View Poll Results: Should we adapt kung fu to the ring?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 63.64%
  • No

    4 36.36%
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 94

Thread: Ring Fu

  1. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    No offense...but:



    America, we need to talk ~world
    Hey I didn't say our measurements make any sense lol.

  2. #47
    There is no reason why Americans can't convert. Your scientific community already has. They had no choice. They simply needed a non retarded system. It's just lazy, hard headed, set in their ways type people that hold everyone back. It's so bad in the building industry. In Canada trades still used the old system. Used to drive me nuts. So glad to be done with all that.

  3. #48
    wombat combat can be adapted to the ring.

    when that baby crawled out of the tv. in a stroke of genius, i immediately performed yellow dragon stirrs the water. the demons was immediately electrocuted.

    25th generation inner door disciple of Chen Style Practical Wombat Method
    Officially certified by Ethiopian Orthodox patriarch Abune Mathias
    grandmaster instructor of Wombat Combat™®LLC Practical Wombat Method. international academy retreat

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    768
    i think we are talking about bad coaches/teachers and bad training methodology rather than 'bad kickboxing'.

  5. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    There is no reason why Americans can't convert. Your scientific community already has. They had no choice. They simply needed a non retarded system. It's just lazy, hard headed, set in their ways type people that hold everyone back. It's so bad in the building industry. In Canada trades still used the old system. Used to drive me nuts. So glad to be done with all that.
    I think about that a lot...everything in our building industry is done the American, (old English) way. Do other countries refer to a 2x4 differently, are they actually different measurements???

    I work in the trades and going metric would literally change everything...definitely a better system, but I think it would be a tough adjustment for builders.

  6. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Paximus View Post

    I dunno, i recently did a no gear sparring match and every time I do that I just fight better because I feel more comfortable and at ease and I'm not afraid to try techniques in that situation and I can usually get even unrefined tools to work around 60% of the time.
    I agree. I always feel like I fight better bare handed or with mma gloves than with boxing gloves. I feel like I do have that Kung Fu, look/flavor when I spar in that manner, but when I put boxing gloves on, it seems like parry or seize turns into cover up.

    I like Mighty B's comments about teaching a San da base first then incorporating the traditional elements as you go. First, it's easy to learn to fight with boxing or Muay Thai. Kung fu takes a bit longer...not saying you got to spend a lifetime or anything like that, but the more complex nature and shear volume of material...even amongst those who just teach fundamentally, makes it take a bit longer to learn.

    I think too many people make the mistake of waiting until their students get somewhat proficient, then have them spar. Your giving them all these wonderful tools, then taking them away from them when they learn they still aren't able to apply them under pressure. Then comes the tendency to discard everything but the most basic punch/kick methods.

    Put them under pressure as soon as they can move a little and keep a guard up. Then everything they learn will be tested in fire and they will have more confidence with their techniques.

    If you start with next to nothing and have to go through a trial and error process of making it work, I think you'll be more confident with your techniques and more open to refining new things. If you start with a bunch of techniques and a false sense of confidence, then get burned, it can make you gun shy. You may only want to use what's "safe" after that.

    You can train for 30 years and if you've never had your head rocked in a fight you have no idea how your going to respond. I've seen so many people who thought they could fight get rocked and instantly forget everything, regress straight to wild swinging.

    Why spend 6 months building a foundation under someone only to destroy it the first time they spar hard? Let them learn to deal with resistance and pressure with bare bone basics then teach them to fight.

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellen Bassette View Post
    I think about that a lot...everything in our building industry is done the American, (old English) way. Do other countries refer to a 2x4 differently, are they actually different measurements???

    I work in the trades and going metric would literally change everything...definitely a better system, but I think it would be a tough adjustment for builders.
    In Europe, yes they do. In Canada, we use the same standards. And it suuuuucks!

