be efficient.

My original sifu would always have us working in circles, as well as back and forth and side to side, which I think is important to developing good footwork. Boxing does this as well. The hardest transition I had when I started boxing was using a more narrow stance, as opposed to a wider stance used for kicking. Now I can switch back and forth between the two effectively.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Kung fu hands are based on fighting of bridges, while boxing hands are based on hitting the other guy without "briding".
Elimenate the "bridge" from kung fu and you have boxing.
:D

[TenTigers]

many Kung-Fu styles do not concern themselves with bridging, in fact Hop-Ga is considered to be an "anti-bridging" system. Even the so-called bridging systems such as Hung-Ga and Wing Chun and SPM often strike and continue to strike without bridging.
Look, if I'm landing strikes on you, I need not be concerned with bridging your arms, I'm doing what I set out to do-destroy my opponent any way possible. Besides, I'm bridging your head! :D
(there are many interpetations of bridging. Not all concern touch contact)

[sanjuro_ronin]

many Kung-Fu styles do not concern themselves with bridging, in fact Hop-Ga is considered to be an "anti-bridging" system. Even the so-called bridging systems such as Hung-Ga and Wing Chun and SPM often strike and continue to strike without bridging.
Look, if I'm landing strikes on you, I need not be concerned with bridging your arms, I'm doing what I set out to do-destroy my opponent any way possible. Besides, I'm bridging your head! :D
(there are many interpetations of bridging. Not all concern touch contact)

True, BUT they tend to base their strikes on dealing with bridges or attempts to bridge.
Now, as we know, blocking and striking is the "low end" of MA skill, the ideal is the strike with no block, the "jeet" or simply, hit the guy before his hit lands on you-
"our strike leaves after our opponents but arrives first".
Boxing is designed just for that.
Evasive footwork is the "first line" of defense and in mnay ways, boxing and kenjutsu/sword fighting have much in common.

The typical kung fu punch,if there is such a thing, are similar to the typical karate punches, they deal from the beginner perspective of "block/strike", but they SHOULD "evolve" to the more "advanced" - no-block just hit, method.

[Iron_Eagle_76]

The problems with bridging also fall into what guard the opponent is using. When bridging the arms, it is much harder when an opponent is in a traditional boxing guard with hands high at the temple, but much easier when the person has their hands extended outward.

Not saying bridging is useless, but I would much rather set up combinations and turn the guys face into a meat puddle. Just saying.

[TenTigers]

The problems with bridging also fall into what guard the opponent is using. When bridging the arms, it is much harder when an opponent is in a traditional boxing guard with hands high at the temple, but much easier when the person has their hands extended outward.

Not saying bridging is useless, but I would much rather set up combinations and turn the guys face into a meat puddle. Just saying.
actually, it is even easier to bridge when a fighter is using a peek-a-boo guard, or a close cover by Jamming right into his guard and slamming his own fists into him. This is using the concept of bik-pressing/crowding.

[Iron_Eagle_76]

actually, it is even easier to bridge when a fighter is using a peek-a-boo guard, or a close cover by Jamming right into his guard and slamming his own fists into him. This is using the concept of bik-pressing/crowding.

I see what you are saying. I guess this is not the bridging I was thinking of from my sense of it but what you say makes sense and I have seen that done, particulary on guys who use the peek-a-boo, which is why I never cared for it.

[bawang]

north kung fu has no concept of bridge

[sanjuro_ronin]

You guys are missing the point I think.
What is the first thing(s) boxer is taught?
Fighting stance with Guard
Puching
Evasive foot work
Parries
Blocks

What are the first things a kung fu guy is taught?
Static stances
Strikes and blocks off static stances

[SanHeChuan]

north kung fu has no concept of bridge

Yes it does. Northern mantis and chang chuan both do.

