Which kung-fu style is usually most dominant

[David Jamieson]

From that nykungfu site:

Lama Pai (Style of the Tibetan Monks)

Tibetan monks don't do no fu. lol
Dunno about the rest, but Tibetan monks don't do no fu.

[PangQuan]

MINE......

[Reggie1]

Notice that the author is Chinese from Singapore and has a great interest for kung fu, so the source is absolutely not biased.

Yeah, it sounded like it wasn't biased. Except it was written as more of a persuasive argument.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not knocking Muay Thai. It's proven itself over and over how effective it is.

It was a really good article, though. I liked what the guy had to say.

The bottom line is, if you only want fighting skills then stick with the easiest and most direct path...boxing/muay thai/kickboxing, etc.

There are other alternatives. Like Kyokushin (sp?) Karate. Or finding a school that encourages hard-contact sparring.

[BibitClerus]

xingyi and bagua

[joedoe]

Hamster style

[phantom]

I have heard that Johnny Kwong Lee's my jhong law horn instructor, I think his name was Sifu Yee, was undefeated in challenge matches.

[Glimmer]

Interesting thread - in this day and age of styles fighting it out and being tested in cage fighting (along with trad gong sau), I think it is a bit naive to think 'all kung-fu styles are equal', that sounds like communism to me. :P

Ok, here are my inexperienced thoughts..

Kung-fu styles vary incredibly and clearly some are better suited to dance/demonstration and some are just plain, low down and dirty fighting systems. As others have already mentioned, the effectiveness of a style is often defined by how they train...is it full-contact? Much conditioning? Are the techniques grounded in reality i.e. flashy high kicks or emphasis on no-nonsense punching?

Then of course, it comes down to whether the instructor/sifu is anygood or not and how they transfer their practical knowledge and experience onto their students.

Finally and sometimes most importantly, it comes down to the individual; are they lacking in fight experience? Do they have the right mind-set to make things work in a chaotic situation? Do they train hard everyday, unlike those so called masters who went over and fought the muay thai national champs and all bar one, unsurprisingly got KO'ed?

Looking at all these factors, it comes down to probability - some styles and schools have a higher rate of producing good fighters...sometimes as a result of reputation and image (i.e. if it has a rep for training hard, it will attract meaner students). So you have to look at which styles and schools, percentage wise, have a higher success rate when it comes to gong sau, san da or ufc etc. This is an empirical method of saying 'which style is better for fighting'. Check gong sau records for further info.

Personally, I would comment that southern styles appear FAR more practical in their approaches and methology then northern. But this is a fine distinction, as this north/south divide surely must be outdated by now. Being more specific, I would say that hakka styles like mantis/pak mei/dragon etc look like being excellent fighting styles...as their methods resemble real fighting, rather then exagerated Shaw brothers cheorographed fights.

[Mannie]

Without a dought
HAKARAC BOXING is the most dominant kung fu system in the planet.
This year alone - 8 fights - 7 wins
HAKARAC BOXER first fight lost by a point to a fighter with 6 fights. REMATCHED for November
Arrest record this year alone by security and police officers that train in Hakarac :
892 arrests - NO INJURIES
2 STATE TITLE HOLDERS IN BOXING
1 NATIONAL GOLD MEDALIST IN BOXING
1 HEAVY WEIGHT TITLE HOLDER IN MORTAL COMBAT
3 JUNIOR STATE TITLE HOLDERS IN BOXING
In the street or the ring
HAKARAC BOXING is simple and 100% effective