good point Iain
each and every fighter developes his or her own styly regardless of what style?i train with fighters and hit them because i know their patterns..ever see the K-1??each fighter has a fav. techniq(peter aerts-left high kick/right hook)(ernesto hoost-l.jab/r.hook/low l.kick)each fighter uses techiqes that work for them!!....not every move they have learned their whole life works.If any fighter that steppes into a compatition gets his ass handed to him it's not his style that failes him(exception:fred ettish)its mainly his lack of preperation and lack of knowladge...as the saying goes practice makes perfect??
Yeah, but the Aikido guy will do that whole 'inner tranqil peace I am at one with the universe' shtick, which inevitably makes the verbal assailant more angry because he can't get a rise out of him, buddy takes a swing at the guy with the funny skirt on and BANG!... his arm is broken in three places.
Aikido guys aren't all like that anyway. I remember when my friend (a yodan now, I think a Shodan at the time) had a chance meeting with the fellow who beat up his sister. He spent five minutes breaking each of the guys fingers one by one.
Why can't we all just get along?
my kung fu eeeeeees better than yours!
"Pretty much ALL Kung Fu sucks man. I know that you TRUELY want to believe that Monkey Kung Fu might be real in some distant reality but, SORRY, not only does it have NO value as a martial art but its practitioners look ridiculous when training in it."
In the S.E. Asian open martial arts tournaments held in the 70s and 80s, which were all full contact, the most dominant fighters were from Choy Lay Fut and Monkey...yes, Monkey style Kung Fu.
You guys are fools. LOL!
All of those arts are equally worthless.
Tell me something, are all NHB fans hopeless morons, or is it just the ones who post here?
I hate to argue with the grapplers/wrestlers of the world, but I feel I must point out one place where you are mistaken about your art. Your art is not a battle field art. It is a single person fight scenario. Granted, you'll take the TKD dude down to the ground, and pummel the **** out of him. But what are you doing about his buddy that's kicking you in the face while you've got a lock on his friend? "Iron Monkey" arts like Kung Fu, TKD, etc., are meant for multiple attacker scenarios. You go to the ground when you're fighting three people at a time, and I dont care if you are Royce Gracie, you're gonna get your head knocked off.
Now, before you go off half-cocked and say I don't know what I'm talking about, there are two things you should consider. One, I wrestled for 8 years, and two, I have studied Kung Fu for 6. If I were in a fight against a single individual, I would take them to the ground and kick their ass. Why not? But if I were in a fight with multiple people, I would do my best to not go to the ground, because I'd be very vunerable once I got there.
That's my two cents.
&gt;Your art is not a battle field art. It is a single person fight scenario.
This is wrong. Grappling is historically the first art developed in ANY country. It was know to be taught to soldiers FOR battlefeild use. Later it became sport. Same with boxing. Many grappling arts deal with multiple opponents. I site Japanese Jujutsu, Vajra Mushti (not its original name but easier to spell), Ancient Roman and Greek wrestling. Research these things yourself and you see that I am write. If you want I can send you scans from picts I took while in Greece to research the MA history.
Not to harp on you Groganer, but wrestling for 8 years and KNOWING the history is two differnt things. What you are talking about is the MODERN veiw of these things.
Xiao Ao Jiang Hu Zhi Dong Fang Bu Bai (Laughing Proud Warrior Invinsible Asia) Emporer of Baji!!! THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST THE UNITED AUSSIE FRONT!!
I am very interested in Greek pankration .. I'm Greek. I'd like to see any pictures of Greek combat in art if you don't mind. I have some too.
my kung fu eeeeeees better than yours!
"...with MMAs you either punch and kick (elbow too I guess) or you suggle on the gorund. in Kung Fu we can throw, trip, grapple standing up as well as kick and punch. plus our ground fighting is much more brutal and will often leave spinal injuries from the throws alone, let alone the dammage fist and feet raining down on a floored opponent will do. I'd like to see a BJJ guy survive getting thrown head first on the ground, and then have his ribs crushed by a full weight drop on the lower ribcage with the knee (Called a "Cage"). If one of us was psycotic enough to do that in the ring, your BJJ would be bleeding internally and the medics would be having to rush them to surgery to remove the chuncks of ribcaged from their lungs."
