New!

**Izru** · Posted On: 7/23/2002 2:49am

Kung Fu stances--I don't know about point striking styles, but in longfist (NOT wushu), tai-chi, and at least one of the mantis styles, the weird looking legwork is intended for trapping the opponents' legs. Of course, this is hardly obvious if you aren't already a good FIGHTER who also knows kung fu (not just knowlegeable about kung fu) or if you haven't asked one about it (sadly, I go in the latter category). If a guy gets in a stance that seems too comitted one way or the other from the get-go, he probably doesn't have much fighting experience, no matter how much he knows about forms.

**SifuAbel** · Posted On: 7/23/2002 6:56am

"Don't lecture me on forms, I got enough of that good stuff during 12 years in 3 styles(2 Korean, 1 Japanese)"

How rather unfortunate for you, my condolences. Too bad you really couldn't stick to anything worthwhile. You're still clueless though.

Those two guys in the pictures look like wannabe farmers. What was that, in the 40's, 50's? Man!, And I thought it was only us TMAers that held on to old "war" stories. I never said everybody was good. Looks like the famine got to them. These pics don't mean or show diddly. The fact that a couple of guys got creamed 50 years ago or that one guy beat another guy with one or another technique once is indulging in absurdity. As if the people in MMA don't beat each other back and forth, fight after fight.
Why is it absurd? Because YOU are not THEM. You cannot share in their victory. You cannot make yourself a champion by proxy. To wave little flags like these means nothing. Like bits of propaganda. So you have pics of isolated incidents; I suppose you have pics of Hitler taking a dump too. Which proves what, german poo is better than american poo? Grow up!

"On the other hand, no disrespect to good internal CMA."

You sir are a contradiction.

"If a guy gets in a stance that seems too comitted one way or the other from the get-go, he probably doesn't have much fighting experience, no matter how much he knows about forms."

Damn straight. Setting into a stance with some hyperextended move is movieland stuff. Most every KF style has some sort of "ready" position that is basically a guard position.

"the weird looking legwork is intended for trapping the opponents' legs."

uhhhhh, close. The "weird" looking stance work is for moving your body. Trapping is but one of its uses. Stances are still pictures of movement. Like frames in a film. If the guy is stationary in any stance and he seems stiff in that stance then he's got a BIG problem. Stances are just peices of a flow. If there is no flow, there is no movement.

McDojo, is it what you do or is it what you think?

**Gezere** · Posted On: 7/23/2002 11:14am

Any good school will teach you that stances are guidelines not STATIC postures which for some reason many pple think they are. You should be constantly moving in an out of the postures not sitting staticly in them. EVEN in forms you are not suppose to sit there in a stance. For example in karate when going through kata you are suppose to move contiously through it with a flowing rythm to your movements, or what closely mimics your actual application of the technique. You throw a punch you man end in zenkutsu dachi moving forward you block you retreat to kokutsu or neko ashi dachi to set up for the counterstrike.

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!!

**Blad3** · Posted On: 7/23/2002 12:39pm

Forms are a waste of time I think. It's quite irritatting that there are so little "good" KungFu schools as well, were can a good one be found (I would oif thought most with a SIfu or two, and evidence of a superior master, with training equipmnet would be a good example, there are lots of these)?

**Mercurius** · Posted On: 7/23/2002 1:32pm

I bet KungFuDoesWork types because he likes to see the little letters move across the screen, since it's obvious there's no other reason.

These guys weren't farmers, they were masters. Hard to find anyone more representative of an art, especially in a time before the advent of the McDojo.

At any rate, I found the pictures here: http://members.tripod.com/~crane69/index.html

Look in "A History of Kung Fu vs Muay Thai" and "The First Kung Fu & Muay Thai Contacts." The writing has a bias towards Muay Thai, but the facts are there.

--------------------
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**SifuAbel** · Posted On: 7/23/2002 3:04pm

"Forms are a waste of time I think."
Really, you "think". It sounds like more regergitation to me. That pamphlet must be everywhere. You can't escape form. If you learn how to do even one punch or one kick or anything by practicing it you are doing form.

"I bet KungFuDoesWork types because he likes to see the little letters move across the screen..."

ooooooooo, clever. Did you read it all or was it too much text for you? How about a rebutle instead of snappy reparte. NOT. I'm still waiting for those hitler taking a dump pics, or how about stalin.

"they were masters. Hard to find anyone more representative of an art, especially in a
time before the advent of the McDojo."

This gets better and better. You're always good for a laugh. Wake up!! The MT people aren't going to keep their loses on record. Of course its going to be MT baised, its about MT!! Do you know if they picked these guys on purpose? No. Do you know if they(MT) fought others(KF) and lost? No. Do you have a clue whatsoever of their true skill level? No. And what, before this last bastion of reason that is Mcdojo, no one knew the truth? Bwhahahahahahahahahahaha
Heres another clue for that clueless void of yours. Did they have to pick the smallest and skinniest guys they could find? probably, why make it hard. These guys do NOT have the kung fu body. You can tell especially in the quads and the forearms. These guys were not it.
I'm sure there are more than these two in a billion people in asia that could have been better.

McDojo, is it what you do or is it what you think?

**Mercurius** · Posted On: 7/23/2002 5:46pm

Don't ask me, ask this guy: crane@pacific.net.sg

Never talked to him, but he runs that site ("Journal of Chinese Martial Science"). He'd probably be able to answer those questions.

Personally, I've seen enough of "hit me in the face" Kung Fu to know that I won't be using it in a fight any time soon.

Maybe you should have actually looked at that site before assuming it was "about" MT? Maybe you could exercise your extensive powers of inference to discover why the Chinese fighters would pick their skinniest, weakest men to represent their arts against Muay Thai? Wait, too sensible. My mistake, carry on.

--------------------
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**Braden** · Posted On: 7/23/2002 6:03pm

Mercurius - By what authority are you making all these statements regarding kungfu? According to the background you supplied in a previous post, you've never trained it.

You put forth a position regarding what stances a kungfu practitioner adopts in combat, and when shown evidence to the contrary, you remark that the practitioner in question mustn't actually be doing kungfu. "but don't exactly make it look like he's using the most traditional Tai Chi."

Regarding your own evidence, you post the only two media pictures on a site with dozens of fight pictures. Why is this? Because none of the fight pictures would defend your position. Why don't the pictures you posted defend it? Because they are not fight pictures. These people were asked to pose for a camera, and now you are asking us to remark in surprise that they are posing.

**Braden** · Posted On: 7/23/2002 6:11pm

Regarding the original topic of this thread, it's worth pointing out that San Soo isn't considered by kungfu practitioners to be a style of kungfu.

**Izru** · Posted On: 7/23/2002 7:02pm

*thanks for the clarification, KFDW*
I think it all comes back to the way TMAs are taught. TMAS were (in general) developed for use by the military, people living on the frontier who had to defend their homes from bandits, etc, in other words, people who already had some experience fighting. The forms and so forth are all designed to teach ways to move the body with minimum effort and maximum effect. A good fighter who studies kung fu does not necessarily have to use postures taken directly from the form--it is the idea behind the form, not the form itself that is important. What all this gets at is that a kung fu "master" can be a terrible fighter, if all he knows are the particular movements for one form of kung fu. Some outside experience is assumed for fighting effectiveness.