Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 29 of 29

Thread: What Would Kung Fu look Like From 200 Years Ago ?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Dayton,Ohio,U.S.A.
    Posts
    662

    Hi Guys

    What about the Arts from Indonesea and Maylasia that are called Kun Tau and Chuan Fa would some of these arts be what Kung Fu looked like 200 years ago if they are not mixed with Silat ?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Posts
    245
    If you want to find Kung Fu that looks like it was practiced 200 years ago, rather than looking in Muay Thai or Kun Tao or whatever non-Chinese styles, just look in China. There are plenty of remote villages which have their own styles of martial arts that have little to no outside influence.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    North, strong and Free
    Posts
    838
    I belonged to a school once where, after completing his form, I asked him a couple of questions about it and he eventually said that the form he just did was unchanged in 4000 years. So if you're looking for what kung fu looked like way back when, then look no further.
    Quote Originally Posted by lkfmdc View Post
    point sparring is a great way to train

  4. #19
    There was gun power already.

    Pretty much the same thing today just with dumb down firearm/weapon and no drones.

    Last edited by SPJ; 11-07-2014 at 12:17 PM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Columbia, MO
    Posts
    809
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    Muay Boran and Krabi Krabong has forms/sets and looks quite a lot like TCMA.

    Muay Thai today as a sport fighting art, as brutal as it can be, is it's own thing though.
    When people in the US talk about Muay Thai, they seem to be talking about a rule format rather than a particular style of kickboxing from Thailand. If this is the case, then you are correct in saying that Muay Thai is "it's own thing." Authentic Muay Thai, though, derives directly from the footwork, technique, and strategy of the old kickboxing tradition of Thailand.
    "I'm a highly ranked officer of his tong. HE is the Dragon Head. our BOSS. our LEADER. the Mountain Lord." - hskwarrior

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Great Lakes State, U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,625
    Two Hundred years ago is a time in China you would not have time to practice your martial skills casually or to teach without challenge: http://chinesemartialstudies.com/201...al-governance/

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    23,099
    There is a difference between dueling and scrapping.

    Dueling maintains a decorum of posture, stance, gentlemanly manners, etc.

    Scrapping is balls out F*&k you up as fast as one can.

    Kung Fu for performance and demonstration is more like dueling.
    Kung Fu for fighting is more like scrapping.
    Kung Fu is good for you.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Dayton,Ohio,U.S.A.
    Posts
    662

  9. #24
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Shanghai, China
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by SKM View Post
    Pursuant with what I wrote earlier, I found an interesting article:

    Development of the short stance in Southern Styles
    That article seems to me like it's just trying to glorify southern styles over northern ones.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Swindon, England
    Posts
    2,106
    I'd say the long stance comes from sword fighting, as it's found in pretty much all single sword systems from around the world. If you look at an extended thrust from a northern Jian form it's almost identical to Angelo's smallsword manual from the 1700s. If you fight with a single long blade then range is everything, whereas with a shorter blade or if you routinely have a second blade or a shield then other factors come into play.
    "The man who stands for nothing is likely to fall for anything"
    www.swindonkungfu.co.uk

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Swindon, England
    Posts
    2,106
    Name:  AgrippaMay19_02.JPG
Views: 83
Size:  58.8 KB
    interestingly here's a comparison picture with illustrations from Agrippa showing stance differences for single rapier and rapier and dagger.
    "The man who stands for nothing is likely to fall for anything"
    www.swindonkungfu.co.uk

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    CA, USA
    Posts
    4,877
    Quote Originally Posted by SKM View Post
    Pursuant with what I wrote earlier, I found an interesting article:

    Development of the short stance in Southern Styles
    In the past, I've read articles that stated that it was the southern styles that emphasized the wide stances and the northern styles not as much. Pretty much 180 degrees opposite of that article. It's interesting how different views or versions of history are presented. Many northern systems do have a clearer connection to wrestling than do many southern systems, and that could have an effect on the characteristics of many northern systems.