Obviously, you haven't watched Gracie Jiu-Jitsu in Action II. I love seeing Royce Gracie punch the f**k out of all the GONG-FU guys in it. Not one, not two, but three times until they begged him to stop. Note that these people looked very serious and well conditioned too... Of course, I do agree that it's all about the practitioner (I just detest the whole "deadliness" issue, thence the first couple of lines). Then again, I do agree that there is no way in hell I'm gonna take a guy with 4 or 5 buddies down and try to submit him. That's double suicide. In that case, I would consider using the most ancient Martial Art of them all. The Art Of Running Away.
PeedeeShaolin You said
"I got a question, genius. You say Kung Fu has everything from poking the eyes, to throwing, to the launch codes for the United States nuclear arsenal, but practice mainly in striking. How the hell is a Kung Fu person who hardly ever practices throwing techniques(in a realistic manner) ever possibly going to throw someone who spends the majority of his time clinching, throwing, and wrestling? "
Reply] WOW, if that ain't puting words in my mouth!! PeeDee, First, I never said Kung Fu had Lunch codes. Second, Kung Fu Has all those techniques and combat ranges. Carefully look at the forms. My first form has 22 moves, 2 are open and closing moves, so 20 are active techniques.The first is a double blocking technique, and the second and thrid are both dogeing followed by a counter punche or an up root & throw if you know how to use it correctly.
It should be taught, praciced and drilled in both versions until instinct. The techniques should also be used in free sparring and the strategy to applie them should be taught. This is real Kung Fu. Those that do all this stuff and only spar the stand up Punch and Kicking are not practing their full art.
To answer your question, they CAN'T applie it against a guy who the majority of his time clinching, throwing, and wrestling.
Traditional Kung Fu PRACTCED this stuff for real. Most of the schools you are complaining about are NOT Traditional schools, even if they claim to be.
Remember, just because you teach an art that has traditional origins and you teach those traditional forms does NOT make you a traditional Kung Fu teacher. The forms are tools used in the training process, not objects to be collected. You need to know how to work them, how to break them down into drills for basics, footwork and how to create TWO MAN exercises as well as take those techniques into a free sparring enviroment to simulate as close to real conflict as possible. It's not enough to just collect a form and drill it in it's enierty, and then Kick box for the fighting. It's also not traditional to do so.
Too many so called "Traditional" schools are more concerned with collecting the art than useing it to train a fighter and THAT is why you see so much bad Kung Fu.
If you want to pit your skills against a real Kung Fu practitioner, enter the Kuo Shou or San Shou and see how you do. I bet you will not fair as well as you think. Don't forget one of our best, Cung Le, has been rummured to beat Shamrock inpractice when he was in his prime. If Kung Fu is so bad, then how did that happen?
Every tool you need to be a competant fighter is in the forms. If your Kung Fu teacher can't use those tools to train you right, then you need a new teacher.
You replyed with "Ahh, the typical 'My art's too dangerous' argument."
To be honest with you, Kung Fu IS designed to be that destructive, and it's not just the groin shots & eye gouges thing either.
IF you had two fighters of equal high level skill and conditioning in a REAL kill or be killed fight, my $$ is on the Kung Fu guy. Especially if he is a Shui Chiao or Internal fighter, or has spent a good amount of time on the Shui Chiao aspect of thier art. Remeber, all the things normally banned in tournments will be used on both sides and the fight will be on hard ground or at beast grass (Which is MUCH MUCH harder than the cusshy mat MMA's "play" on).
The difference, is the Kung Fu guy will have more practice in that stuff as THAT is what he traines for. The MMA is a RING fighter, and ultra violent instant fight ender techniques are not really covered in depth. The MMA trains for submissions mostly. If not, then every MMA tournment would end with deaths and debilitaing injuries in 50% of the cometitors.
If you put those same two guys in the octagon, even under original UFC rules, the MMA will win as the Kung Fu guy does not train as much of a non destructive arsenal even though he has it.
The only way a Kung Fu guy will do good in the MMA tournaments would be if he trained specifically for that specific venue. Then you guys would be calling him an MMA and he would no longer be recognised as a Traditional Kung Fu guy anyway, even though most of his training would have been traditional.
One other point, Only a small few MMA do good in MMA style tournamnts anyway. You can't compare those small few elite level fighters to joe average Kung Fu guy because those same elite level fighters would also cream joe average MMA guy as well.
