Stop B!tch'n...

[MightyB]

BJJ, MMA, are good catalysts for this discussion- but they're not what this discussion is about- it's about improving the training in kung fu schools- using kung fu techniques so that we can use something that looks like the kung fu we train in real life scenarios- whether it's on a lei tai mat- or the street.

Maybe it's not possible-

[SimonM]

According to you, it loses its Wing Chuniness because other people are doing groundwork better, by your opinion, and as their primary purpose. Well, TKD kicks more than any other art, so Muay Thai is half Tae Kwon Do, and so is Karate, and all CMA's, including Wing Chun. Oh, and MMA is Tae Kwon Do.

Wow, that's some spurious logic there.

Here's the place where your argument falls to pieces.

Traditional MT contains kicks not derived from a third party source.

Traditional WT is completely devoid of groundfighting techniques.

Therefore for MT to use kicks it doesn't have to borrow from another art. For WT to include groundfighting they have to farm out to some other art. BJJ, JJJ, Folk Wrestling, what have you are not WT. They don't become WT just because a WT teacher crosstrains in one of them and goes: hey this art makes a good companion to my core art because it fills up the holes in the style.

2. Every art has groundwork.

Nonsense, unadulterated nonsense.

They're martial positions everybody outside of TKD know, and I'll bet even they know.

Wow, you REALLY seem to hate TKD. And yet you claim that every other style in the world is complete with no need for crosstraining. Wierd.

I took a free week at a Combat Hapkido school. It was free. I asked about groundwork. He was happy to show me Hapkido locks on the ground. It looked just like BJJ and JJJ and wrestling. Why? Well, if you use the same principles of locking and Chin-na on the ground, it looks like those arts. Why? Because that's all they are.

And did you, you know, go out and TRY OUT any of those techniques against a JJJer or a BJJer or a wrestler to SEE if they really work just as well?

No.

[bakxierboxer]

Maybe it's not possible-

Why would you think that?

You actually started out offering up "an answer" in post #1 and dead-bang nailed"the answer" in post #34..........

[MightyB]

Why would you think that?

You actually started out offering up "an answer" in post #1 and dead-bang nailed"the answer" in post #34..........

Believe me I'm trying- I do think that with the right training and training partners ( the value of a good sparring partner can never be overestimated ) that it's possible to bring back or create "old-school" kung fu...

[Ray Pina]

I don't know who said it, but there's MUCH more to Jiu-Jitsu then locks. Submission without position is useless. The value of Jiu-Jitsu is learning how to sink your weight and be heavy to torture the other guy, control him and force him to do something to relieve the pressure. Then you nail him with a submission.

Heaviness. But also lightness. Drilling energy, digging your head in to torture someone. Explosiveness. So much. So much.

[bakxierboxer]

Believe me I'm trying- I do think that with the right training and training partners ( the value of a good sparring partner can never be overestimated ) that it's possible to bring back or create "old-school" kung fu...

Definite value in them... I tend to think-of/like smallish groups of @ 4 (or more)
who can provide each other with varying characteristics/abilities.

I also dislike the term "sparring", preferring the "feel" of "free-fighting"
(with a "gentleman's agreement" on what "limits" are to be used)

As for "bringing back" or "(re?)creating" "old-school kung fu".... what's that Old Saying about?
Something like.... "venting a ream" or "reaming the wheel"?
Tsk!
It's "slipping my mind".......

[KC Elbows]

Wow, that's some spurious logic there.

Here's the place where your argument falls to pieces.

Traditional MT contains kicks not derived from a third party source.

Traditional WT is completely devoid of groundfighting techniques.

I don't think it's that simple. BJJ did not, wholesale, come from nowhere, it borrowed from other arts from the very beginning, yet it surely is a style on its own. If another style finds ways to accommodate new techniques within a framework that is specific to that style, and/or complementary in training techniques and principles, those techniques, in that line of the style, can fairly be called part of that style, regardless of where they originally come from.

One can link many taiji techniques to longfist, but to call taiji longfist because longfist could have been an earlier source is false, taiji has it's own specific approach to those techniques.