[TenTigers]

You guys are missing the point I think.
What is the first thing(s) boxer is taught?
Fighting stance with Guard
Puching
Evasive foot work
Parries
Blocks


Actually, that is the order I teach-except I teach the evasive footwork a bit later, after the student learns attacking. I don't want defensive footwork to be what they immediately go to when pressured. Once I am confident that they have the forward aggression hardwired in, then I add evasion.
When I trained in Wing Chun, it was taught the same way.
SPM, the same.
Again, the whole argument is due actually, to poor Kung-Fu teachers.
(yeah, sorry to say, but most teachers suk. If your teacher taught you that way, then guess what? Yup. And if YOU are teaching that way? Right again.)
I had both. I had the typical poor teaching, and I also was blessed in meeting a few (traditional/modern-put your choice here) teachers.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually, that is the order I teach-except I teach the evasive footwork a bit later, after the student learns attacking. I don't want defensive footwork to be what they immediately go to when pressured. Once I am confident that they have the forward aggression hardwired in, then I add evasion.
When I trained in Wing Chun, it was taught the same way.
SPM, the same.
Again, the whole argument is due actually, to poor Kung-Fu teachers.
(yeah, sorry to say, but most teachers suk. If your teacher taught you that way, then guess what? Yup. And if YOU are teaching that way? Right again.)
I had both. I had the typical poor teaching, and I also was blessed in meeting a few (traditional/modern-put your choice here) teachers.

We can't keep using the "poor teacher" argument as much as we would like, sorry.
Look at the first form of WC, static stance, minor shifts that can hardly be called evasions, blocking, no guard.
Go to any class in any TCMA and you will see the typical stuff I mentioned.
And that includes the classes taught by legit masters and you KNOW this to be true Bro.
We may not like to admit it, but we know it to be true.

[SanHeChuan]

Most forms tend to be linear, and that does not reflect good foot work. Needs more zig zag.

[bawang]

We can't keep using the "poor teacher" argument as much as we would like, sorry.


then lets change the way we teach ppls man

Yes it does. Northern mantis and chang chuan both do.

bridging is mostly in guangdong and fujian mang. northern fist poems all say evade and dodging and footwork.
theres lots of bridging in "instructional videos" that can add confusion

[Iron_Eagle_76]

We can't keep using the "poor teacher" argument as much as we would like, sorry.
Look at the first form of WC, static stance, minor shifts that can hardly be called evasions, blocking, no guard.
Go to any class in any TCMA and you will see the typical stuff I mentioned.
And that includes the classes taught by legit masters and you KNOW this to be true Bro.
We may not like to admit it, but we know it to be true.

I do agree with this. Kung Fu folks like to rant about how 90 percent of all modern Kung Fu sucks, yet no one ever seems to fall into that category. Also, every student learns differently so I don't think you can copy and paste a manual on how to teach someone, it is an individual thing. That being said, there are certain tools everyone must learn and good evasion and footwork is at the top of the list.

[bawang]

I do agree with this. Kung Fu folks like to rant about how 90 percent of all modern Kung Fu sucks,yet no one ever seems to fall into that category
modern kung fu sucks and i am part of the 90 percent

sanjuro now that you bring up footwork, im thinking about kung footwork , no names come up, i just realized there is no english names for them.i have ever heard them mentioned in canada. i think thats sad

i also agree wit u we cant blame on teachers in the past. the blame is with us right now. we ned reform pls

[TenTigers]

We can't keep using the "poor teacher" argument as much as we would like, sorry.
Look at the first form of WC, static stance, minor shifts that can hardly be called evasions, blocking, no guard.
Go to any class in any TCMA and you will see the typical stuff I mentioned.
And that includes the classes taught by legit masters and you KNOW this to be true Bro.
We may not like to admit it, but we know it to be true.

Yes, it is true. But typical is the problem. Sorry to sound like lkfmdc, but 99% of the teachers out there are doing it wrong. (I don't always agree with his viewpoints when it comes to TMA, but I agree with his training methodology)
Alot of these so-called "legit masters" also fall into this catagory. I don't care what their name is, how many books, dvd's,articles, how big their organization is. It is what it is.

You brought up WCK, so I will use this as an example:
WCK static stance is laying down foundation/structure, but it should immediately go into bai-jiong, shifting, stepping.punching. If he is having you JUST do siu lim tau, yjkym,etc., then he falls into that catagory.

For example, Alan Lee taught Siu Lim Tau, but it was a little bit at the end of class, after all the punching, hitting, moving, partner drills. Later, after the student was in awhile, more time was spent with the individual to fine tune the form/structures. You've seen the vids, you know what I mean. 99% of his class time is spent in live training. (I believe everyone could benefit by visiting his school. He is very open and welcomes visitors to come in and train) This to me is much better teaching, IMHO.

