I think people that do kung fu, suck.

[Dim Wit Mak]

1.) Understanding of a technique is what allows people to teach and learn styles like boxing, bjj, muay thai, wrestling, etc. - If more kung fu teachers understood their techniques on a more technical level, you would see the progression into fighting ability at the same pace. Unfortunately the ignorance of the technical and scientific aspects are translated into the teaching, "if you practice it constantly, it will come to you", or if you just do it, someday you'll understand it.

This is an extremely ineffective method of teaching, and the reason much kung fu is in such a horrible state.


2.) Kung Fu(and I say it as a single entity, because it applies to ALL styles, karate, tae kwon do, anything) - when taught properly will, as implied above, be as combat effective in the same amount of time as your so-called "Me learn smash plenty quick" systems - which, btw is an extremely disrespectful way to describe systems which offer incredible depth and which you obviously lack an understanding of.


3.) Effectiveness is in simplicity. The greatest so-called "Secrets" to martial arts that I've found, aren't in complexity or something that would take years to understand. To be honest, they're simple, direct and effective methods. They don't take ten years to learn. All of the methods i've found that aren't over-complicated to the point of ridiculousness, can be learned in the same amount of time that it takes to learn how to jab, cross, uppercut, or throw a combination.


4.) Patience? A Persons time is extremely valuable. Especially when you're being charged $100/month for someone to teach you who has no verifiable fighting ability. Thats not to say they don't have skill or teaching ability - But people will be patient for something they believe is valuable to them. Many kung fu instructors are too incompetent to pass on this value. Whereas you'll find plenty of boxing and mma gyms who offer quality fighting instruction and the value for people to devote their time and energy to.

I have to admit that some members of the TCMA community have created some of their own problems. I will just mention a couple of them. There have been some unethical instructors who have taught close to meaningless material to certain students. They didn't like the student for one reason or another. Perhaps the student was Occidental or the sifu didn't feel he or she was dedicated enough. The kwoon took their money though. This is inexcusable.

Another item of contention is the practice of having a "system within a system". I can understand this to an extent, although I do not agree with it. Sometimes the regular system was taught to the garden variety students, and the hidden system was taught to the students the sifu deemed worthy. Perhaps the sifu was insecure in some instances and wanted to have a few tricks in case some young buck wanted to lock horns. Kind of a twist on the "Old age and treachery" concept.

To me, any dedicated, loyal student, who has coughed up the wampum to study the system, should not have anything withheld from him. The system within the system should always be revealed. Historically, the possiblity of treachery might change the rules on this, but I don't see the need in our time. I suppose the possiblity always exists, but it would probably be better just to tell the suspect to go find another teacher.

This is a whole other topic, but I guess I just needed to vent. I started to think about it when you stated that Kung Fu has its issues (paraphrase).

The only other thing I would add, in response to bullet #2, is that the so called "disrespect" was a comment about, not the systems that have the depth you are talking about, but those that don't. I also have no disprespect for the person who gets in a ring with pretty much raw talent and a minimum of depth. Simplicity can be very effective. One of my favorite fighters of all time basically stalked his opponent until he could nail him with a thunderous right cross. He never fought professionally, but was an Olympic Gold Medalist.

[David Jamieson]

1.) Understanding of a technique is what allows people to teach and learn styles like boxing, bjj, muay thai, wrestling, etc. - If more kung fu teachers understood their techniques on a more technical level, you would see the progression into fighting ability at the same pace. Unfortunately the ignorance of the technical and scientific aspects are translated into the teaching, "if you practice it constantly, it will come to you", or if you just do it, someday you'll understand it.

This is an extremely ineffective method of teaching, and the reason much kung fu is in such a horrible state.


2.) Kung Fu(and I say it as a single entity, because it applies to ALL styles, karate, tae kwon do, anything) - when taught properly will, as implied above, be as combat effective in the same amount of time as your so-called "Me learn smash plenty quick" systems - which, btw is an extremely disrespectful way to describe systems which offer incredible depth and which you obviously lack an understanding of.


3.) Effectiveness is in simplicity. The greatest so-called "Secrets" to martial arts that I've found, aren't in complexity or something that would take years to understand. To be honest, they're simple, direct and effective methods. They don't take ten years to learn. All of the methods i've found that aren't over-complicated to the point of ridiculousness, can be learned in the same amount of time that it takes to learn how to jab, cross, uppercut, or throw a combination.


4.) Patience? A Persons time is extremely valuable. Especially when you're being charged $100/month for someone to teach you who has no verifiable fighting ability. Thats not to say they don't have skill or teaching ability - But people will be patient for something they believe is valuable to them. Many kung fu instructors are too incompetent to pass on this value. Whereas you'll find plenty of boxing and mma gyms who offer quality fighting instruction and the value for people to devote their time and energy to.

on these points:

1) that is a sorry way of teaching. I am glad i didn't experience that.

