kung fu sparring without kickboxing

[Jimbo]

this shows a special instinct and perseverance. however, the well-known argument 'no real combat scene is like any form!' is a result of a misunderstanding. a form is not to simulate a fighting scene, but to teach a style. styles are special to the major Chinese schools, like Shaolin, Wudang, etc, so it's usual for Karate, Taekwondo, and other styles practitioners not to know the purpose of the forms, and so repeat that stupid argument.

Karate, Taekwondo, etc have a plain system, so if you've learned the techniques, you've learned the style! but in Chinese martial arts, the forms may have exactly the same technical contents, but have totally different styles. the technical contents of Shaolin 3-road Pao quan and 3-road Tong Bi quan are almost the same, which is on the same technical base as Xiao Hong quan. so that if i teach you only the techniques of Xiao Hong, Pao, and Tong Bi quan, you see they are of the same system. only when you learn the styles through the forms, the frequency and flow of Xiao Hong, Pao, and Tong Bi techniques show you 3 totally different strategies, different styles. when you master the forms you learn the styles and all their special strategies. now, how you're going to use those styles in a real combat is totally up to you. however, in SongShan Shaolin it's recommended not to pre-simulate any combat scene, nobody can predict anything, it may be out of any logical frame you are familiar with!


another similar misunderstanding is a punch being a punch or a block being a block! like they do in non-Chinese martial arts! in Shaolin Wushu you cannot say that technique is a groin attack, this techniques is a face punch..., every movement in SongShan Shaolin (and most other Chinese schools) is everything, i.e., it has at least some dozens of blow, push, block, grab (qinna), take down, etc applications. so punching a face is only one possible application of all the possible applications. as an important example, the techniques that may seem the same in Xiao Hong quan, Pao quan, and Tong Bi quan, though seeming the same, mostly are of totally different purposes.

Good post, with the exception of your generalizations about karate and other non-Chinese MA. In particular, many of the Okinawan-based karate systems are very sophisticated, have many variations of applications of same techniques, etc. Meeting a real expert can turn such opinions upside-down.

Such generalized statements regarding karate and other non-CMA are just as misinformed as those who state that all CMA is ineffective, flowery dancing.

[bawang]

if you train kung fu because you think its more "complex" "graceful" "advanced" etc, you will never have real kung fu.

[David Jamieson]

if you train kung fu because you think its more "complex" "graceful" "advanced" etc, you will never have real kung fu.

why not?

How does one feed the other?

If a person has massive skill, can do complex physical things, is graceful and is clearly tactically advanced, then isn't that real kung fu?

If you don't practice and if you don't take the lessons with the intention to learn, then an only then will you fail to achieve kung fu.

the Kung Fu we each may have is all relative to the next guy anyway.

Mines better than his, his is better than so and so's and so on and that all changes tomorrow and again the next day etc.

The fighting skills are at best, fleeting. Even in the most advanced and highly competitive modalities.

A person can think what they like, but it's what they do that defines them ultimately.

[madhusudan]

I don't think traditional Kung Fu looks like kickboxing in application.

The Goal in fights outside the ring is never the fight itself, it is something else. Not to make the fight more of a fight. It is something a lot of people don't understand until they actually fight.

If you fight and make the fight solely about fighting, then you should not be surprised that it looks like other fights of the same nature. But if you add a goal, a purpose to your combat, one that is outside the fight, then you will see the value of the traditional technique.

Its not about the rules you play, its about the situation, the scenario, the purpose, the intent.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't feel like I'm catching the meaning.

[David Jamieson]

Could you elaborate on this? I don't feel like I'm catching the meaning.

In a sport fight, the environment is safe, it's about getting points or getting the TKO or the KO.

In a street fight, it's about so many other things, but mostly it's about ending the fight as quickly as possible and getting the feck outta dodge.

just my spin on what he's saying.

[YouKnowWho]

In a street fight, it's about so many other things, ...

In a street fight, the 1st thing that you want to do is to find a brick or rock on the ground. You then pick it up and ...

[RenDaHai]

Could you elaborate on this? I don't feel like I'm catching the meaning.

When you fight for real, you do not WANT to be fighting.

You have a mission in mind, fighting is just something that gets in the way of your purpose. For example your purpose may be protecting another person, or not getting hurt while conserving vanity by not running, or restraining someone, or punishing someone for a misdeed, or the gain of a property, or getting past someone to escape or 1000 other things, but your purpose, your mission will not be the fight itself.

What is important to note is that in this real situation both fighters have DIFFERENT goals and so are playing DIFFERENT games with DIFFERENT rules. They have their roles set from the beginning of the combat.



However, when you spar it is opposite. Both people WANT to fight. The purpose of the fight is the fight itself, the FAIR COMPETITION. There is no higher purpose. Both parties want the SAME thing. So the two people fight for the SAME goal, by the SAME rules. This is victory within the rules, a test of territorial dominance. Two people bounce back and fourth alternating between attacker and defender.



As you can imagine this leads to a drastically different type of fight.

But we can never know the rules, the scenario before it happens? How then do we train?

The point is various aspects of training are ABSOLUTE, they apply to all types of combat. Some aspects of training are RELATIVE, they apply only within a set of scenarios. It is more important to train the absolute aspects than the relative ones.

[Lucas]

i agree with bawang but i think we are taking what he is saying differently.

[bawang]

why not?

the abbot miao xing once said, if you gaze at the finger, you will miss the big donkey trying to rape you.

its better to focus on the basics and avoid sorrow of donkey rape.

[Sima Rong]

the abbot miao xing once said, if you gaze at the finger, you will miss the big donkey trying to rape you.

its better to focus on the basics and avoid sorrow of donkey rape.

words to live by..

[SHemmati]

When you think that you have everything, ...

not to have everything(!), it's trying to learn as much potential applications as possible. this is the way they've actually taught in Shaolin for hundreds of years. as Orion's master has said him: these schools teach you a few applications, and it's up to you to discover the other possibilities. this has always been actually successful, since in such systems, every movement, when intended to be used for a specific application, must, indeed, be done in the proper shenfa (bodywork/body movement/body mechanics) of that application. we discussed one basic example about one movement of Xiao Hong quan here in this short thread: Tagou Xiao Hong Quan Question

many of the Okinawan-based karate systems are very sophisticated, have many variations of applications of same techniques, etc.

thanks, i'll search about those styles.

Such generalized statements ... are just as misinformed as those who state that all CMA is ineffective, flowery dancing.

not to that degree of generality, but they are right to some degree about many Chinese styles. for example, Shaolin lineages have many animal forms, i doubt you see any martial movements in some of which but mere imitation of the animals; this gets worse in some Emei animal styles. also in many southern schools they have many ineffective and/or superfluous movements. add to this the ignorance of many practitioners about kung fu body and stancework, when they, e.g., use transitory stances, which load the body weight on one leg, like xue bu (empty/false stance, aka cat stance) to take a steady guard! and you know what a boxer would think when they see a kung fu guy in guard, but with such a shaky nonsteady transitory stance(!), in front of themselves.

[Dragonzbane76]

the abbot miao xing once said, if you gaze at the finger, you will miss the big donkey trying to rape you.

its better to focus on the basics and avoid sorrow of donkey rape.

true words have never graced my computer screen like those before.

[madhusudan]

Thanks, Ren, that makes sense now. I remember reading (lurking) on a thread about the difference between real combat and the ring, where you mentioned territorial and predatory fighting. It made good sense to me at the time and squared with my experience. Good stuff.