Are the critics of traditional kung fu styles right about this?

[phantom]

Many critics of traditional kung fu styles actually do not have a problems with the effectiveness of the chinese martial arts. Rather, they feel that they are too complex for many people to understand how to use them for self-defense. For example, say a well-renowned sifu teaches students a,b,c, d, e, f, and g, all of whom go on to open up their own schools. Out of all of those students, only a, b, and c are good fighters. Out of those three, only a is a good teacher. Now, I think it probably is a stretch to think that all sifus have many poor students. However, I do think it probably is fairly common. This is not only unique to kung fu. Aikido practitioners have told me that there are many aikido practitioners who cannot use it very well for self-defense. This is possibly due to the fact that aikido, like kung fu, is a very complicated art. I think perhaps this is just a matter of some people just not being capable to get an understanding of how kung fu is applicable for self-defense. This is just like how some people really struggle to get through a math class. Or how people take the medical exam or bar exam how many times and they still cannot pass it no matter how hard they study for it. If you are interested in self-defense, perhaps you would be better off going into martial sports first, whose applications to self-defense are more clear. Perhaps doing so and then learning a kung fu style would help you better understand how kung fu is useful for self-defense. What do any of you think about this? Also, if you are studying a chinese martial art, is there any way to improve your chances of being one of the fortunate ones who understands it as a means of self-defense? Thanks in advance.

[Liokault]

Its not how complex king fu is that people dislike, its how unrealistic it is. To much form, not enough sparring, no exposure to other to other differant arts, no growth or development....I could go on.

[Tak]

Originally posted by Liokault
Its not how complex king fu is that people dislike, its how unrealistic it is. To much form, not enough sparring, no exposure to other to other differant arts, no growth or development....I could go on.

This is an amazingly openminded statement that does not generalize or stereotype at all, and is entirely true.

[fa_jing]

Doing a martial sport prior to, or even alongside your TMA training sounds like a great idea to me. I was lucky that the same teacher taught me both. But it took a long time to find him....

True also that there is nothing wrong about TMA styles per se....when I look at a style I think - hmm, that's a punch...nothing wrong with that....there's a block...looks fine to me....a front kick? fine.

Only if I see a contorted stance, or a crazy aerial kick do I think: hmmm...no martial application to that....must be for balance training or for show or for something else.

I recognize that the relationship between form, function, and training vary greatly between styles.

Again, when I see a fighter who isn't cutting it, I think "Too much forms, too much point sparring." I don't think "hey his style sucks."

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Phantom.

Adding to what the previous posters already said.

Too many students don't put real effort into their studies.
Many think that doing the form 10 times or so will impart skill and understanding.
There is a correct way of doing forms practice and I reckon that only a small percentage do it correctly.

Many also waste good training time on the wrong training methods, as they don't see them as "Martial" or whatever.
Add to that that there are MANY, MANY, MANY misconceptions and lies about TMA training out there and you got a perfect recipe for bad students.

There are also many bad teachers out there, but here I blame THEIR teachers that allowed them to teach even though they haven't got the skill.

IMO, too many people get confused with TMA, Sports MA and SD/Reality training.

Best is if you found a good teacher to do your own thing and not worry about anybody else, most likely you will be to busy anyway.

[Falcor]

I think studying "traditional", "complicated" styles and martial sports is like studying math. However, the teaching/learning methodology is different - one uses a "Puzzle" approach while the other uses a "Workbook" approach.

The Workbook approach is more straighforward (not necessarily easier or simpler, but the directions are more direct and laid out in plain sight). There are step by step exercises to do that builds skill in a given field sequentially, so that the following exercises use things learned previously. There is a definite curriculum that you can reference, as well as metrics to determine or measure your progress.

The Puzzle approach uses...well, puzzles to teach the same thing that the Workbook approach does, but in a more oblique manner. The skills you need to know are not necessarily obvious in the beginning, and the skills needed to solve the puzzle is not necessarily built up sequentially so as to enable to help you reach the solution. What this does make you do is ponder, and by pondering and pondering hard, you can attain some insight that will illuminate a principle or technique. It's actually the way philosophy and mathematics was taught in the old days before the renaissance.

The Workbook approach is often boring and repetitive, and stress is on the repetition so that the skills being worked on is ingrained into you at a second-nature level. It's very unglamorous, and if you've ever sat through middle school algebra, it's not very exciting either - unless you're someone predisposed to math and like it anyway you get it. The Puzzle method is more interesting - it's more intriguing and even if you don't get it, you can say "cool." Of course, unless you have the patience and discipline of mind to sit through the entire pondering process, it can also be very frustrating and many give up in the middle. The Workbook method is easier to implement, although no less complex in its ultimate form than any other teaching method (if you've taken calculus or ODE or PDE, you know what I mean), but becasue of its systematic approach, the method to the madness is more apparent. The Puzzle method is more complicated (note I say more complicated and not more complex - I am differentiating the two in that complicated refers to its implementation and complex to its inherent nature) and the desired result is not always repeatable even if the exact same steps are taken with different people. But working on a puzzle can sometimes snap a light bulb on in your head that otherwise wouldn't have happened, and the shear act of pondering and trying to figure out how to solve it makes you (or at least it should) seek and search other information and techniques to help you reach a solution.

