Why "real vs. fake"?

[Anthony]

Anyone here want to discuss why the whole "real vs. fake" thing seems to only exist in the martial arts? Is it simply to discredit the other guy or school? In my opinion and experience, if you put in the time and sweat, your skill is real no matter what art you study. For example, a roundhouse kick under Tiger Schulman's karate is the same as that under Kyokushin Karate.

I think that this debate makes martial artists sound like fools.

For instance, you never hear some guy who wants to study boxing say: "I want to learn "real, authentic boxing" at a "real gym," from a "real" instructor with an authentic lineage".

If I wanted to learn how to play basketball, I wouldn't ask around for a coach that could teach me the real thing.

I think that in the martial arts, especially TCMA, where the history of our arts (how they were used and developed, etc.) is pretty obscure and embellished by legend, we should drop these silly arguements.

[David Jamieson]

To put it into the simplest of terms, this exists because there are no standards and no regulation for the entirety of the martial arts.

real vs fake is a moot question.

If you do it and it is perpetuated it is real.

If it is only a paper image with nothing behind it , then it is not real, or, fake.

The real question is the tougher one for people to get a handle on.

That is:

Is it effective or ineffective. Prove it one way or another.

Kungfu is in the hands...and all that.

[Ming Yue]

Originally posted by Anthony
If I wanted to learn how to play basketball, I wouldn't ask around for a coach that could teach me the real thing.

It's not about the round kick itself, it's about how you're taught to apply it.

You'll be a better basketball player if your coach can make a nice three pointer. You'll learn more nuances of the game from someone who has taught winning teams (or been part of one) than from someone who played for years but didn't ever take home a trophy.

If you just want to learn the rules and play in your own driveway, that's cool, but if you want to be a champion (on a personal level or an international level), you choose the teacher that produces champions, and in MA, that is almost always backed with a respectable personal history and heritage.

[Brad]

Anyone here want to discuss why the whole "real vs. fake" thing seems to only exist in the martial arts? Is it simply to discredit the other guy or school? In my opinion and experience, if you put in the time and sweat, your skill is real no matter what art you study. For example, a roundhouse kick under Tiger Schulman's karate is the same as that under Kyokushin Karate.

I think that this debate makes martial artists sound like fools.

For instance, you never hear some guy who wants to study boxing say: "I want to learn "real, authentic boxing" at a "real gym," from a "real" instructor with an authentic lineage".

Because boxing is a standardized sport, so if someone advertising boxing you assume you're learning real authentic boxing. If someone claimed to teach you boxing and they taught you something else, then I think other boxing coaches would look down on this phoney coach and he might even get in trouble with someone. And if someone was claiming something like,"I was Evander Hollyfields coach" or was claiming to be associated with a boxing organization they aren't, then the real coach or organization would be a little ticked off, and the phoney coach would probably get in trouble with someone again.

If I wanted to learn how to play basketball, I wouldn't ask around for a coach that could teach me the real thing.

If you wanted to learn basketball but were taught rugby instead, you might be a little ****ed off

I think that in the martial arts, especially TCMA, where the history of our arts (how they were used and developed, etc.) is pretty obscure and embellished by legend, we should drop these silly arguements.

Yes, I think that this is true to a point. It's silly holding a grudge over whose style is legit in cases when all the participants have been dead for a long time. But if a modern day teacher is actively lying to their students about their own personal backgrounds, then I think they deserve to be outed.

Going back to the sports analogies... If you had a choice to learn basketball from an NBA coach, or a guy claiming to be an NBA coach(who was actually a football player who learned about basketball from reading some books), who would you choose to learn from?

[shaolinboxer]

The real vs. fake argument is always present when discussing art.

A fellow practitioner and I were just discussing this the other day....the problem of authenticity, lineage, etc.

I think that at first it's hard to tell what is real, but after a while you just know. Similar to being deceived by fake-outs in early sparring matches, and then later being able to discern what is a real attack without trying.

[shaolinsoccer]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kung Lek
[B]To put it into the simplest of terms, this exists because there are no standards and no regulation for the entirety of the martial arts.

Seems to me then, that we do need some rules & regs regarding MA. However, there are so many styles & groups of thought concerning MA, I'm not sure it would work. Any thoughts?

[SPJ]

You may not regulate an art per se.

You may have cerifications, recognition, and form organizations or associations.

Fighting methods, cooking or painting methods etc are flexible.

However, there can be code of conduct in the association. Any violation would incur suspension or loss of membership in the organization or association.

Association of MA schools.

Association of MA instructors.

Associaton of MA research.

Association of MA clubs.

Association of MA students. etc.

Certifications may be determined by a consensus from the members.

Such as skill levels, knowledge of theories and histories, teaching methods or training methods.

There are associations as such in China and Taiwan.

There is no reason why we do not have such in North America.

It needs majority of members represented.

[Scythefall]

Seems to me then, that we do need some rules & regs regarding MA. However, there are so many styles & groups of thought concerning MA, I'm not sure it would work. Any thoughts? [/B]

It absolutely would not work.