[sanjuro_ronin]

modern kung fu sucks and i am part of the 90 percent

sanjuro now that you bring up footwork, im thinking about kung footwork but the funny thing is i think about them, no names come up, i just realized there is no english names for them. i dont think i have ever heard them mentioned in canada. i think thats pretty sad

i agree we cant put all the blame on teachers in the past. the blame is with us right now. we ned reform pls

Well, in Hung Kuen we have LOTS of angle footwork, though I would be cautious of any crossing foot work.
It's pretty easy to figure out which foot work works best for who YOU fight.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yes, it is true. But typical is the problem. Sorry to sound like lkfmdc, but 99% of the teachers out there are doing it wrong. (I don't always agree with his viewpoints when it comes to TMA, but I agree with his training methodology)
Alot of these so-called "legit masters" also fall into this catagory. I don't care what their name is, how many books, dvd's,articles, how big their organization is. It is what it is.

You brought up WCK, so I will use this as an example:
WCK static stance is laying down foundation/structure, but it should immediately go into bai-jiong, shifting, stepping.punching. If he is having you JUST do siu lim tau, yjkym,etc., then he falls into that catagory.

For example, Alan Lee taught Siu Lim Tau, but it was a little bit at the end of class, after all the punching, hitting, moving, partner drills. Later, after the student was in awhile, more time was spent with the individual to fine tune the form/structures. You've seen the vids, you know what I mean. 99% of his class time is spent in live training. (I believe everyone could benefit by visiting his school. He is very open and welcomes visitors to come in and train) This to me is much better teaching, IMHO.

Ok, lets look at it this way, looking at the 1% instead of the 99, what are THEY doing? and why are they doing it?
In a typical MT gym, you are training to fight from day one, your guard, your stances, every strike is designed to be used, AS IS, in fighting and you can, if willing, fight with it from the first lesson.
Now, which 1% are you talking about that do that and are they TCMA?

[bawang]

Well, in Hung Kuen we have LOTS of angle footwork, though I would be cautious of any crossing foot work.
It's pretty easy to figure out which foot work works best for who YOU fight.
yeah man whats up with the cross step? i dont know how it works and it hurts my balls in that stance.

[sanjuro_ronin]

yeah man whats up with the cross step? i dont know how it works and it hurts my balls in that stance.

yeah, like you have balls big enough to hurt, you're chinese and you're not fooling anyone, Tiny.
:D

[bawang]

i rub dit da jow on them every day. they grow big

[TenTigers]

Ok, lets look at it this way, looking at the 1% instead of the 99, what are THEY doing? and why are they doing it?
In a typical MT gym, you are training to fight from day one, your guard, your stances, every strike is designed to be used, AS IS, in fighting and you can, if willing, fight with it from the first lesson.
Now, which 1% are you talking about that do that and are they TCMA?
well, you pretty much described my basic intro lesson...

[sanjuro_ronin]

well, you pretty much described my basic intro lesson...

YC WONG does NOT teach that way, you know that right?
Nor did Mas Oyama, so as to think that it is a solely a TCMA thing.
IT is not.

[TenTigers]

i rub dit da jow on them every day. they grow big
you must be reading the forumla upside down. Dit Da Jow is supposed to reduce swelling...

[bawang]

i have special recipe. mayonaise and kfc chicken skin and urine of young boy.


i think the main problem with training today #1 is lack of manliness. kung fu needs to instill spirit of manliness. for example less than 100 years ago white crane looked like karate. now it looks like old prostitute waving to customer.

[sanjuro_ronin]

i have special recipe. mayonaise and kfc chicken skin and urine of young boy.


i think the main problem with training today #1 is lack of manliness. kung fu needs to instill spirit of manliness. for example less than 100 years ago white crane looked like karate. now it looks like old prostitute waving to customer.

You know, you actually have a very good point.
The white crane one, not the KFC, you freak !

[bawang]

i think stop teaching forms will solve a lot of problems right away

[Drake]

The stunner is that Bawang is actually a fat white kid who plays World of Warcraft and likes to sometimes post here with bad grammar.

I'm not fooled.