Now, having said all that, any good MA system should use the combination of both. Just like any good math teaching syllabus should. It's like learning ax+b=c and then learning to do word problems. You gotta learn to do both. However, more often than not, when attendance or school profitability or art accessability for teh public or time to learn is at stake, one can be emphasized over the other. This is where the breakdown or diluting of the art comes in. A person only learns the cool forms or more esoteric concepts (the puzzle) but never learns or does the more mundane but sometimes more important drills and exercises that supplement (the workbook). Or someone learns to punch, kick like a demon, but never learns the deeper meanings and applications of movements in forms, or the healing aspects or etc.

[Liokault]

. Or someone learns to punch, kick like a demon, but never learns the deeper meanings and applications of movements in forms, or the healing aspects or etc.

Sadly most people who are looking for a deeper meaning are going to get a shock when they find a need to "punch and kick like a demon".

If you want deep read war and peace, if you want to train in a practical working martial art then train hard and in a practical way.

[Falcor]

Lio, that's why I said in a good school, you need to have both aspects. Let's get one thing straight though - I think I am making a differentiation between a Martial Art and a Martial system. A martial system is simply that - it will teach you to kick ass. Most military fighting methods are martial systems. But one would think that a martial art will teach you to kick ass AND other things on top of that. But again, you do have a point in that many places do not emphasize the sweat and blood often required to make their art useful.

[Ray Pina]

I don't think there is anything complex about Hsing-I. It is a very straight forward style.

My teacher says, "One to two years to be a good fighter, a lifetime to be a martial artist."

Chicken Step, Tigers Head/Hand, bear and eagle. With those three principles you're ready to rock and roll already to a certain degree. It's just how far you want to go with it.

I can't stress how important it is to spend time looking before you commit to a school. If you want to learn to fight right away and are not sure, your best bet is boxing. A lot of martial arts (all styles, Chinese and Japanse) are bull $hit.

[Liokault]

Also there is bad boxing (belive me I know) and it is harder to spot than bad eastern arts, and can be more dangerouse to your long term health.

[MonkeySlap Too]

I don't think CMA is too complex. I just think there are bad teachers who cannot efficiently transmit the knowledge, or don't have it, or string people along.

Every GOOD CMA school I have been to produced fighting skills quickly - if you were tough enough to get through the body conditioning and reconditioning.

There is a LOT of material in CMA however, and that is sometimes daunting to a student.

[Bu Laide]

Originally posted by Falcor
Let's get one thing straight though - I think I am making a differentiation between a Martial Art and a Martial system. A martial system is simply that - it will teach you to kick ass. Most military fighting methods are martial systems.

So your saying that wushu (i.e. tai chi, xing yi, chin na etc used by the Chinese army/Emperors guards in the past) are most likely not used by the military?

I know this is not 100+ years ago but these wushu styles were the backbone of the military before guns and other modern projectile weapons. Think about what you are suggesting, only martial systems (sounds modern to me) are any good, meaning anything classed as wushu or martial art is a waste of time.

Correct me if I misunderstood you.

[Water Dragon]

*grabs a beer*

*rolls blunt*

[fa_jing]

*does a quick set of pullups on a horizontal pipe in the stairwell*

Dayam, I want to work where Water Dragon works!! That sounds much cooler than around here.

[Falcor]

Bu, I think you misunderstood me. By martial systems and martial arts, I am simply referring to the curriculum and emphasis in training methodologies. Martial Arts as we think of it has has a deeper meaning than simply the physical skills involved in fighting. Therefore the moniker "art". A martial system would be one (at least the way I am defining it) where a more involved philosophical/religious/cultural subtext is not emphasized in the curriculum, but where the physical skills are mostly what is taught. Neither one is "better" than the other. In fact, I believe that before the popularized melding of fighting disciplines and philosophical and spiritual teachings in the past into a cohesive whole, the order in which things developed was that a person got to be a good fighter, then got to pondering about the universe and the nature of humanity, and then somehow developed a personal approach to fighting that embodied the results of such ponderings. A martial arts, I believe, tries to teach and instill such things from the get-go.

Think of it this way, 100 years ago, athletes were just that, physical performers in some sport. They didn't get all philosophical or talk about transcending the sport, or look deep into the ebb and flow of a game. But now, things have become more sophisticated in that such athletes are trained by their coaches to pay attention to such things as the rhythm of a game, or developing certain mental states to "flow in the zone", etc. 100 years ago, sports was just sports, a physical activity. Now, sports have taken on a whole new dimension and now it's almost an art, a form or expression, etc.

Like I said earlier, for a person to be properly trained in a martial art, you have to be a balanced training in both a systematic method, and a more ponder-ous method. This way you get the best of both worlds. But it's also more laborious and more time consuming, and required a lot more work on the part of the student by himself to get to a competent level. If the emphasis is on a martial sport, then the training methodology will be different since the goal is different. There will be a higher emphasis on the more systematic approach and less so on the more "puzzle"-aspect. There's no need since the end result of competition will be asking for different things. A martial system on the other hand is again different, where the systematic is emphasized first, and the more ponderous stuff comes later. Here, the approach seems like it's like a martial sport, but actually since the focus is on a non-controlled combat, its' closer to a martial art. It's just that the order of things in the syllabus in changed. More than likely Martial systems will be emphasized in the military (no matter what era) and so the goal will be to get the recruit combat capable as quickly as possible, so the physicality is emphasized. If the soldier stays long enough in teh training (and survives the battles) then he can continue his training and get a little deeper in the art.