Quote Originally Posted by RWilson View Post
I am calling bs on this statement. The reason is this: Learnibg a fighting method and learning a style are two different things. When a teacher starts teaching bug style or monkey style(imitating a real animal) then that is not fight training. San shao does not teach a style of movement. It teaches barebones fighting. The difference is that the style way focuses heavily on forms and if not forms than stylistic drills that try to make your body look like an animal when doing technique.

Let me rephrase the question. San shao cannot be an answer because it is modern.

Which tcma style has less of a focus on forms and more on conditioning and fighting? Ving tsun comes to mind but we all know that Ving chun people just do bs chi Sao foreplay before the gay sex begins drills. Check out the Gary Lam thread on the wc forum to see how rediculous chi Sao is.

Choy li fut can be good if it is trained more like kickboxing and less like...well doing 5 million of the same exact, but slightly different variation, form. And dropping that "internal" form they have would be good too.

IMO any short hand style that trains like wc is useless. Doing connected mantis hooking on a guy who is just chi saoing with you is retard level 1 training. Not advanced year 9 training. Does mantis hooking work in sparring? Maybe. But training it like a kickboxers, against kickboxers and with no forms, would be more beneficial.

Maybe we are all taking about the same thing. Training method instead of style but too often style is taught instead of good training methods. And for god's sake you do need clf's internal form or Ving tsun's third form to fight.
So you think you could beat down a chimpanzee (in his prime) of lesser weight in a cage match with your real skills? Yes, no? After tearing you limb from limb he would bite your face off your lecturing head.