[bawang]

yes i am a fat white kid. so what? i have no shame.
*rubs testicles and looks at youtube for 2 hours

[ittokaos]

When I began to learn Bak Mei my sifu stressed footwork first. I remember sometimes where the whole lesson was footwork and distance in relation to your opponent. We did it with a guard (hands up) the whole time to get the feeling of movement. It was later that we added strikes and shuai and so forth. Still to this day we often have a lesson with mostly footwork but now at least it is foot work with applications. Constant drilling.

[bawang]

thats really rare these days mang. in canada i only met one guy who taught like that
he had been in canada for 30 years and never got many students. at 50 years old he was so poor he was working in a chinese restaurant. thats the price you might pay if you devote your life to kung fu and teach real kung fu, and u dont get lucky. a life poverty and loneliness, i think u guys need to know that

[ittokaos]

Yeah, he mainly teaches out of his garage and while he is an excellent teacher and has trained in the more popluar styles(BJJ, Muay Thai, etc.) he loves kung fu too much and has stopped teaching those other styles all together. Which is an obvious hit to cash intake.

[Lee Chiang Po]

comparably I think you hit the nail on the head when you said Boxing focuses on punches exclusively, (dependent upon the era "dirty boxing" taken into account.") I've always been of the conclusion that you can train many things but can only master a few. Boxing is a demension of fighting, a 1 sided one, but one indeed. It focuses on standup striking and caters to that only. that being said, it is not a hard pill to swallow stating that if you want to get your striking better on your punches you should probably go take some boxing lessons, where it is stress and tested.

No trying to be the troll here, but why even train gung fu in the first place if you get more from boxing? If boxing has better fire power than your gung fu, then you are not doing yourself any favors.
I agree that boxing does seem to have stronger punches than most gung fu, with a few exceptions. While a young man I wanted to be a golden glove champ and spent a good deal of my time boxing at the local boy's club, but having trained 8 or 9 years in my system of gung fu, I could not escape my earlier training, and used the footwork and guard as well as the punching techniques. I had a hard time not kicking. I could switch guards, left,right,left and literally destroy an opponents defense. Forget that I won most of my matches, my boxing instructer dismissed me as not being able to box very well.
If boxing is your first experience with fighting you will be forever trying to inject it into every martial art you put your hand to because it will be the most comfortable. I know this because I started my first training at 10 years and by the time I tried anything else I pretty much had it down to a science. It would find it's way into everything I did.

[Drake]

yes i am a fat white kid. so what? i have no shame.
*rubs testicles and looks at youtube for 2 hours

It's ok. You are still my favorite.

[bawang]

i met some chinese kung fu people from mainland who tried to come and teach real kung fu. they had no connections and taught too traditinoal, ran out of money and had to work in chinatown, maybe for the rest of their lives, all the identical story.

i went to toronto right after high school thinking i could find kung fu people then devote my life to kung fu. i ended up working in chinatown too like the rest of them. not only that but because i was starving i wasted away, i lost all my gong fu. i lost all my muscles and the fist i worked for 5 years just peeled off . all i found was some abc and 50 year old crackers that liked to get together and talk about sports and their wifes baby, then do a form once in a while.

its easy to complain about how kung fu sux, but its really hard to try to reform for real. i understand the sifus that just wanna teach the rice bowls and make a decent living, the alternative is horrible.

[Drake]

In the end, if you really want to keep your school, it's a business, and you need to look at it that way. You may have to compromise a few things if you want to stay afloat. Stuff like belts, contemporary cirriculum, and forms may all be a necessary evil.

You don't necessarily have to claim to teach "teh streetz deadly", but there is some pandering to the audience that must be done.