It would make a good 70's style martial arts movie though.

"You wanna teach gong fu? Then you *******s better comply with these rules...or there'll be trouble!"

[omarthefish]

It is not at all unique to martial arts.

When I share what's going on in my life with my Dad he tends to relate it to his experiences in the dance world. He was a big swing danceer in the past and these days is more into tango and salsa. He even won a Kansas City all-city west coast swing championship "back in the day".

A few things I discovered about the social dancing world:

People argue about lineage. They say that "those guys" are a bunch of ball room queens who are too concerned about looking good and never really "got" what it means to dance in a club. They are missing the soul and are all about technique. They argue about who studied with whom and who got "the real stuff". This shows especially in the Tango world. People debate wether Argentine tango is better than . . .Spainish I think. They debate wether formal training is more important or experience. There are subltleties in lindy hop that certain "old schoolers" "get" and thes kids today just don't have a clue about.

I've seen the same kind of debate in the music world as well. I've head plenty of DJ's say, "that guys **** is fake." I've heard way too much debate over what constitutes "real" hip-hop.

The fact is, I don't know enough about the boxing world but I bet there's something similar that goes on there as well. I'm sure if you look around you can find people who say, "THAT guys a REAL boxer....him over there, he just brawls. He got no footwork and his jab sucks."

[joedoe]

In a lot of sports, you don't have to prove if you are real or fake because you compete and let the results do the tallking.

Come to think of it, you can do the same thing with martial arts

[Vash]

It's getting correct in here/
Uh Uh/
So put on all your clothes/
Uh Uh

[Mo Lung]

It boils down to this really:

If you go to a boxing gym you will be taught how to fight (within the rules of boxing).

Boxers always spar.

If you go to a kung fu school you may or may not be taught how to fight (within any given rules set), and you may never test what you are being taught.

Kung fu doesn't always spar. It should, of course, but not all schools do.

[PangQuan]

In regards to the "real vs. fake" issue, IMO it is mainly important here in the west. In china if you are a "fake" MA teacher, it will become evident rather quickly. Yet here in the west, (im speaking as an american) there are many, many people who are becoming interested in martial arts. Many of these people have never had anything at all to do with the martial arts, no instruction, no personal study be it literature or physical. So it is these people that the "fake" martial artists stalk and lure in with their flashy words and "secret" techniques. I believe this is a very important issue to keep in the noticed areas for this reason alone. We need to make sure and keep people informed as to what martial arts are really about, what is legitimate, and what is bunk. As martial artists, we are bound by duty to our teachers and our styles lineage to keep people informed properly and to make sure that we can help as many people with our knowledge as possible. So you see there is a very, very important reason why this "real vs. fake" topic always comes back. It needs to be there.

[Ray Pina]

"Real" and "fake" are just titles, but it's what behind those terms that set their value.

Yes, you can learn a roundhouse kick from Tiger Sholman, my master or a book or video. You can also learn how to turn a screw without any aid at all .... its pretty obvious how its done.

But being bale to turn a screw does not make one a carpenter. And being able to throw a roundhouse kick does not make one a martial artist or a fighter (I believe these two are also seperate things).

Real to me, is being able to use the tools for what they were truly intended. Fake to me, is talking about it.

[No_Know]

If you've been somewhere where your Kind was not appreciated you might find your kind seems more meek, docile...hold therir tongue...kow tows. It is not that your kind is not strong or proud, but experienced when facing greater numbers against. To live and give your children/generations a chance yield and show strength in appropriate ways at apropriate times.

I like Kung-Fu. There are moves that are supposed to be lethal. One of the safeguards of Kung Fu is the Fu. The time people in recent decades and years are not willing (or feel able) to put in. You see, the lethal moves are lethal because of severe developed trainings. But without that grip strength that move won't work it's best against very at you people who would like to see you hurt. The Sifus regulate their stuff. They also get an understanding of skill levels.

I think you can be a sifu with still more to learn. You just have so much of a lot together that you get the respect title and whatever else.

Doesn't mean its done.

While it usually works with the very young or very sheltered, people can think they know a thing and not have gotten it, besides one called Brad's extreme example of wanting to learn basketball but got rugby. You get shown by your non sports father how to dribble and it looks great when he does it or he explains all his flubbs away. But with more exposure you realize that the hoop is higher than at home, and those other kids are doing the same stuff but it does not look the same.

I learned the kicks and I could stick out my fists one at a time from standing nearly sideways. That didn't keep me from getting embarrassed in sparring. Looking like I was astanding doll compared to how the other person was doing. You could be shown to box, and lose in a Fight. Boxing is a fight based sport. Fighting is only sport to the viewers. ~ Fake doesn't quite mean fake when Americans use it, necessarily. It can mean the standard is better than what you showed me or the standard for this is greater than what I got out of it. And Real--that dreamy skill level that is done by the super human people I see doing it.

The measuring stick exists. Perhaps some of you just don't measure up.


I No_Know
No offense, Truth is Truth.