Questioning Kung Fu

**Ke?poFist** · Posted On: 1/31/2006 6:20pm

The most useful thing I heard was: the techniques in the forms are exaggerated to show the principles/energy more clearly. In actual application, the movements are smaller and simpler. This, of course, brings up the question, "why do we practice it this way if we use it that way?" The only real explanation I can think of is that forms aren't meant to be the primary training method, and more time should be spent with the simplified fighting moves than the exaggerated ones in the routines. I have yet to see a kung fu school that practices accordingly.

Could kung fu be effective if practiced this way, with its emphasis on using a few simple moves to spar? That would certainly bring it more in line with the successful combat sports.

There are some kung fu schools that have sparring programs, but most of them seem to be the same sort of modern sanshou you'd see Cung Le doing; that is, it's disconnected from their forms. This is evident even with the teachers who learned in China and then immigrated here to the United States. That makes me wonder.

One thing that confuses me in particular is that kungfu was clearly used for fighting at some point; that's how schools built reputation back in the day and, in fact, was the entire reason for their existence. Did we lose the application somewhere along the way? Has kung fu become crap, or is it just that people are so interested in the movies and culture that they don't train the way they need to in order to fight? It's certainly true that most kung fu students I've met are primarily interested in things other than fighting.

Although I don't train in Kung Fu, I will comment on the aspect of the disconnect between fighting and Kata. I've heard the same line even in my system about how movements are exaggerated yaddayaddaya...I consider that a cop-out IMHO. I teach my students the only purposes for kata (at least the katas/forms we teach) is to build focus, strong stances, and mild muscle conditioning when applied with dynamic tension. Actual technique can be derived from them, but for me I see it more as rationalization rather than enlightenment. Bagwork, no-mind drills, and sparring take precedence in class at least when I'm teaching.

The trick to utilizing your forms in actual combat is to utilize the principles they may present (ie: in a kung fu form you may use a quick switch-step, landing in a long bo stance shifting away from your opponent. This could be utilized instead as a switchstep into a shift backwards to mislead your opponent, and then lunge your weight forward into a hand strike)

But when it really comes down to it, I see forms/katas as backwards logic, where you are given a set of movements and are then told to derive (bunkai) fighting movements from them rather than giving you a set of fighting movements and creating a form to practice them with.

**kungfumonkey** · Posted On: 2/01/2006 12:04am

Originally Posted by isol8d

He's busy playing a mean pinball.

HA HA I love that movie! good job on the obscure reference. :hippy2:

**Matt Stone** · Posted On: 2/01/2006 12:29am

Originally Posted by infenix

On the exaggeration of kung fu techniques in forms, that is more accurately accounted for by the principle of big circles and little circles. When you start, you're weak and uncoordinated, so you're taught bigger moves that you can use. As you get better and stronger, you add finesse, reducing the scale/arcs of the moves accordingly.

Though there is something to be said for that theory, it is a documented, tested fact that with an increase in adrenalin and blood pressure, fine motor control goes away almost totally. Hence a contributing factor of the success of grapplers in NNB or nearly NHB fights - large motor techniques still work, where fine motor techniques have been disabled. That's not to say, however, that fine motor techniques should be done away with; that's where the "getting your ass beaten in class" comes in, to decrease the adrenal response to the stress stimulus, desensitizing the student to such situations, allowing them to say "****, we did this in class last night..."

Although I don't train in Kung Fu, I will comment on the aspect of the disconnect between fighting and Kata. I've heard the same line even in my system about how movements are exaggerated yaddayaddaya...I consider that a cop-out IMHO. I teach my students the only purposes for kata (at least the katas/forms we teach) is to build focus, strong stances, and mild muscle conditioning when applied with dynamic tension. Actual technique can be derived from them, but for me I see it more as rationalization rather than enlightenment. Bagwork, no-mind drills, and sparring take precedence in class at least when I'm teaching.

The trick to utilizing your forms in actual combat is to utilize the principles they may present (ie: in a kung fu form you may use a quick switch-step, landing in a long bo stance shifting away from your opponent. This could be utilized instead as a switchstep into a shift backwards to mislead your opponent, and then lunge your weight forward into a hand strike)

But when it really comes down to it, I see forms/katas as backwards logic, where you are given a set of movements and are then told to derive (bunkai) fighting movements from them rather than giving you a set of fighting movements and creating a form to practice them with.

Another interesting theory, but I disagree. Not that that matters, but I do. Certainly, forms are vehicles that convey principles of the system being studied, and they carry specific example combinations by which to communicate said principles, but they aren't just a hodgepodge of random movements whereby you "reverse engineer" an application where one doesn't already exist.

But whatever. Not trying to start that fight again...