Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SifuAbel
    replied
    I'm still waiting for you to answer my question on top of page four. If your entire experience with kung fu is is based on this web page then please stop now and save yourself any further embarrassment.

    This whole argument based on what you think "Might" have been the case back in 1921 from pics of an anti kung fu web page is so stupid.

    Thai guys are small to begin with and the supposed "kung fu masters' were even smaller than them , where did they find these guys, in a midget farm?




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

    Leave a comment:


  • Braden
    replied
    Mercurius

    "it's just conjecture but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that given the chance on the defensive, he'd resume the stance he had when he was posing...but as further conjecture I don't think it's unlikely that they would have used the same stances to begin the fight..."

    That's as sound reasoning as saying it's not unreasonable that a Muay Thai fighter would begin a fight balancing on one foot with the other extended to temple-height, or maybe like this:



    "...with a video it might prove easier to pick out 'that looks like a Tai Chi defense' or 'that's an application of such and such technique'."

    Well, the fact that it's a video wouldn't change the experience, or lack thereof, from which you are basing your judgements.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mercurius
    replied
    When, what circumstances, and who were the photos taken of? Maybe if you could have handled looking at that page and learning something about your own art, you would have found out.

    I'll save you the trouble: The pose photos were taken for the fights on August 6th, 1921. The first photo I posted was of Han Hongdun vs Nai Tah. The second was of Fu Xingpeng (the site doesn't say his opponent's name). These two masters, along with Zi Zheng and Wu Daqian, were all knocked out in the first round.

    The fight photo was of Lai Hu vs Nai Yahng, May 13th, 1922. Lai Hu was knocked out in 2 rounds.

    They used the same manner of Kung Fu which I'm talking about, and they were all knocked out, 80% of them in the first round. That test of effectiveness is what I base my opinion of their generic style of Kung Fu on.

    Sure, Muay Thai is a very effective martial art, but losing so easily to it implies basic deficiencies that a solid Karateka, Western Boxer, or even Korean stylist could exploit.

    These men thought they could fight and trained in styles they thought could prepare them to fight and were proven sorely wrong. Does that mean someone else, a better martial artist, couldn't have made the styles work? No. Does it mean I don't plan to study those styles anyway? Yes.

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

    Leave a comment:


  • SifuAbel
    replied
    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    spoken like the clueless beast you are.

    LOL! "get you own proof" LOL!

    I tell ya' sometimes your babble is priceless.

    So, you can't answer my question? You sir ARE a Mcdojo. All by yourself.

    You are actually basing tomes and rhemes of opinions on a few photos taken god knows when and in what circumstance against god know who. Where were you when Clinton need an out from his blow job case?

    Bwahahahahahaha

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Mercurius
    replied
    Braden, about that guy's stance, it's just conjecture but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that given the chance on the defensive, he'd resume the stance he had when he was posing. Also, you got me on that "ring/ref/crowd" deal, but as further conjecture I don't think it's unlikely that they would have used the same stances to begin the fight. As an outsider to Tai Chi, I guess it would be harder to see 'fighting Tai Chi' in just a photo, but with a video it might prove easier to pick out "that looks like a Tai Chi defense" or "that's an application of such and such technique".

    KungFuDoesWork, "Hit me in the face Kung Fu" is having a guard where you are:
    1) Placing one hand behind/above/beside your head,
    2) Placing your hands out of reflexive blocking distance of your face,
    3) Sticking your head out and handing your opponent red and white paint so he can draw a target on your face.

    1 and 2 are seen in the pictures on that site, 2 in an actual fight photo(the one on page 3 of this thread).

    You want concrete, first hand experience? Get your own concrete, first hand experience, I'm not using Grand Master Ling Ling's Pretty Panda-Fu in a fight and getting my ass kicked. I don't need concrete, first hand experience to know that getting hit in the balls with a baseball bat will hurt.

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

    Leave a comment:


  • SifuAbel
    replied
    saying "90% of the time" makes it sound like all those that know the form can't fight. I know you don't mean that but other will misread.

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Izru
    replied
    Yeah, I just meant that 90% of the time a guy who just knows the form IS called "master" =)

    Leave a comment:


  • SifuAbel
    replied
    "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."

    BS meter ticking off the scale. Where? Who? This should be good. And please don't say delucia. That dog won't hunt. Please give us concrete, first hand, not seen on TV, experience.

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

    Leave a comment:


  • SifuAbel
    replied
    "from my experience in TMA (not KF!) forms are repetative and boring, were in you don't learn
    much at all, just an opinion."

    I have to admit there are really simple forms out there and some are made for the circus more than for fighting. BUT, even a simple form has something to teach. Its whole world of information ignored, just an opinion.

    Braden, don't bother with mercurious. His name should be merclueless. He's got such a hard on about kung fu he'd try to use anything he can regarless of context.

    "...did admit losses, against San Shou fighters."

    Gee, let me think for a second. San shou guys IN china, where are they coming from? Oh yes!, KUNG FU!!! If you're going to dive 50 years in the past to make a point then do better research. NEWS FLASH! San shou in china was done primarily by kung fu people. San Shou isn't a style. It's a venue like MMA.