Fighters should be addressing fighting needs, to suggest there is only one style that addresses ground fighting needs is not accurate, therefore to suggest that no further styles could arise that address those needs is questionable, and might stymie innovation. Not that long ago, bjj did not exist, even if many of its techniques did in other styles, but it is a good thing that someone felt the urge to innovate, had the talent to do so, and the courage to pressure test their innovations.

It is worth stating that many of the opponents bjj fighters faced early on were not exactly well suited and experienced enough to provide a good pressure test on the ground, except for other bjj guys and some judo guys, but it was better than nothing.

As long as innovation is being tested, that's cool. If it all becomes about dogmatically sticking by this style or that, bjj included, the full contact fighters with blind spots will be the ones assuming their style has all answers and there are no new questions. The rather recent phenomenon of bjj and mma shows that new problems can still arise, so why not raise them?

[mkriii]

I think one of the reasons why kung fu doesn't work is because people (schools) don't train properly or like they used to back in the old days. When kung fu students sparr today it's more like kickboxing. They don't use the techniques that they learn in class or from their forms. When was the last time you saw someone sparr and use a tiger claw or an eagle claw or a mantis claw or a crane beak? I think that the instructors are the ones to blame because they aren't teaching the student how to apply these techniques when fighting. Their teaching the forms and bsic kicks and punches and then letting the student sparr. What the teacher(s) should be doing is telling the students that the only techniques they can use while sparring in class are the techniques they learned in the forms. Of course the teacher has to show the student what each technique in the form is for and how it is applied in different situations. If your in a grappling situation there are tons of kung fu techniques that can be used. If your in a clinch position you could go for the eyes with a thumb strike, use a snake head strike to the throat, etc.... Kung fu will work if you use the correct technique for that particular situation your in.

[David Jamieson]

more fitness, more task specific training, goal orientation and attribute development.

I find that the big hurdle for most is in the fitness category.

people are all down with holding postures and learning moves, but the gassing is fast when you are not fit.

do your cal!

also. the attitude of taking a ma class to something like going to dance class with promotions is curious.

so besides fitness, function has to be brought to bear and you can only do that through application. Form follows function. Learning patterns without learning the functions is useless and time consuming.

there is a cleverness to many applications that is really worth studying in an environment that promotes progress.

[Shaolin Wookie]

Wow, that's some spurious logic there.

Here's the place where your argument falls to pieces.

Traditional MT contains kicks not derived from a third party source.

...Laugh.....if you have legs, you can make up any kick. Do you honestly think that kicking arts never used any of the MT kicks, ever? That it was like this genetic thing only the Thais understood? Or, maybe, just maybe, people kick however they kick. I bet you some Chinese person did a MT kick without studying or ever seeing MT. No....wait...... I'm sure that's just nonsense.....pure and utter nonsense....you take two thousand years of martial practice, with millions of practitioners....but only hte Thais, those blessed CHOSEN ONES...only the Thais ever kicked in the fashion they kicked.......

Or, maybe they lacked the imaginations for finely executed triple gainers with a butterfly twist 540 back heel kick.

Traditional WT is completely devoid of groundfighting techniques.

Who cares? That's not the question.

Therefore for MT to use kicks it doesn't have to borrow from another art.

Nonsense. I did some Muay Thai kicks in Capoeira. Since we all come from Africa, and Capoeira is a slave art based on African traditions, clearly they took their kicks (especially the Teep) from Capoeira.

For WT to include groundfighting they have to farm out to some other art. BJJ, JJJ, Folk Wrestling, what have you are not WT. They don't become WT just because a WT teacher crosstrains in one of them and goes: hey this art makes a good companion to my core art because it fills up the holes in the style.

Yes, it does become Wing Chun. So....how did BJJ become BJJ? How did wrestling become wrestling? Maybe they were created on the sixth day? BJJ is still evolving, borrowing, adapting, etc. So is Wing Chun.


You guys are all so closeminded, it's hilarious.

And did you, you know, go out and TRY OUT any of those techniques against a JJJer or a BJJer or a wrestler to SEE if they really work just as well?

No.

