Traditional kung fu training?

[jmd161]

What does traditional kung fu training mean to you? I ask this because it seems that so many people have different ideas of what traditional kung fu training is. You hear people that talk of the oldschool stance training for a yr and the strict sifu that didn't teach you anything until you proved yourself worthy.

But is that traditional training?


I can relate to the basics and the stance training because my sifu does it, but to wait until you prove yourself worthy? I thought oldschool kung fu was all about fighting prowess? That's all my sifu cares about, how well you can defend yourself with your kung fu. If anyone was to attend one of our training classes it would look a lot like a MMA class than it does a TCMA class. That's because it about fighting we don't have any of the lion dance or other cultural trappings.

Kung fu training of today is too drawn out and watered down. It is no wonder most CMA stylist don't learn to fight with their art these days. With al the different things going on within a class. You have lion dance, weapons training, forms practice, two man drills, sparring (not All schools) warm up's, cool downs etc.... With all these things going on, when do you really have time to work on actual fighting in a 1-2 hr class a few days a week?

It is this that leads me to believe that most CMA schools that claim to teach traditional oldschool kung fu are actually a myth. With everything they teach these days how could they have time for real fight training?



jeff

[David Jamieson]

Tradition to me simply implies that you train in the way you were taught to which is how your teacher was taught and so on and so on.

It doesn't amount to flavourless unchanging patterns that do not allow room for growth or further development.

Traditional boxing training is similar. There are elements to the training that are inherent to everywhere you go to train it.

same with kungfu. There are elements to training kungfu that are similar across all styles. This is the traditions.

The filial aspects and cultural things aside, when it comes to the martial arts part, it is those things that are inherent to the development of kungfu and that are adhered to that make something traditional.

there are some people here who seem to think that traditional is all the outside trappings of training when in fact, those are mostly the least traditional aspect of kungfu.

Traditional should not be equated with ineffective. Especially not by people who have not put the sufficient time in to gain any sort of understanding.

legit is legit is legit regardless.

besides, given a couple of more years (and it's happening now) you will see crappier and crappier schools that call themselves mma. Hopefully, all the charlatans will be cast out from traditional martial arts and gravitate to where th money is which is with the instant gratification contingent over in the mma farm. lol

[sanjuro_ronin]

Traditionally a MA systems was created for a fighting purpose to be effective in the simple act of fighting, if one trains in a way to make his system practical and effective in fighting, it is traditional, if one trains in a way that hinders the systems effectiveness, that is un-traditional.

Of course if your systems of "TMA" was founded on NON-COMBAT effectiveness, then that is a different story.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Tradition to me simply implies that you train in the way you were taught to which is how your teacher was taught and so on and so on.

Reply]
What if the master three generations back decided to NOT teach his students the old way, and instead started teaching a lot of forms. Every generation got more form oriented as time went on, and now that is how things are, but 4 generations ago it was all two man fight training, and forms were originally taught last?

What is "traditional" in that scenario?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Tradition to me simply implies that you train in the way you were taught to which is how your teacher was taught and so on and so on.

Reply]
What if the master three generations back decided to NOT teach his students the old way, and instead started teaching a lot of forms. Every generation got more form oriented as time went on, and now that is how things are, but 4 generations ago it was all two man fight training, and forms were originally taught last?

What is "traditional" in that scenario?

If a system was create and developed for combat and is not trained that way anymore, it is not following its traditions.
If some sifu/sensei/guru/undeserving heir to the throne of butt munchers, perverted that and decided to make it all about "harmony" than that is fine too, just don't pass it off as something its not.
Tradition can be 100's of years or 10's of years.

[lkfmdc]

What most people associate with "traditional" is between 80 and 150 years old. It is a product of both social and economic changes... IMO, initial changes set into motion a progressive degeneration, ie each generation got progressively more bogged down in counter productive aspects that were generated by these changes

Even someone who studied in the 70's and 80's can relate to fundamental changes in how TCMA is practiced and taught today... ie if you can see a shift in your lifetime, imagine a shift over 2 or 3 generations?

[bawang]

it's up people people who live in THIS generation to make a difference, you and me!

[MASTERforge]

Please realize that the classes and lessons you go to are only meant to be a small part of your training. Of course the teacher cannot teach anything in depth for a lesson lasting under 2 hours.

The whole point of the lesson it that the teacher shows you a technique, you go and learn it outside of lesson then come back so he can make adjustments. The emphasis is on your hard work. Thats why they call it Kung fu.

When you show this level of commitment and determination he will or should be willing to teach you outside of lesson in the traditional method.

Very little happens in lesson. Its all outside.

[David Jamieson]

Tradition to me simply implies that you train in the way you were taught to which is how your teacher was taught and so on and so on.

Reply]
What if the master three generations back decided to NOT teach his students the old way, and instead started teaching a lot of forms. Every generation got more form oriented as time went on, and now that is how things are, but 4 generations ago it was all two man fight training, and forms were originally taught last?

What is "traditional" in that scenario?

Traditional is the definition.

old way doesn't mean traditional.

traditional in context to martial art means handed down from teacher to student. Ergo, An untraditional way of learning is video tapes and school jumping.

Masterforge-agreed. It is a given that the things we are taught we will learn by practice. or "That which we are taught, we learn by doing" - Aristotle

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

traditional in context to martial art means handed down from teacher to student. Ergo, An untraditional way of learning is video tapes and school jumping

Reply]
Many people through out history traveled and learned from a great number of people. Not everyone stuck to one style only all thier lives.

I would be willing to bet many styles were created because the founder learned a bit from here, and a tad from there and amalgamated it into something functional....and his own personal style was born. When he taught he told his students he learned form an unnamed wandering Taoist.....

[Jeong]

I would be willing to bet many styles were created because the founder learned a bit from here, and a tad from there and amalgamated it into something functional....and his own personal style was born. When he taught he told his students he learned form an unnamed wandering Taoist.....

That's pretty much the story of Choy Lay Fut. Well the founder spent more than a 'little bit' studying here and there, but CLF is essentially a fusion of three styles (one for 'C', one for 'L' and one for 'F')

[Becca]

If a system was create and developed for combat and is not trained that way anymore, it is not following its traditions.
If some sifu/sensei/guru/undeserving heir to the throne of butt munchers, perverted that and decided to make it all about "harmony" than that is fine too, just don't pass it off as something its not.
Tradition can be 100's of years or 10's of years.

If traditions can be as little as 10 years, then the guy who redirected the style away from what his teachers did, while definantly a butt munch, is still doing traditional training; just not doing it with his teacher's traditions. Anything you do repetedly the same way for every person or generation becomes a tradition.

The question isn't if traditional training is effective; it is. The real question is if a spacific style/teacher combination is effective for a spacific student... And no one on this forum can give you that answer. That you just have to go out and find out for yourself.

[unkokusai]

What does traditional kung fu training mean to you?

Training in a roofless 'gym' with a dirt floor, an old man with a long white beard telling a tall young man how and when to hit me for a few hours, then eating some really great dumplings.

[Shaolinlueb]

traditional people seem want to preserve the art of forms and applications into usage of kung fu, where more "modern" people just train forms and dont care about the application. or they just give it up and do kick boxing.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

"modern" people just train forms and dont care about the application.

Reply]
These same people tell their students they are "Traditional" though.