Remember, a punch is a punch, a kick is a kick. The guy that knocks you out with one has just spent more time working on it, they are all trained the same way pretty much reguardless of style. Same with throws locks and takedowns.
Before you shoot your mouths off, enter a Kuo Shuo or a San Shou tournament, and see how well you stand up. I'm betti'n your in for a RUDE awakening.
Edited by - Royal Dragon on August 10 2002 12:48:13
I found this on that web page:
"It is said all martial arts of this earth were created under the Sun of Shaolin.
This statement could not be more true. Virtually all Chinese arts as well as many Korean and Japanese arts have been either directly developed at Shaolin, or influenced in some way. Part of this has to due with the fact that Shaolin often trained troops for the Emperors of China. Another part of it has to do with the fact that it is centrally located in the heart of China and often served as a sanctuary for those wishing to change their lives. But regardless of why, martial arts have flourished there for the last 1500 years."
That sounds like the stereotypical belief that before Bodhidharma taught the monks at the ShaoLin temple, the martial arts of Asia were but rudimentary in nature.... So the Mongols must have just had rudimentary wrestling techniques and the Indonesians were just monkeys without a clue? No, I know you didn't say that, but that's what lines like that insinuate. Yes, China (particulary after the Mongols conquered it) had a MAJOR influence on the arts, languages, and cultures of its neighbors... particularly since it was the flight of people escaping from the Mongol horde (and later, Imperial persecution) that led to a major migration that displaced or added to the native populations in South and South-East Asia. That's one of the factors behind the displacement of the Innu (spelling?), the ORIGINAL natives of the islands of Nippon, and the physical differences of ancient Koreans (pre-Mongol invasion) and modern Koreans.
Further, if you really go back in history, India was conquered by Alexander the Great (only about 200 years after Buddha lived), whose Greek/Macedonian armies took on new 'recruits' from conquered peoples and trained them in their techniques. These were used as supplemental troops and as militia to maintain order after the main Greek forces had already moved on. Due to Alexander's ill-fated crossing of the Gedrosian desert, many Greeks and Macedonian troops (and their families) were left behind in India. The Hellenistic influences are still seen in India today, from the statues, to the literature. In fact, one of my Indian friends, from an upper caste, proudly declared to me that his family has Greek blood in their line. So, Greeks probably mixed with the existing Vedic people... and it was from this culture that Bodhidharma came from. The Indians had their own culture and martial arts when Alexander the Great came, but like any intelligent people throughout the world, I'm sure that they learned what they could from their conquerors. Empires come and go, after all.
Now, the Greeks didn't develop Pankration by themselves. Before the Greek nations, there was the Hittite Empire, which existed at the same time as the Egyptian Empire, it's primary rival... and both of whom were invaded by the Sea People, likely from one of the inner Mediterranean cultures. Before them there were the ancient Bablyonians and the Sumerians, both of whom we know to have had boxing and grappling. So, probably all codified martial arts, both Western AND Eastern owe their existence to the Fertile Crescent civilizations... which predated European and Yellow River civilizations by tens of thousands of years!
Beyond the simple 'truism': "a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick", there lies truth behind it. The difference is the WHY and the HOW.
The 'Eastern' martial arts existed in Eastern cultures, with Eastern philosophies, and Eastern requirements dictated by environment and physical attributes. That's the WHY.
Techniques were (and still are) added upon... almost never subtracted, so the finished product is like an onion... ever-growing as more layers are added. So as more artistic aspects are added, the original art becomes buried underneath tradition. The good AND the bad. That's the HOW.
Now, Kung Fu and other traditional Eastern martial arts are presented with the problem of sorting the chaff from the wheat. Most don't bother and just keep adding more layers to their art, never taking away. Soon you have a large number of different 'styles' and you then develop techniques to counter the other 'styles' and the problem is exacerbated. That's why you have so many different techniques... and they don't make Eastern martial arts any more superior than any other art. There's an old fable about a fox and cat... it involves hounds on a hunt.
A Fox was boasting to a Cat of its clever devices for escaping
its enemies. "I have a whole bag of tricks," he said, "which
contains a hundred ways of escaping my enemies."