2) kungfu does apply to all skills that are learned, true.

3) it's not the learning or the showing, it's the doing and the knowing. practice to perfection takes time. There's no way around putting your time in. IN fact, the longer a competition fighter goes, the more likely it is that his career will end with his failure. That's the nature of competitive fighting, it can be readily studied by others and if all you got in your bag of tricks is simple techniques, then your career will be short because that stuff will be countered quickly. Top guys have their day and they stay at the top for a relatively short period of time in the fight game. Kungfu you can practice your whole life.

4) you cannot buy skill even if someone wanted to show you. also, you don't feed steak to babies, you feed them milk. why would you give people advanced materials when they are hardly capable of basic body awareness.


summary: yes you can fast track to fighting. You can get a person up and fighting in his weight class and rules venue in a relatively short timeline if all the stars are aligned etc etc (ie: they're not a complete retard are somewhat fit and capable of understanding language and tactile training and don't need to have things shown to them 300 times only to once again do it wrong and most of all, tehy have the will to fight)

[AdrianK]

Oh man, I go away for a day and I have a ton to respond to

So, Dim Wit Mak -

I have to admit that some members of the TCMA community have created some of their own problems. I will just mention a couple of them. There have been some unethical instructors who have taught close to meaningless material to certain students. They didn't like the student for one reason or another. Perhaps the student was Occidental or the sifu didn't feel he or she was dedicated enough. The kwoon took their money though. This is inexcusable.

The problem is that in major metropolitan areas, this has become the rule, and not the exception to the rule. I've literally been to dozens and dozens of schools and keep a notebook of quality instructors in southern california - The bad schools out here, outnumber the good ones almost 10 to 1. Thats a trend.

To me, any dedicated, loyal student, who has coughed up the wampum to study the system, should not have anything withheld from him. The system within the system should always be revealed. Historically, the possiblity of treachery might change the rules on this, but I don't see the need in our time. I suppose the possiblity always exists, but it would probably be better just to tell the suspect to go find another teacher.

I agree. Especially when many of these instructors charge quite a bit of money for their services.

The only other thing I would add, in response to bullet #2, is that the so called "disrespect" was a comment about, not the systems that have the depth you are talking about, but those that don't. I also have no disprespect for the person who gets in a ring with pretty much raw talent and a minimum of depth. Simplicity can be very effective. One of my favorite fighters of all time basically stalked his opponent until he could nail him with a thunderous right cross. He never fought professionally, but was an Olympic Gold Medalist.

I understand what you mean. Thats the interesting thing - You could have just a thunderous right cross in your arsenal, and still have more depth then people who have dozens of techniques and training methods... the part of martial arts with the absolute most depth, IMHO, is yourself. The human body. When we develop our hand-eye coordination, our bodies to strike, our understanding of our opponents and their bodies, our timing... these are such extensive, important parts that are universal to all styles of fighting. Human beings and their development have far more depth and science behind them than any style.



Now, onto David Jamieson -

1) that is a sorry way of teaching. I am glad i didn't experience that.

After I had obtained my first "Black belt", I went on a quest to get as much experience with as many styles in my area as possible. To this day, I still check out every new school that I see that pops up in my area, and I can honestly say that the majority, teach like that. It sucks, and I want to smack these instructors upside their **** heads for it, but thats how it is. At least in southern california, which is one of the bigger places for martial arts, in the US.

2) kungfu does apply to all skills that are learned, true.

Kung fu, karate, muay thai, etc. - Anything that is effective and makes sense, applies to all skills learned. Looking at them as a concept, it should be a variable that can fit in with anything that also makes sense. IMO.

3) it's not the learning or the showing, it's the doing and the knowing. practice to perfection takes time. There's no way around putting your time in. IN fact, the longer a competition fighter goes, the more likely it is that his career will end with his failure. That's the nature of competitive fighting, it can be readily studied by others and if all you got in your bag of tricks is simple techniques, then your career will be short because that stuff will be countered quickly. Top guys have their day and they stay at the top for a relatively short period of time in the fight game. Kungfu you can practice your whole life.

Alright, this is where I have some major disagreement with your post.
If you don't watch boxing, I'd suggest you start. Boxing is a great example, here, especially.

Yes, there is no way around putting your time in. The point is, effective technique on the battlefield, and on the street, rarely consists of anything incredibly complex. It depends on your definition of complexity, though! A jab for instance, is actually VERY complex! The forward momentum with the step, the corkscrew motion, the line it travels, the tension at the end. Its far more complex than most people understand.

