chusauli 04-12-2011 06:04 PM

Hung Ga is a great training method and is a complex advanced art, but few have the ability to teach it as a fighting art, so it remains largely, a performance art for health or cultural relic.

The torso methods, methods of issuing force, dissolving of force through the stance, closing in, sticking, controlling all require long term teaching and practice to develop a person.

If a person pays attention to Lien Gung and mainly strengthens himself, concentrates on the Kiu Sao and how to enter and control, they will be better than average people in terms of power, and probably stronger than most martial artists.

The danger in Hung Ga is locking into looks, performance, showmanship.
This post from Robert is I think worthy of a new thread, and it not aimed specifically at hung gar OR Robert but rather the points he raises

What exactly makes a style a complex and advanced art and what arts are we comparing it to that we feel are simple and straight forward, and is complex and advanced necessarily better?

Another question I have is how can something be a great training method if in the next sentence we say few have the ability to teach it properly as a fighting style (I have heard the same said by people on the wing chun forum about their art) ? Isn’t the whole point of a great training method that it is easy to learn and produces good people and works for the majority of people learning it?

My final question is if the torso methods, force issuing methods dissolving methods etc take that long to learn, how on earth did people survive long enough to actually keep the art alive? I have a hard time believing that when these arts were needed in order to help people actually survive in hostile time’s arts that took a long time to learn were that useful or survived

To be honest when I read advanced, complex, difficult to learn and takes a long time I wonder if
A) its worth learning and
B) is this necessarily true or simply an excuse to hide bad teaching or an inferior art,

any thoughts?