[bawang]

the problem is people have died because of this sh1t. thousands of soldiers died in the past because of sh1t instructors. in formation treatise qi jiguang laments how soldiers got chopped in half while desperately trying to use their fake kung fu, and the ground was littered with chopped off arms and legs.
all because some scammer taught their "twirling sabers, spinning spears, rolling tiger forks"

for me my conscience is not gonna let me do that. if you need money teaching kung fu isnt the right career. go to college. if we teach we ned to teach it right or not at all

[Lee Chiang Po]

i met some chinese kung fu people from mainland who tried to come and teach real kung fu. they had no connections and taught too traditinoal, ran out of money and had to work in chinatown, maybe for the rest of their lives, all the identical story.

i went to toronto right after high school thinking i could find kung fu people then devote my life to kung fu. i ended up working in chinatown too like the rest of them. not only that but because i was starving i wasted away, i lost all my gong fu. i lost all my muscles and the fist i worked for 5 years just peeled off . all i found was some abc and 50 year old crackers that liked to get together and talk about sports and their wifes baby, then do a form once in a while.

its easy to complain about how kung fu sux, but its really hard to try to reform for real. i understand the sifus that just wanna teach the rice bowls and make a decent living, the alternative is horrible.

Well, when it comes to the rice bowl, having many students usually results in poor quality gung fu. Or is that what you were saying? I have taught a very few people, and it was by request and not really for money, as I have always had financial means, money was never an issue. If one could spur enough interest, he could personally handle upward of 120 students and earn a decent living. One would have to live in a huge metroplex though.

[Iron_Eagle_76]

When San Shou was created for the Chinese Army's CQC, was it not created by using the most effective techniques from Chinese styles(various Kung Fu, Shuai Jiao) and Western Boxing? I may be wrong but I am pretty sure I read somewhere that western boxing was implemented into San Shou training for punching.

That being said, if the Chinese are modifying their own style to what works better, why the hell shouldn't we????

[Dragonzbane76]

No trying to be the troll here, but why even train gung fu in the first place if you get more from boxing? If boxing has better fire power than your gung fu, then you are not doing yourself any favors.
I agree that boxing does seem to have stronger punches than most gung fu, with a few exceptions. While a young man I wanted to be a golden glove champ and spent a good deal of my time boxing at the local boy's club, but having trained 8 or 9 years in my system of gung fu, I could not escape my earlier training, and used the footwork and guard as well as the punching techniques. I had a hard time not kicking. I could switch guards, left,right,left and literally destroy an opponents defense. Forget that I won most of my matches, my boxing instructer dismissed me as not being able to box very well.
If boxing is your first experience with fighting you will be forever trying to inject it into every martial art you put your hand to because it will be the most comfortable. I know this because I started my first training at 10 years and by the time I tried anything else I pretty much had it down to a science. It would find it's way into everything I did.
I wrestled for years when I was young 5-15years old, that being my first experiences with contact MA's, it's what I go back to when in dire need. I later started kung fu and learned the bases for standup. Here should be the question: Why limit yourself to just one of anything? boxing is fine and dandy for learning the concepts of striking punches, many of the eastern arts are great for learning kicks, but in and of themselves they fall short on being "complete" when learning the full spectrum of fighting. I understand what you are saying about inject your earlier experiences in, but that does not mean you shouldn't try and learn a little of everything.

[YouKnowWho]

Why limit yourself to just one of anything? boxing is fine and dandy for learning the concepts of striking punches, many of the eastern arts are great for learning kicks, but in and of themselves they fall short on being "complete" when learning the full spectrum of fighting.

Agree 100% on this. CMA has many thing to offer. Just taking the boxing hook punch for example. When you throw a hook punch, your opponent may dodge under your hook and counter with an punch. Because the boxing rules and boxing training, when your opponent dodges, you can not use your elbow or back fist to hit on his head. Also because the boxing rules and boxing training, your opponent cannot drive his knee into your chest or shoot at your leg and take you down. By corss training both in boxing and CMA, you can fill up those gapes and to be more "complete".

Also without the CMA "bridging" concept, it will be very difficult (if not impossible) to integrate the striking art (such as boxing) and the throwing art (such as judo).

[SevenStar]

YC WONG does NOT teach that way, you know that right?
Nor did Mas Oyama, so as to think that it is a solely a TCMA thing.
IT is not.

right. form first, function last.

[SevenStar]

north kung fu has no concept of bridge

sure it does. that is how you transition into throws.

[KC Elbows]

right. form first, function last.

I'm confused, where is the sanjuro-ronin post this is from?

[sanjuro_ronin]

When San Shou was created for the Chinese Army's CQC, was it not created by using the most effective techniques from Chinese styles(various Kung Fu, Shuai Jiao) and Western Boxing? I may be wrong but I am pretty sure I read somewhere that western boxing was implemented into San Shou training for punching.