But the point is. It makes sense, and after a few months, you should have a *decent* ability with it. Not an incredible ability - Keep in mind this - The majority of boxers out there who get to the top, have been boxing practically all their lives. There really is no way around putting your time in.

But what I mean about complexity is, if you understand say, rib power, or sinking, or uprooting, or whipping power, etc. etc. etc. - These are all actually really basic concepts if you look at them from a scientific perspective! They're simple and they work. If taught properly, you can apply them in the same amount of time as you can apply your jab. Martial arts when properly understood is both LESS complicated than people make it out to be, and MORE complicated than people make it out to be. lol. By that I mean, all of these so-called secrets or unique ideas are really easy to understand and apply, you don't need ten years. You need ten years to be amazing at it, just like most boxers need 4 years to be decent enough for lower-level competition.

So more specifically -
Its less complicated from a technical, scientific perspective of the art.

Its more complicated from the perspective of understanding the human body and human fighting, which IMHO is definitely more important.


Wow, I went on a rant.

Okay, but back to what you were saying here:

There's no way around putting your time in. IN fact, the longer a competition fighter goes, the more likely it is that his career will end with his failure.

The reason for this is because there is a threshold to where technique + human ability is overcome by human ability.
By that I mean, and these are completely worthless percentages but I am using them to demonstrate a point:
A 35 Yr Old Boxer w/ Excellent Technique that has
50% strength
50% speed
50% timing

Will lose to a 25 yr old boxer w/ Decent technique that has
100% strength
100% speed
100% timing

The decline of physical attributes are regularly the downfall of great boxers.

NOT because their bag of tricks is so-called "simple". In fact, great boxers like sugar ray leonard, julio caesar chavez, muhammed ali - Their techniques and ability were incredible, especially when you consider that most people just view boxing as "jab, cross, uppercut, hook". Its SO much more than that.

It is true that every boxer has weaknesses - Everyone has weaknesses and can be figured out. Great boxers make adjustments during the course of the fight. If they lose, they find out why they lost and train to lessen those weaknesses.

But it isn't because of their "simple technique" that they are figured out. Every fighter has weaknesses and a smart fighter will take advantage of those weaknesses. Generally those weaknesses are LESS of an issue of the persons technique, and MORE of an issue of their timing, or habits.

Now...

Top guys have their day and they stay at the top for a relatively short period of time in the fight game.

I'd just like to throw out a few stats here - In boxing specifically because you'd THINK that it would be the most "simple" of the fight games, and so more champions would be figured out quickly and lose their title:

Sugar Ray Leonard
Undefeated Title Holder from 1980 to 1991 (this was especially amazing because it was one of the most volatile times in boxing because we had more top guys in the division then most any other time in recent history - Marvin Hagler, Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, if any of these guys could "figure out" sugar ray, it would've been them. They're arguably some of the best boxers in the history of the sport.)


Julio Caesar Chavez
Undefeated Title Holder from 1984 to 1993


Bernard Hopkins
Undefeated Title Holder from 1993 to 2005. Just recently won an awesome fight at 44 years old against a top guy and major title holder, Kelly Pavlik.


Joe Calzaghe
Undefeated Title Holder from 1997 to 2009(he retired undefeated)


I could name plenty more who had their time at the top and stayed there for a LONG time. They weren't figured out, they just got old.

4) you cannot buy skill even if someone wanted to show you. also, you don't feed steak to babies, you feed them milk. why would you give people advanced materials when they are hardly capable of basic body awareness.

Thats not what I was saying. You should be teaching only what your student is ready for, absolutely.
But the point is, that unless you have the talent to show your student that it makes sense - You won't retain students.
Back to the jab - It doesn't feel good the first time you hit a punch mitt with your jab, but it makes sense.

[AdrianK]

yes you can fast track to fighting. You can get a person up and fighting in his weight class and rules venue in a relatively short timeline if all the stars are aligned etc etc (ie: they're not a complete retard are somewhat fit and capable of understanding language and tactile training and don't need to have things shown to them 300 times only to once again do it wrong and most of all, tehy have the will to fight)

I'm not saying the point is to fast-track them. I'm saying that good teaching will teach them this in the PROPER amount of time. Instead of the lack of instruction and understanding that I see from most schools.

I'm also saying that it takes less time than most people realize. I'm not saying you specifically, I have no idea how long you feel it takes to learn a technique, or even what styles you've taken or are referring to.

But take boxing again for instance, and this applies to say, wing chun but i'm not sure how much experience you have in that style. You can teach any portion of boxing first - You want to start on the hook, start on the hook, you want to start on the jab, start on the jab. You don't need to know how to apply this technique, to apply that technique. Only when you get into combination's do you need to understand how to apply the whole.