"I have only one," said the Cat; "but I can generally manage
with that." Just at that moment they heard the cry of a pack of
hounds coming towards them, and the Cat immediately scampered up a
tree and hid herself in the boughs. "This is my plan," said the
Cat. "What are you going to do?" The Fox thought first of one
way, then of another, and while he was debating the hounds came
nearer and nearer, and at last the Fox in his confusion was caught
up by the hounds and soon killed by the huntsmen. Miss Puss, who
had been looking on, said:
"Better one safe way than a hundred on which
you cannot reckon."
Western arts suffer for different reasons. Traditionally, cultures in the West tend to discard that which they no longer use, particularly when it comes to warfare. As firearms became more effective, armor was discarded or reduced... because it no longer served a purpose. As armor disappeared, the large cleaving blades were replaced by smaller and lighter blades, because they no longer had to overcome heavy metal armor. During this time, hand-to-hand remained practical and about as simple as the Romans had it ("pancrace" spelling?), which was pretty much Greek pankration. From pankration, we perhaps had boxing and wrestling (Which came first, the chicken or the egg? No rules "pankration" or rules lat(?)/wrestling and boxing/pugilism?) with kicking becoming its own 'style'. Again, reduction for sport, rather than the addition of complexity. There was sport fencing, separate from traditional sword-play. Armed separate from unarmed. (Really, did the ancients really consider the art of fighting different, whether there was a weapon or not?) The various styles of Western martial arts are all different aspects of a whole... separated for the convenience of sport, with addition and subtraction constantly in play, changing techniques for sport and later making them combative, again. Then there are other divisions based upon geography and ethnicity. For example: Zipota and Savate utilize the same techniques, for the most part. Chausson is nothing more than a sea-based version of the same, with some unusual elements thrown in. It's a different kind of HOW. Same effect, in a way. How can Western martial artists make their sportive arts combative? Often the sport must be taken out and the combative put back in... with the separated parts (punching, kicking, trapping, unbalancing, and grappling) put back together again. What do you put in and what do you take out?
So, when you talk about 'traditional', it means a lot of things... depending on WHO, WHEN, HOW, and WHAT. The tradition of excising useful bits for the sake of sport (French Federation's Boxe Francaise, for example, or the Chinese Communist Party's Wushu), the tradition of adding more specialized material, with dubious application, to an already bloated art (Northern/Southern Shaolin &lt;Insert sub-style&gt; &lt;Insert family/prefecture&gt; Kung Fu), or a mixture of stuff (Capoeira "from the sailors and from the slaves" or Wing Chun "East meets West... that's western boxing, complete with zipper punches").
To hear people say that such-and-such style or practitioners can beat so-and-so, is annoying. It's not because some 'styles' lack in certain areas, though that is a factor. It's not just because a school/salle/stable/dojo teaches a certain way, though that's certainly a factor. It's because, ultimately, the distinction of 'style' is but a figment of imagination. Styles only exist when we allow them to.
With reference to 'traditional' Kung Fu, by the time an obese style can be digested, the practitioner is ready to die of old age... with no guarantee of outcome, despite the many years of effort. For every 'undisputed master' there must be dozens of 'not-good-enough masters' and hundreds, if not thousands, of 'not-even-close masters'.
From the sounds of it, 'great' internal (and otherwise) masters are extremely rare... and only seen in top form by a select few. For if such destructive 'secret' techniques did exist, we know that mankind's penchant for greed and destruction would ensure the demonstration and propagation of such knowledge. Gunpowder, anybody?
Sounds like the "Great Pumpkin", Linus.
[To all... sorry for this long post. I got carried away. :D ]
From a historical stand point, vertually all Asian arts that have survived to today are in some way influcanced by Shaolin. That does not meant there were not other influances from both before and after Shaolins inception.
I like what you wrote, if you like, proof read it and lay it out in a nice format and then E-mail me the artical, and I will post it on my site.
I'll just offer it as a counter perspective and let my readers decide for themselves.
As for the large number of movements, generally one is expected to become very skilled in roughly 3-9 related forms, sometimes as much as 12. Each form will generally have a number of techniques that an individual will find fittting to themselves. If out of these forms, one can find 18 core techniques that really works for them in a variety of situations, then THOSE are what should be mastered.
You only need them all of them if you plan to teach, as different students will take to different techniques and you need to offer them all and let your students decide what works best for them.
Edited by - Royal Dragon on August 13 2002 17:38:56
Edited by - Royal Dragon on August 13 2002 17:39:55
I think that Royal Dragon may be wickersnatch from ADCC....
