Good Kung Fu

[Rojcewicz]

There seems to be a terrible misconception circulating around this forum on what is good kung fu. I feel that the misunderstanding of what good kung fu is has been the main ingrediant in creating the MMA vs Kung Fu arguements. Fighting well (in sport or reality) is the goal of all fighting styles. To say that martial art styles can share the same goal but produce entirely different kinds of fighters is ridiculous. The difference does not lie in there product but only in there means of production. So if you want to see what a good Kung Fu fighter looks like just look at a Cro Cop,or a Cung Le, or any skilled fighter. Kung Fu is only a specific means, a certain path, on the way to reaching the same goal.

[SevenStar]

1. why is a kickboxer (cro cop) an example of how good kung fu should look?

2. even if the goal is fighting, the results will still be VASTLY different, as people train to fight in different venues and situations.

3. considering the vast experience on this forum, who are you to say anyone here has a misconception of what good kung fu is or isn't? (yeah, the mma guy is defending cma...)

4. since you seem to know what good kung fu is, care to show us video of your good kung fu schooling people in competition?

[Rojcewicz]

I think you miss my point; no matter what style you train in the same basic principles must be understood and adopted. So unless your style doesnt feel the need to teach simplicity, strength, structure, etc. (qualities that I feel these fighters exemplify), you too seek the same goal but in your styles specific way.

I have been practicing Northern Shaolin Long Fist for only a year now so I do not claim mastership or an expert level of knowledge, this is only my opinion.

[SevenStar]

I think you miss my point; no matter what style you train in the same basic principles must be understood and adopted. So unless your style doesnt feel the need to teach simplicity, strength, structure, etc. (qualities that I feel these fighters exemplify), you too seek the same goal but in your styles specific way.

you can have all of the above and still not be able to fight your way out of a takeout box. that is only part of the journey to the goal. Any style, fight oriented or not should teach you those things. Many of the TMA guys that we saw competing likely understood those things - what killed them was not training for the venue.

[Rojcewicz]

you can have all of the above and still not be able to fight your way out of a takeout box. that is only part of the journey to the goal. Any style, fight oriented or not should teach you those things. Many of the TMA guys that we saw competing likely understood those things - what killed them was not training for the venue.

I agree that there are certain techniques which must be mastered to succeed in certain venues, such as groundfighting, but my point still remains. The attributes I mentioned are only a few of the multiple qualities which every good fighter (no matter what venue) attempts to eximplify; that is the shared goal I am speaking of. I'm not sure what TMA guys you are talking about.

[SevenStar]

right, but what I am saying is that pretty much any style will give you the things that you mentioned, whether they are fight oriented or not.

[Mas Judt]

Just want you to know I'll take on any paper box anytime. Heck, I'll even fight a wet paper bag.

[Rojcewicz]

you can have all of the above and still not be able to fight your way out of a takeout box. that is only part of the journey to the goal. Any style, fight oriented or not should teach you those things. Many of the TMA guys that we saw competing likely understood those things - what killed them was not training for the venue.

and your right every style which is fight oriented should teach you to use the most simple and efficient motions possible and to throw your techniques with strength and structure. But to often can you see TMA guys fighting as if they are demonstrating a form, not as if they are reacting in the most effective and simple way to a real opponent. My sifu is a master in Northern Shaolin Long Fist and he teachs it as traditionaly as possible but when he fights my sifu has many more similarities with a pro MMA fighter than he does differences.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

MA guys fighting as if they are demonstrating a form, not as if they are reacting in the most effective and simple way to a real opponent.

Reply]
Yup. there is a drunken clip on Youtube that shows this exact phenomenon. The student is doing all this drunken bobbing and weaving, but it have nothing to do with what his opponent is doing. The opponent might as well not have been there.

[sanjuro_ronin]

My kung fu is good kung fu and I don't even do kung fu.