Well, considering I've done beginner's BJJ and took a Submission Wrestling seminar from a pro MMA'er and used to get tips from a Vale Tudo guy from Brazil, and the techniques in Shaolin Groundfighting....yes...Shaolin Groundfighting were the same basic techniques, then yes, they'd work just as well. But I won't practice them as much as standup, so they'll never be perfect. But better a little something than nothing at all.

Oh wait...here it comes....

No it won't. Groundfighting rules.

It does, as long as it's my Shaolin Groundfighting.

[Ray Pina]

No disrespect to anyone here, but there is a lot of confusing "a few lessons" and "seminars" with working knowledge of a subject. Jiu-Jitsu is like anything, you get out what you put in.

And if you are a natural, a super gifted learner, your what, 15 hours of total training experience under qualified supervision means what? I put that in already this week and I'm still training tomorrow and Sat.


This goes back to my larger point: A large group of martial artists aren't playing around anymore. They are training hard. Your typical Kung Fu hobbyist can't compete, so they don't. And this is good.

People talk about the old days and how hard people trained. Well, you can do that now, today, if you want. This is how it should be. If you want it you put your love and life into it. If not, that's great too. But don't bend reality and make excuses. And the best thing is there's no arguing with this game. You either get beat up or beat someone up and its all on you and your training.

[MasterKiller]

When was the last time you saw someone sparr and use a tiger claw or an eagle claw or a mantis claw or a crane beak?

I use crane and mantis hooks all the time in the clinch and on the ground. In wrestling, it's just called a thumbless grip.

I think that the instructors are the ones to blame because they aren't teaching the student how to apply these techniques when fighting. Their teaching the forms and bsic kicks and punches and then letting the student sparr. What the teacher(s) should be doing is telling the students that the only techniques they can use while sparring in class are the techniques they learned in the forms. Of course the teacher has to show the student what each technique in the form is for and how it is applied in different situations. If your in a grappling situation there are tons of kung fu techniques that can be used.

The only way to get people to use techniques from their forms is to seperate the technique from the form and get the students to drill them against resisting partners at varying levels of aggression and power. When you drill techniques this way, you quickly learn that some techniques simply do not work and others, while appearing basic, are really the most efficient method in a fight.

If your in a clinch position you could go for the eyes with a thumb strike, use a snake head strike to the throat, etc.... Kung fu will work if you use the correct technique for that particular situation your in.

If that's all your kung fu has to rely on, then you don't have kung fu. Ti Da Shuai Na.

[MightyB]

The only way to get people to use techniques from their forms is to seperate the technique from the form and get the students to drill them against resisting partners at varying levels of aggression and power. When you drill techniques this way, you quickly learn that some techniques simply do not work and others, while appearing basic, are really the most efficient method in a fight.

I think this is key- something that I think everyone, myself included, needs to do more of.

[Ray Pina]

Also, one technique that works for one guy might not work for another. That's why individual techniques such as say, tiger's claw or crane beak, are not as important as core aspects: shielding, entering, exiting, opening shielding, collapsing shields. When you successfully open a man's defense then you can tiger claw his chin and dig your fingers into his eyes. Or uppercut him. Or over hand his nose.

Crane beaks are a good attack while fading away from an attack. So is a hook. Or a step and low round house kick.

[SimonM]

As long as innovation is being tested, that's cool. If it all becomes about dogmatically sticking by this style or that, bjj included, the full contact fighters with blind spots will be the ones assuming their style has all answers and there are no new questions. The rather recent phenomenon of bjj and mma shows that new problems can still arise, so why not raise them?

This isn't, for me, an issue of whether or not there is more than one groundfighting style, I am perfectly aware that there are several since I've participated in three different ones (folk wrestling, judo, jjj) in my life. The issue is one of nomenclature; does something become part of a core art just because one instructor cross-trains in it and then instructs his students in both core and supplement? Or does it remain a case of an instructor who simply has more than one core art or who has a core art and a supplemental art?

I think the latter. Takeshi thinks the former.

And he also is trying the stupid chestnut of attributing quotes to me that I didn't say. Jack@ss