"Migo is such a nerdy, panzy ass, ****** mutherfukker." -Every member of the ADCC Forum(at one time or another).
Sorry PeeDee, I am the Great Royal Dragon from KFO, the Royal Dragon Kung Fu forums and the Dragon's Dungeon.
You may bow to me now.
"From a historical stand point, vertually all Asian arts that have survived to today are in some way influcanced by Shaolin. That does not meant there were not other influances from both before and after Shaolins inception."
Since cultures and martial arts do not develop in a vacuum, the situation in Asia seems to indicate that Shaolin kung fu grew mostly from an interexchange with existing systems, such as Mongolian wrestling or the various family systems. Regarding what Bodhidharma taught the monks, one must question just what sort of instruction was given. According to practically every retelling of the story, he was mainly interested in boosting the monks' health and vigor, not in creating what eventually be a mercenary force. Therefore, it would have be mostly composed of excercises and, for practicalility, a modicum of martial combat from his own knowledge. This is generally supported by the fact that both the Yi Jin Jing and the Xi Sui Jin are focused on exercises to boost physical health and vigor, not martial techniques. The Lohan itself was simply 18 dynamic tension exercises that would be prepatory for physical exertion, but not truly a fighting system in itself. That these three sets of exercises would be the only things necessary to develop a fighting system is absurd. Rather, it seems rather logical that existing martial techniques were added to the exercises, which every monk would learn, to form what would become known as Chuan-Fa. The stories about monks studying animals are just that: stories. There is no evidence that the monks ever developed such fighting systems during the life of Bodhidharma. Instead, we have evidence of animal PLAYS that pre-date Bodhidharma's arrival in China in about 527 A.D.! This explains why there is so little in common between the Indian fighting arts and the Chinese fighting arts. The link is there and there are certainly some conceptual similarities, but little concrete connection, beyond Bodhidharma's exercises, which undoubtedly reflected his Indian heritage. Really, it seems so CONVENIENT, storywise, that Buddhist monk from India would make such effort in intentionally devising a fighting system for the Chinese emperor. More than likely, the retelling of the stories has mixed up a number of things.
"I like what you wrote, if you like, proof read it and lay it out in a nice format and then E-mail me the artical, and I will post it on my site."
See, now you have to go and spoil it for me. This isn't supposed to be work. This is supposed to be fun.
"I'll just offer it as a counter perspective and let my readers decide for themselves."
No promises of when, though.
"As for the large number of movements, generally one is expected to become very skilled in roughly 3-9 related forms, sometimes as much as 12. Each form will generally have a number of techniques that an individual will find fittting to themselves. If out of these forms, one can find 18 core techniques that really works for them in a variety of situations, then THOSE are what should be mastered."
So, in other words, here's a bunch of techniques, make it work for you? Pardon me, but that seems like a rather slow and painful way for people, who probably have little concept of street-fights and ambushes, to figure things out. Even with sparring, if I set two people against each other and neither have a clue about fighting, just what kind of results are they to expect on 20th try? Sure, they'll figure out something that works for them against that particular partner, but that's creating a controlled environment that has little reflection of the scenarios that someone might actually encounter. Further, how are they going fight... I mean what kind of expectations are they going to have of their opponent? Every Kung Fu demonstration that I've seen has had the wildly exaggerated and completely telegraphed 'haymaker'. Is this what they expect? Do they expect a warning or an on-guard position? How do they expect their assailant to attack them? Are their opponents graduates of "Master Wong's Kung Fu Kwoon" or the streets of Eastside? I don't know if you're teaching yet or how you plan to teach, but all of these things that I have mentioned are worth keeping in mind. Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir, but I don't know anyone here.
"You only need them all of them if you plan to teach, as different students will take to different techniques and you need to offer them all and let your students decide what works best for them."
It sounds good, but in reality, you have pick the pieces of food, chew it for them, and spoon feed them. Keep it simple: pick one effective method for each range and build on that. Give them the keys to movement and then to blocking. The guard is SO important that I can't stress it enough! Their guard must GUARD, not just be a prefunctionary position. Then they can work about strikes, traps, and grapples. Frankly, trapping, unbalancing, and grappling doesn't even come into the picture until they can move, dodge, block, and make GOOD strikes.