    It is not a tough adjustment. Going metric to imperial would be hard, but imperial to metric is easy. Assuming you already know the math for imperial you're good, and metric is just common sense. Moving decimals as opposed to needing paper and a calculator. Within 5 years the only issue would be with renovations. If you aren't smart enough to convert to metric, you shouldn't be building anything that could hurt somebody. I shudder at the thought of how many idiots out there cut so many corners and lazy inspectors dont notice. Our standards are droppin fast in many ways. Like products at walmart, buildings aren't made to last anymore. Your average tower has a 7 year no repair life span, not counting the odd defective part. And that is assuming everyone followed the rules. So weak!
    Last edited by Syn7; 12-13-2012 at 10:10 PM.

  8. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    In Europe, yes they do. In Canada, we use the same standards. And it suuuuucks!

    It is not a tough adjustment. Going metric to imperial would be hard, but imperial to metric is easy. Assuming you already know the math for imperial you're good, and metric is just common sense. Moving decimals as opposed to needing paper and a calculator. Within 5 years the only issue would be with renovations. If you aren't smart enough to convert to metric, you shouldn't be building anything that could hurt somebody. I shudder at the thought of how many idiots out there cut so many corners and lazy inspectors dont notice. Our standards are droppin fast in many ways. Like products at walmart, buildings aren't made to last anymore. Your average tower has a 7 year no repair life span, not counting the odd defective part. And that is assuming everyone followed the rules. So weak!
    Are all the materials the same size though? For Instance a common masonry unit, (block) is 8", actually 7 5/8" and allowing 3/8" for a mortar joint...your 2X4, 1.5" x 3.5"....plywood 4 foot x 8 foot...everything is designed for these standard measurements, your doorways, windows ect...are the the European materials all the same size and they just call them by whatever metric measurement they come out to, or are they a little bigger/smaller, to come out to simple measurements?

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by MightyB View Post
    the kickboxing comment comes up from time to time and in another thread it got me to thinking to just go with it instead of "fighting" against it. So my thought is to just develop good san da skills so it's definitely got that Chinese flavor as a base and then introduce the more "traditional" style specific techniques gradually over time. That way when a person or student hard spars, they'll fall back on solid san da technique instead of trying to improvise kickboxing because they haven't been trained to kick box properly.
    I don’t think you got my point, if you have to change what you do because it doesn’t work how you want it to against a trained opponent, and you cant make it look like it does in your normal training….maybe the fault is with what you train and how you train it, not the venue you are trying to make it work in
    And since when isn’t sanda traditional? Chinese masters have been fighting each other for centuries do you think they never sparred or did hard contact work before sanda was invented? what is traditional,…forms, complicated trapping? How is a palm strike, jab cross over hand uppercut etc not traditional?

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    768
    What is bad kickboxing? Kickboxing is a very specific thing. It is not Muay Thai, not Sanda, not boxing, not MMA. Sure they all share common elements but they are distinct entities. How can someone do bad kickboxing unless they are attempting to do kickboxing but doing it poorly? I don’t believe this thing that people commonly describe as ‘bad kickboxing’ is actually that. I also don’t believe something can ‘degenerate’ into kickboxing. It’s like saying that poor baseball degenerates into golf (I think someone has already said something similar here). Kickboxing has its own attack and defence principles, strategies, training methodology and a specific rule-set which clearly defines it. Sounds like I’m splitting hairs but I think it’s a very important point because it comes up endlessly in the ‘why can’t I make my kungfu work’ debate. Why is the question not: ‘when I spar/fight why does my technique degenerate into poor mantis/shaolin/taiji/baji etc?’ What if what you are doing is in fact not bad kickboxing but just bad fighting? Perhaps what you are doing is in fact decent, effective fighting but just doesn’t fit your idea of what kungfu fighting is supposed to look like? (what the hell is kungfu supposed to look like anyway?)

    Are you landing strikes, evading, defending well, inflicting damage, dominating/controlling your opponent’s movement, controlling distance, using effective footwork, not gassing, not getting smashed? If so, what’s the problem? If you’re not, work on basics, spar regularly and introduce additional techniques as appropriate/if necessary. If you are already doing these things well and are able to do so against a variety of opponents, again, what more is necessary?