[Becca]

I think you miss my point; no matter what style you train in the same basic principles must be understood and adopted. So unless your style doesnt feel the need to teach simplicity, strength, structure, etc. (qualities that I feel these fighters exemplify), you too seek the same goal but in your styles specific way.

I have been practicing Northern Shaolin Long Fist for only a year now so I do not claim mastership or an expert level of knowledge, this is only my opinion.

It's a noble idea. The problem is that there are alot of teachers who do not base thier teaching off purely modern ideas. The MMAists out there seem to object to the majority of CMA for this fact alone. They feel that anyone willingly choosing not to compete is reinforcement for thier opinions.

And no mater what style you train in the same basic priciples need to be followed to produce the same result. But if the desired result is not to be a competative fighter, you ain't gonna get the same thing out of the training a kick boxer would use.

[Chosen-frozen]

[QUOTE=Rojcewicz;779640 To say that martial art styles can share the same goal but produce entirely different kinds of fighters is ridiculous. The difference does not lie in there product but only in there means of production. [/QUOTE]


I`ve got to disagree. Let`s say the goal is to produce a competent fighter at a certain range because in your circumstances most fights begin in that range.

Judo, western wrestling,and several forms of Silat all focus on closer ranges.As does Wing Chun for example. However even though each can produce outstanding fighters capable of using thier martial arts to excellent effect, the way they go about defending themselves or attacking their opponants is going to be vastly different.

Youtube is crawling with several versions of a street fight between a white kid using some kind of Southern Kung fu (CLF?) vs a kid moving like a boxer. ( I think one of the titles for it is "white ninja" or something) A boxer or MMA fan looking at it will complain to no end about the wide looping haymakers the winner throws. A Southern stylist would look at the same thing and say the kid was using circular forearm-blocks and lots of waist rotation to generate power that eventually KO`s the boxer.

Styles that agree on what charicteristics make a good fighter will look similar, but who is to say what makes good kung fu? I think that if if you can make it work under pressure it`s good kung fu. I for one would never last 2 seconds with a good ground grappler. I`m like a fish out of water on the ground. On the other hand I`ve also seen bouncers I worked with who were highly trained grapplers get cut to ribbons when the guy they tried to submit pulled a razor on them. Different styles develope under different conditions. Those conditions don`t always allow the same kind of response and so the styles develope accordingly.

Just my two cents.

[Rojcewicz]

I`ve got to disagree. Let`s say the goal is to produce a competent fighter at a certain range because in your circumstances most fights begin in that range.

Judo, western wrestling,and several forms of Silat all focus on closer ranges.As does Wing Chun for example. However even though each can produce outstanding fighters capable of using thier martial arts to excellent effect, the way they go about defending themselves or attacking their opponants is going to be vastly different.

Youtube is crawling with several versions of a street fight between a white kid using some kind of Southern Kung fu (CLF?) vs a kid moving like a boxer. ( I think one of the titles for it is "white ninja" or something) A boxer or MMA fan looking at it will complain to no end about the wide looping haymakers the winner throws. A Southern stylist would look at the same thing and say the kid was using circular forearm-blocks and lots of waist rotation to generate power that eventually KO`s the boxer.

Styles that agree on what charicteristics make a good fighter will look similar, but who is to say what makes good kung fu? I think that if if you can make it work under pressure it`s good kung fu. I for one would never last 2 seconds with a good ground grappler. I`m like a fish out of water on the ground. On the other hand I`ve also seen bouncers I worked with who were highly trained grapplers get cut to ribbons when the guy they tried to submit pulled a razor on them. Different styles develope under different conditions. Those conditions don`t always allow the same kind of response and so the styles develope accordingly.

Just my two cents.

I agree, I was making a generalization. It would be better for me to say that there are many more similarities than differences between the different styles and that these similarities are generated by shared principles. But if the "White Ninja" video you are talking about is the same that I have seen, than I (as a CMA student) think I can speak for everyone when I say that neither of those guys knew what they were doing.