    Izru, I'll go with 99% of your last statement. But a KF guy that only knows form work and isn't at least an OK fighter shouldn't be called Master.


    To get back to the topic, I veiwed a piece of the film again. The guy walked up to him with his hands to his sides! As if he were trying to stop a kid from passing him. This is just WRONG!! No guard, no defense, no balance, no follow up, no strategy, totally exposed, no form, standing stock straight, no stance, how this guy can be called a master of anything is beyond me. I don't care what he calls himself.

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

    Intheknow, thanks for the info. Interesting, but I think this guy needs his belt revoked. This was a true triumph against a mcdojo. But, some people want to use this as some all encompassing proof that isn't fair to others.

    Edited by - Kungfudoeswork on July 24 2002 04:36:10

    Leave a comment:


  • migo
    replied
    KFDW

    The guys at that site did admit losses, against San Shou fighters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blad3
    replied
    KungFuDOesWork - from my experience in TMA (not KF!) forms are repetative and boring, were in you don't learn much at all, just an opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • IntheKnow
    replied
    I truly don't consider the KF guy a good fighter or one with LITTLE to NO REAL Fighting experience. I still say it has more to do with the FIGHTER than the style.
    Thats no joke.

    Actually I know quite a bit about that fight, though I am surprised that you're all going on about it a year later.

    To clarify, the video didn't just happen to be taken, the owner of the studio, and the guy that put up the $5,000 for the KF guy shot the video as proof that the event happened, and then put it out on the net.

    The KF guy was trained by the owner of that studio, the owner being a master of san soo, (Though not a very well respected master, and pretty much held in contempt by the san soo world). The KF fighter, or KF clown. is or was a black belt, reputed to have been earned by watching lots of videos.

    The rest of the san soo world did not condone the event. And cringed as it was known through out that Sean Scott the KF guy was a very poor excuse as an example of Kung Fu SANSOO.

    Hope that helps out a bit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Braden
    replied
    "on that same site, just below the ones I posted, there was a picture of one of the Chinese fighters scrambling backwards as best he could in a low, immobile Shaolin stance."


    http://members.tripod.com/~crane69/kfvsmt06.jpg

    This picture?

    He's neither remarkably lower nor more immobile than his opponent, nor is he in the dramatic 'kungfu' poses you posted.

    "Beyond that, what the picture looks like to me is one taken before the fight, as in the ref was waiting to drop the handkercheif or whatever."

    Look closer. No ref. No ring. No crowd. Now look at the picture from the fight. Ref. Ring. Crowd.

    "Presuming that, the pretty-looking stances the Kung Fu masters had at the time would likely be the stances they began the fight in. You could see it differently, but for what it's worth, that's what it looks like to me."

    No worries, I hope it's cleared up now.

    "And about that guy using Tai Chi in the MMA fight, I'm sure you'll agree it doesn't exactly look like he's 'Grasping the Bird's Tail' or 'Drawing the Bow' or somesuch."

    He doesn't look like he's doing a pretty form for a good reason - because he's not. He's fighting. This is very clear to the taiji guys, I'm not sure why it's unclear to others.

    Everyone, we're talking about this: http://www.mixedmartialarts.ca/HTML/Rumble5/09JeremiahJason.htm

    What would you expect to see that's different from what is shown here? I really don't understand the complaint.

    "hold a little contempt for blind faith in tradition and styles recommending the use of showy, impractical stances and techniques in a fight."

    Same here. That's one of the reasons I train in bagua.



    Edited by - Braden on July 23 2002 20:21:32

    Leave a comment:


  • Mercurius
    replied
    Braden, on that same site, just below the ones I posted, there was a picture of one of the Chinese fighters scrambling backwards as best he could in a low, immobile Shaolin stance. If I remember correctly, he lasted 2 rounds.

    Beyond that, what the picture looks like to me is one taken before the fight, as in the ref was waiting to drop the handkercheif or whatever. Presuming that, the pretty-looking stances the Kung Fu masters had at the time would likely be the stances they began the fight in. You could see it differently, but for what it's worth, that's what it looks like to me.

    And about that guy using Tai Chi in the MMA fight, I'm sure you'll agree it doesn't exactly look like he's "Grasping the Bird's Tail" or "Drawing the Bow" or somesuch. I'm not trying to disrespect Tai Chi by saying he's not doing Tai Chi; on the other hand, if he can apply Tai Chi concepts and training to an MMA fight and do well, more power to him and the art.

    You're right, I may not have much experiential authority on which to base broad statements about Kung Fu, but Kung Fu itself is a broad term. I can respect arts like Xingyi, Bagua, and Tai Chi, but at the same time hold a little contempt for blind faith in tradition and styles recommending the use of showy, impractical stances and techniques in a fight.

    That is, I can do that unless KFDW says I can't, since he's the authority on whether my beliefs are contradictory or not. *cough*

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Izru
    replied
    *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.

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X