    The fact is when two opponents put boxing gloves on and face each other the majority of techniques will be punches, kicks and various combinations thereof. The gloves limit specific hand formations to a certain extent, contributing to the generic nature of strikes, however – the jab, cross, hook, uppercut and overhand all exist in Chinese Boxing and are fundamental. If you are handicapped in boxing gloves the truth may be that you have poor fundamentals and need to do more work. If you are a Tanglang or Shaolin or Choujiao guy who trains in those styles and who’s fundamentals come from that style, is your fighting not Tanglang, Shaolin, Chuojiao, regardless of how it ‘looks’? Do you need to use signature techniques such as gou, lou, cai, diao shou etc to prove what you are? Those techniques are used in very specific circumstances and generally not applied in the back and forth exchange of strikes that occurs in sparring. Read classic quan pu and their usage is specified clearly.

    Don’t look down on the meat and potatoes skills of punching and kicking because they are the key elements of fighting. Maybe the question should be what should fighting look like/be like? It should like exactly like that and absolutely nothing at all like taolu or drills. This kind of stuff is mentioned all through the classics as well. If it superficially resembles kickboxing, that’s because it shares common elements and that’s a good thing not a bad thing. Anyway, I’m rambling…

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    DengFeng
    Posts
    1,469
    Quote Originally Posted by B.Tunks View Post
    Don’t look down on the meat and potatoes skills of punching and kicking because they are the key elements of fighting. Maybe the question should be what should fighting look like/be like? It should like exactly like that and absolutely nothing at all like taolu or drills. This kind of stuff is mentioned all through the classics as well. If it superficially resembles kickboxing, that’s because it shares common elements and that’s a good thing not a bad thing. Anyway, I’m rambling…
    Yes, you should be good at these techniques, and most are. But its to do with the strategy of their employment.

    We all have principles in our styles that dictate the strategy of our use.

    One in Shaolin is 'Xian Fang Hou Gong'. First defend then enter. The point is the defending movement is there whether there is something to defend or not. If not it acts as a distraction or as opening the opponents guard.

    So lets say Lan Shou---cheng quan. If we just do the punch without the 'Lan shou' first, then when the punch misses we find ourselves in an indefensable position. We should only have done the punch having already pushed aside the opponents guard. But because of the set up of the ring where we are constantly forced to attack, and because of the gloves, then most people forgo the Lan shou and just do the punch.

    The punch may be excellent but they are not used to defending themselves from here because their strategy is based on progressively taking down the opponents guard then punching as opposed to throwing punches against his guard.

    So they end up doing a poor version of kickboxing because they have the punches but not the guard. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well.... do you kinda see what I mean?
    Last edited by RenDaHai; 12-14-2012 at 05:09 AM.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Rottweil, Germany
    Posts
    180
    RenDaHai

    I did actually compete in an open tournament many years ago with a rule set similar to what you first described. It wasn't so much attack and defense rounds as it was each round, one fighter was expected to 'initiate' the attack. After that, it was all in.

    On the whole, it was a cluster**** of monumental proportions, simply because not one person, not even the judges, could determine was 'initiate' meant. In that sense your proposal is a lot clearer. I remember being simultaneously awarded a KO and getting myself disqualified. I was fighting a Kyokushin guy, he feinted a move which to my way of thinking was initiating, so I flattened him with sow choy/bin. His teacher in one corner was up in arms, the muay thai guy in the other corner said I'd won fairly - centre ref at first wanted me out, then decided it was ok...and this kept happening throughout the day.

    You know, I can't help wondering what any kickboxer or MMA fighter would be thinking reading this thread. Why do we need to overcomplicate things so much. I've fought under so many different rules - it doesn't matter. Just get in there and mix it up. If I hit the other guy well enough and defend well enough, I win. If I don't, I don't.

    I don't know why it should be more complicated than that.

    What B Tunks has written is perfect, IMO. If you train to punch, kick, grapple and throw, then this is what you'll do. The more experience you have in pressure tested situations, the less you'll display 'crappy kickboxing'.

    I once fought in Manila with the instructions - "No eye , no throat - everting else ...OK!" - and you know something? The Choy Li Fut guys looked like they were doing CLF, the taekwondo guys looked like they were doing tkd (and didn't last very long ), the Japanese jujutsu fighters were punching, closing and throwing, the Thais were elbowing and kneeing, the karate-ka's were doing karate........