    Although I doubt there was a lot of "northern kicking" done on the battlefields. The big things were always weaponry. Martial arts trained for actual combat in a battlefield context were always simple and direct. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt there was much in the way of stylized forms drilling in a military context, as you might see in modern Shaolin demonstrations.

    Southern styles like CLF were not always done with wide, extremely low stances that some practitioners use. That is more recent in a lot of cases. It's good for strength and development, but in fighting, mobility/maneruverability is crucial. But CLF still differs from systems such as Lung Ying, Fujian White Crane, etc., as it has characteristics of both southern and northern styles.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 11-23-2014 at 02:10 PM.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
    Posts
    363
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    In the past, I've read articles that stated that it was the southern styles that emphasized the wide stances and the northern styles not as much. Pretty much 180 degrees opposite of that article. It's interesting how different views or versions of history are presented. Many northern systems do have a clearer connection to wrestling than do many southern systems, and that could have an effect on the characteristics of many northern systems.

    Although I doubt there was a lot of "northern kicking" done on the battlefields. The big things were always weaponry. Martial arts trained for actual combat in a battlefield context were always simple and direct. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt there was much in the way of stylized forms drilling in a military context, as you might see in modern Shaolin demonstrations.

    Southern styles like CLF were not always done with wide, extremely low stances that some practitioners use. That is more recent in a lot of cases. It's good for strength and development, but in fighting, mobility/maneruverability is crucial. But CLF still differs from systems such as Lung Ying, Fujian White Crane, etc., as it has characteristics of both southern and northern styles.
    Well said .
    Visit the past in order to discover something new.

    [url]http://wahquekungfu.proboards100.com

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Southern styles have MUCH wider stances on the whole than northern ones. This is easy to see in any demonstration.

    Gong Bu, the lunge is the most ancient of stances, appears in pictures of Spear fighting throughout the world and ages.

    It is said in old manuals that the empty hand techniques were always practiced because they prepare you for any weapon, as such there are equivilent stances.

    If you look in an old manual such as Shaolin GunShu ChanZong, written 400 years ago you will see all the stances are present. Second to that he literally talks about a 1000 warrior monks drilling and demonstrating together. In the book he contains descriptions of the forms. Yes they practice forms, and they sound pretty similar. Lots of slapping the staff on the floor in PuBu (PuDiJin in the text) and GunShen (roll body, where you spin 360 with the knees up high), lots of retreating steps etc. The construction very much is like Shaolin forms today. Thats 400 years ago.

    So, it would have looked the same. Some teachers who make you stand up, lean back to take the weight off their massive gut while telling you this structure is conducive to generating qi then move their wrist imperceptibly would have you believe this is what the real traditional Kung fu looked like. This is far from the truth. If you try actually wearing armour and fighting with staffs for real some time you will very quickly see that all the dynamic stances are absolutely necessary, one must be fast, flexible, be able to leap and be able transform the shape of your body, to coil and lean far to one side to evade the spear, to lie on the floor and jump high in the air.

    Empty hand Kung fu is more than anything based on spear, in the north.

    When we look at all traditional elements of Chinese culture it is amazing how little they have changed in 2000 years. They are a culture who keep to tradition. I spent many years living in Henan. I have visited many villages to train traditional Shaolin. In one place the 90 year old master told me that in the 50's when a truck first came to their village his reaction was 'Yieee, na me da de Zhu' 'Wow, what a massive pig'. And he was serious. Anyone who thinks that China in the deeply communist 20 (1950-1970) years could eradicate tradition from these out of the way places and replace it with modern Wushu has no concept of what China is actually like.

    200 years ago, it looked the same as it does now.
    Last edited by RenDaHai; 11-23-2014 at 08:49 PM.
    問「武」。曰:「克。」未達。曰:「勝己之私之謂克。」

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •