Best Kung fu style to learn real fighting skills

[ShaolinDan]

RW,
Shuai jiao is the answer you are looking for. Also maybe banning based on that last post.

[Dragonzbane76]

maybe this arguement is the same as, "what your TCMA is lacking one?" honestly if you are covering the three zones in your teaching and doing it in a realistic manner, you are on the right path. I do not promote that I know all the styles and what they contain, but a lot of them in the TCMA and many other MA's do not cover all the zones. Thats apparent on many levels with a basic overview of the curriculum.

[PalmStriker]

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.

[KJW]

Personally I beleive that if you have a good instructor then the style is unimportant.

Once you have been studying under a decent instructor for a few years you come to realise that the form is secondary and that although you are an exponent of a particular style, you must adapt your art to the strengths and weaknesses inherant within yourself to make it an effective fighting method for you.

A good instructor and a worthy student will seek and share knowledge even if that knowledge falls outside the curriculum of the school or club to which they belong.

I have regular private lessons with one of the senior instructors at my club and we often talk about and experiment with techniques from a range of styles. If we think it looks like it might be effective then we'll try it and see if we can use it or if there are any weaknesses within the technique.

[Shaolin]

1. We can all agree that forms do not produce fighting skills.

2. Which kung fu style do you all consider to be the best for those that want real skills in a shorter period of time?

1. I don't agree.

2. There is no "best style". It's the individual that makes the "styles" effect or not effective.

Based on your statement I'm assuming you have little experience at all with any form of martial arts. My recommendation is to get proficient at one first. Do your research and pick one that suits your personal goals and mindset. After developing a solid base in one art start expanding your knowledge by training in other art forms.

[Robinhood]

WC will give you the most in the least time. But if you want to put gloves on take up boxing.

[LaterthanNever]

Shao-lin Do or Oom Young Do!

[Ben Gash]

I am calling bs on this statement. The reason is this: Learnibg a fighting method and learning a style are two different things.

Not if they're done right.

San shao does not teach a style of movement. It teaches barebones fighting.

seriously, is there an award for most fallacious statement? Of course San Shou teaches a style of movement, just as boxing, Muay Thai, BJJ and wrestling do.

Which tcma style has less of a focus on forms and more on conditioning and fighting?

Again, you don't understand your own question. This is a question about class structure, not style.

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.

Training like kickboxing? You mean padwork, live drills and sparring, such as you'll find at large numbers of CLF schools? Why get rid of the internal forms? Stretching and relaxation are important parts of a training regime.

IMO any short hand style that trains like wc is useless.

Shorthand is fine as long as you understand the realities of hand fighting and attached striking, and train it realistically. Again, this is about training methodology, not style.

And for god's sake you do need clf's internal form to fight .

I think you'd be pushed to find anyone who'd say you do.

[Iron_Eagle_76]

RW,

San Shou was developed from a mixture of boxing, Shuai Jiao/Wrestling, and traditional Kung Fu. I don't see what being modern has to do with it, and honestly, it's not all that modern. If I remember correctly it was developed during the cold war (shortly after WW2) by the Chinese military and various Chinese Kung Fu masters for militaristic purposes and was developed into the sport version in the 1960's. Considering a majority of "traditional" systems were developed the last hundred years, San Shou is not that "modern".

Regarding the animal techniques found in many Kung Fu styles, many I find eccentric and not that applicable so in some regards you make a point. That being said, mantis hooks as I was taught grab, pull, and hook the back of the head, very similiar to the plum in Muay Thai. Tiger Claws are strikes (with palm) followed by ripping with the focus being on finger strenght and bone conditioning, and are best suited from clinch and control.

There are many more I find applicable and some that I don't. But it is unwise to dismiss all things you think are irrelevant because the training you received was inadequate or "lacking". (I just channeled my inner HW108)

I teach San Shou at my gym, and the way we train is very similar to how my teacher taught us. Training methods will always be what makes a style applicable, so you are right that those who only do forms and punch air all day probably suck and can't fight. But than again, from my school of thought those doing so are not what I consider traditional Kung Fu.

One more point, San Shou can be taught as a style but it is moreso a venue for Kung Fu practioners and other martial artists to test their skills in a full contact environment. There are plenty of Kung Fu peeps who train and compete in San Shou and also do forms and other practices not up to your "high" standard.

[Lucas]

(I just channeled my inner HW108)

You must never speak of this again.

[rett]

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.

This must be why humans early on banded together into groups and used weapons and language to fight in a coordinated way. And above all, a lone human (with enough sense to have a chance of reproducing) would never go into a confined space with an animal. If I remember right from tv, Masaai know how close they can go to lions before triggering an attack. Brains are much more decisive than brawn. I mean, the chimp would be just as chanceless in a televised debate format.

[Dragonzbane76]

as someone posted in another thread, "skill will trump brawn most times."

[RWilson]

as someone posted in another thread, "skill will trump brawn most times."

Size and strength are a huge factor which explains weight classes in combat sport competitions.

[RWilson]

Not if they're done right.
seriously, is there an award for most fallacious statement? Of course San Shou teaches a style of movement, just as boxing, Muay Thai, BJJ and wrestling do.

Again, you don't understand your own question. This is a question about class structure, not style.
Training like kickboxing? You mean padwork, live drills and sparring, such as you'll find at large numbers of CLF schools? Why get rid of the internal forms? Stretching and relaxation are important parts of a training regime.

Shorthand is fine as long as you understand the realities of hand fighting and attached striking, and train it realistically. Again, this is about training methodology, not style.

I think you'd be pushed to find anyone who'd say you do.

I was talking specifically about shaolin animal movement. The movement taught in wrestling is efficient and has purpose. They do not pose in tiger formation.


It was stated by that mantis hooks are for grabbing. So does that mean that everyone who has not studied mantis cannot grab? I think you understand this point. Ponder it while I practice my mantis hooks so I can pick up the tree I just cut down in my backyard. I probably would have just stared down dumbly at all the branches had it not been for the invention of mantis hooks.

[rett]

Size and strength are a huge factor which explains weight classes in combat sport competitions.

Meanwhile the promoter of the event is raking in the cash and doesn't risk injury.