    Just get in there and get used to timing, hitting, being hit and not being hit.

    It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    888
    If basic techniques like jab, cross, round kick etc are what we rely on, why do we have countless systems (Chinese, Japanese, Indian, SE Asian etc) developing specialized strikes like Mantis Hook, Cranes Beak and Pheonis Eye?

    If basic meat and potatoe techniques are what we resort to when in sparring / combat sports / San Shou / San Da / Muay Thai etc, then why don't all systems look the same. Why is there a Wing Chun style and Eagle Claw style? Shouldn't they all look the same if when you fight it all looks like kickboxing?

    The only answer I have come up with is that we (as modern people) do not practice enough to actually use any specialized techniques. What if the only people that ever used specialized techniques were military personal and those with Monastic life. These individuals may have had jobs as Martial Artists where they practiced fighting 10 hours a day everyday for years and years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frost View Post
    what exactly needs adapting? There are formats that allow both open and closed fist strikes, that allow gloves and no gloves, that allow trapping locks etc

    The question shouldnt be how do we adapt our kung fu, the question should be why do we need to
    I have an issue with adapting my style to combat sport arenas. In my Monkey style we strictly use eye gauges, groin strikes, nerve strikes etc. If I remove these for any sport match, it is no longer Monkey style. I know I can do other techniques in sport matches but that is San Shou..... Not Monkey Style.

    San Shou and San Da are Chinese sport combat. I think the question should be: How can we successfully use specialized techniqes in modern sport combat matches?

    ginosifu

  14. #59
    A lot of good comments so far -

    Yes we all know metric is easier, but I know 160lbs, I have no idea what that is when you start talking kilos - so it's a real PIA doing some tourneys with international rules.

    Gino Sifu brought up a good point about time - it's something that I thought about when I first started this thread. You only get some people for 2hrs a night twice a week, kind've hard to turn someone into a Shaolin warrior on that schedule.

    RenDaHai's comment about forced into attacking is something to consider too. It is different with gloves on and in the san da ring. Don't believe me, try it - it's about testing a hypothesis. I can tell you from first hand experience that I spent too much time in traditional training working on the "If, then" defensive training that's found in a lot of traditional across the board martial arts. My experience was in both TCMA and Okinawan styles prior to full contact fighting. There's no problem with solid defensive traditional training, unless you find yourself fighting a runner. The first thing you think is "darn, I should've spent more time learning how to attack".

    Sparring should show a degree of skill in distance, timing, attack, defense, countering, dodging, ring manship. I see a lot of sparring footage and the one's that display this the most skill seem to come from the more competitive martial arts styles. Again deferring to and acknowledging the very true statements from David J, Ren, and Master K - that's because sparring is different than fighting.

    But to me, the ones that are engaged in sport, even if they come from a traditional base, use a universal style of kickboxing. We already have that with San Da. Maybe that translates better to northern systems - IDK. I just think it's a good way to introduce students to realistic combat and a way to build good habits for use when they do certain styles... because:

    Some styles of TCMA are really like Master Degree or Doctorate styles, meaning they weren't intended for beginners. They expected that a student had a certain base knowledge and skill level before they were accepted into the curriculum. I think it's silly to ignore that fact. So why not get a student through a Bachelors degree program before they start training for their Masters degree?

  15. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by MightyB View Post
    A lot of good comments so far -
    Some styles of TCMA are really like Master Degree or Doctorate styles, meaning they weren't intended for beginners. They expected that a student had a certain base knowledge and skill level before they were accepted into the curriculum. I think it's silly to ignore that fact. So why not get a student through a Bachelors degree program before they start training for their Masters degree?
    I agree with this so much. So many TCMA schools (sorry that's my pool of experience I can't speak much to other systems) start off teaching forms and advanced techniques right away instead of going, "Okay this is a front kick, this is a side kick" etc.

    Instead they teach them a tiger form or something and chin na. Ultimately without a proper base, all those higher thoughts of combat will just look like crap, and when someone is face to face with an opponent without a proper base, the crazy esoteric stuff they learned will collapse under the onslaught of a fighter who has a grasp of basics.

Posting Permissions

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