That being said, if the Chinese are modifying their own style to what works better, why the hell shouldn't we????

Western boxing methods teach you how to punch better, faster and in less time than any other method.
That is why they choose it.
If you wanna train someone to be half-way decent in unarmed combat and do it quickly, boxing for the hands is a must.

[Faruq]

i met some chinese kung fu people from mainland who tried to come and teach real kung fu. they had no connections and taught too traditinoal, ran out of money and had to work in chinatown, maybe for the rest of their lives, all the identical story.

i went to toronto right after high school thinking i could find kung fu people then devote my life to kung fu. i ended up working in chinatown too like the rest of them. not only that but because i was starving i wasted away, i lost all my gong fu. i lost all my muscles and the fist i worked for 5 years just peeled off . all i found was some abc and 50 year old crackers that liked to get together and talk about sports and their wifes baby, then do a form once in a while.

its easy to complain about how kung fu sux, but its really hard to try to reform for real. i understand the sifus that just wanna teach the rice bowls and make a decent living, the alternative is horrible.

"...I did teach for a short time and try to make a living on it. I found out that in order to maintain an income, it was very difficult to stick to the rules. When you have to make a full time living from it, economics, all too often, rears its ugly head. More often than not, you find you are swayed to make a change that you would not have otherwise made, if you were not dependent on it for income. I had made many mistakes over the years that I would not make again. For instance, I found myself allowing the rules, that I had learned and followed, to be undermined. Because of this, I closed down after a few years and started to teach the way I had taught before. I did this in order to teach a real art! I did not have to make it easy or sell forms and rank. If a rule was broken, I could deal with it without thinking about what it would do to me financially. The training was harder and if the student couldn't take it, he could leave. Each student had to follow a set of rules. For example, they had to be either a student in an academic school or have a regular job to go to. As well, they had to be the type of person that works well with other people. If they caused a problem, they were asked to leave. I have seen situations, in commercial operations that were out and out lies. Situations such as: following fads, complex payment systems being used in order to milk students, claims that were false and in some cases, clubs being run like a cult!

I have always told people to learn a trade or a profession and that if they want to teach martial arts, do it on the side. Then, if you want to teach a real art, you can teach it the way it is supposed to be taught…not the way the students want it. In the old days, if a student came in to learn, the classes were 2 or 3 hours long. If a student didn't show up and had no good reason for missing class, they were let go. This, then, kept only the dedicated ones. The term martial art means "war art". This means that it has no place in "tag" type tournaments. The only tournaments that allowed a person to fight, as he was supposed to, were in Asia. I am given to understand that now, however, they have mostly disappeared and have been replaced with games of tag. In most tournaments I have seen, and they are many, you would see a supposed "kung fu" student doing roundhouse kicks and flying whatsists and spinning dohickeys…none of which is in his style. I remember learning that sidekicks were to go no higher than the groin and the hands were to go to the head. Now, most of it is sport … not art. Not that there is anything wrong with sport, but don't call it a "martial art"… they are not the same thing. In the early years, when people tried to use gloves and make contact, they had to learn to punch from a boxer. This was because the sport they learned did not teach anything but tag. Now, if you enjoy that sort of thing, fine… but do not think you are doing a martial art.

A martial art was not to learn to walk on water or to do the ice breaks or cut watermelons. The real art was to protect life and limb. It had nothing to do with trophies. When I started out, there were no tournaments and money didn't factor into the arts. Now, however, all too often that is the main goal and the real art has died. I did all the tricks more than 20 years ago to feed my ego and to get students, but I would tell the people watching that walking on glass or cutting a watermelon was only a circus performance. No one gets attacked by a frozen lake or a vicious watermelon…people attack people! The purpose of a martial art is to learn how to deal with the worst in a human being. If you never need to use it…great, but if you do, make sure you are taught by someone that has done more than wrap a belt around his or her middle. Otherwise, you too can be one of those martial artists who end up in trouble because, like them, you have been "swimming on dry land". Most of the people I have met from China are not professional martial arts teachers, but are in a profession. It is fine to teach and fine to learn, but make sure you really know what is real..."

http://www.pakmei.net/articles/article.asp?ID=11