You can start at the end of the curriculum, or the beginning. Everything in boxing is far more complex than people realize, but no part is more complex than the other, and so you can start practically anywhere, with it.

[David Jamieson]

I'm not saying the point is to fast-track them. I'm saying that good teaching will teach them this in the PROPER amount of time. Instead of the lack of instruction and understanding that I see from most schools.

I'm also saying that it takes less time than most people realize. I'm not saying you specifically, I have no idea how long you feel it takes to learn a technique, or even what styles you've taken or are referring to.

But take boxing again for instance, and this applies to say, wing chun but i'm not sure how much experience you have in that style. You can teach any portion of boxing first - You want to start on the hook, start on the hook, you want to start on the jab, start on the jab. You don't need to know how to apply this technique, to apply that technique. Only when you get into combination's do you need to understand how to apply the whole.

You can start at the end of the curriculum, or the beginning. Everything in boxing is far more complex than people realize, but no part is more complex than the other, and so you can start practically anywhere, with it.

I have to disagree with your view on boxing. It is learned progressively and it doesn't start with technique.

With boxing you begin with conditioning and stamina and that's where 90% of the people who take it up drop off after the first 6 months. that stuff is hard. get up, go run, then go lift, then drills etc etc.

Then there is the footwork, if that's wrong, then your techniques will suck as well.

YOu can do things on the same timeline becase one attribute will feed another until they level and you have a real skill now that can be refined.

Maybe it's the robustness of a system? Some styles of kungfu are small and compact and don't have a lot of material and other systems are large and complicated with many progressive iterations of the same thing that ultimately bring you to the ability of expressing the style.

when you look at an adept of a style after training for a while, you can identify style by it's shape. You can tell the difference between wing chun and hung gar, clf and tang lang, northern versus southern and so on.

boxing is either orthodox or unorthodox, has some differences in defensive strategies and little nuances here and there, but the style is conformed by the ruleset under which it operates.

once you apply rules to something, you limit the extent to which that thing can be used or played with and now you are confined to the limitations of the ruleset.

I think it totally depends on what you do with what you are being taught and in the end that's entirely up to the individual.

[AdrianK]

I have to disagree with your view on boxing. It is learned progressively and it doesn't start with technique.

Maybe its a stylistic difference in your area? Theres plenty of conditioning work in the boxing gyms out here, but I've been up and down from Hollywood to Santa Clarita. All of em have beginners start the jab on day one. I've trained with professional trainers in private lessons that specifically do it this way because when you only have a couple of hours to do that with someone, but the same goes for most gyms too. I mean, if you're seriously out of shape, its a different story, but otherwise, you're at a boxing gym to learn how to box. The conditioning and such is done throughout the day, but I've never seen anyone not strap on the gloves and do some technique on their first day.

Then there is the footwork, if that's wrong, then your techniques will suck as well.

Well yeah, a lot of power can come from the ground. If you have no balance or forward momentum, you lose the power those can give.

when you look at an adept of a style after training for a while, you can identify style by it's shape. You can tell the difference between wing chun and hung gar, clf and tang lang, northern versus southern and so on.

Thats usually only if they practice only one style. Because they don't know any other shapes.
Look at Alan Orr's guys, how many people will say "Thats wing chun"? Or Lyoto Machida, "Thats Shotokan"? Can you identify the difference between a boxing punch, a muay thai punch and a kenpo punch?

It really comes down to what you feel martial arts are all about. Forms or Formlessness.

boxing is either orthodox or unorthodox, has some differences in defensive strategies and little nuances here and there, but the style is conformed by the ruleset under which it operates.

You're right in principle. However, EVERYTHING is conformed by the ruleset under which it operates. Either in competition, or by the limitation its style was created under. This is why there is no comparable ground game in gung fu styles, to BJJ or Wrestling. Some instructors have learned the ground game to compensate for this, just as some instructors know both boxing, and traditional martial arts.


That doesn't make it any less effective. It just means, if you want to learn that skillset. You learn boxing. You won't cover your ground game with boxing, you won't cover trapping or complex blocking. But you'll cover templates and concepts with extreme depth to them.

As for boxing is either orthodox, or unorthodox, has some differences in defensive strategies and little nuances... you're not giving it nearly enough credit.

In terms of boxing stances alone, theres over half a dozen well-known variations that emphasize different levels of offense and defense. Not only that, theres just as many variations on the jab, straight, hook, uppercut - watch the stylistic differences between ricky hatton and manny paquiao in their upcoming fight in the next couple months, or pacquiao vs. marquez(which is a great example of someone with less physical ability but greater mental ability, marquez still lost though). Or check out old Sugar Ray Leonard vs. Marvin Hagler or vs. Thomas Hearns or any of iron mike's fights in his prime or any of the klitchko brother's fights. The differences can be extensive.